Hi,
I wonder if it's allowed to use pkgrel for the upstream version? If so,
then there is no correct information related to the pkgrel available,
see
My comment, including a correction ;) at the bottom:
"Hi,
please, don't misuse the package release for the unusual versioning
of upstream.
If upstream's versioning is 1.2.3-1 then make the pkgver 1.2.3.1, if
it's 1.2.3-1.1 then make the pkgver 1.2.3.1.1. For example take a
look at how it is done for extra/linux-rt or extra/linux-rt-lts.
Leave the pkgrel to the package release -1, -2, -3 and leave dotted
pkgrel to the users, so a user can build an individual -1.1, -1.2
etc. and automatically follow the AUR, if the package maintainer
bumps the pkgver or pkgrel.
Don't break the pkgrel, just because upstream does use such an odd
versioning. The pkgrel is for the package release, not for the
upstream version.
Regards, Ralf
Correction: Replace the "-" by a "_", see
After taking a look at the Wiki I corrected my comment. IIUC then the
pkgver of extra/linux-rt or extra/linux-rt-lts isn't correct,too, but at
least a correct pkgrel is provided by those packages from extra, while
it's broken for the AUR's firedragons.
Regards,
Ralf
The librewolf and librewolf-bin packages do this as well which is quite annoying. I have my own build system that imports from the aur and I have to bump the pkgrel from time to time for various reasons, and to work around the use of the pkgrel for the upstream version I've had to do a global replace for pkgrel to something else and then add my own pkgrel in.