On 03/08/2017 04:06 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Wed, 8 Mar 2017 18:00:52 -0300, Rafael Fontenelle wrote:
2017-03-08 17:53 GMT-03:00 Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf@alice-dsl.net>:
Hi,
my understanding is, that if possible, it should look like this
1.2.r3.gabcdef7
and not alternatively
1.2_r3_gabcdef7
or
1.2_3_gabcdef7
A maintainer disagrees:
"The pkgver extracts on the wiki are not there as strict rules that you need to comply with, but simply as examples that produce good, incrementing pkgvers."
It's not important what AUR package I'm talking about, I just want to ensure that I'm not mistaken.
Regards, Ralf
Just add info to this thread, I don't know about "_" as separator, but some packages in official repositories use "+". e.g. gedit 3.22.0+4+g2c70ccb86-1
Then I'm seemingly mistaken. IMO it's odd, if there are many variations. It has a Debian/Ubuntu appeal, if packages have a different version/release formatting ;).
The fact that some repo packages go against established AUR packages (when they formulate the pkgver for a non-release upload) is, as you say, very odd and foments confusion. I *really* wish they (Devs/TUs) wouldn't do that... unfortunately there is no actual rule for or against it, for the simple reason that the only hard rules are against actual malware and things like that. No one is going to delete an AUR package (much less a repo package :p) for a confusingly nonstandard pkgver, we don't even delete packages that are *far* worse. In other words, maintainers of any stripe are absolute dictators over their package, as long as they don't commit offenses against the AUR package-hosting service itself, which would be grounds for deleting the package, and they keep their package up to date with upstream releases, which failure to do so is grounds for package orphaning. You (rhet.) can (and often do) highly disapprove of their choices, but at the end of the day, they cannot be *forced* to do anything. ... Nevertheless, none of that is an excuse to make things even worse, the _______ Package Guidelines are there *not* as "good advice" but as "good advice to make things both well-formed AND ORDERLY" (as the literal expression of an ideal form) and you can quote me on that if you like. :) -- Eli Schwartz