On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 07:12:21PM +0800, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:

On Fri, 2010-08-06 at 11:10 +0200, Matthias Matousek wrote:

...

Hello,

I am currently maintaining the masqmail package in aur. masqmail is a small mail transfer agent. Last week a new version 0.3.0 was released which has no compatibility to the 0.2 branch. The masqmail developer recommends users who already use masqmail to stick with the 0.2 branch and new users to take the 0.3 branch. To make that possible there needs to be a package for each branch in the aur. I'm not sure how I should handle that. I was thinking about creating a second package "masqmail-0.3" in addition to the currently existing package "masqmail". I wasn't able to find anything about such issues in the packaging guidelines. Are there any suggestions how this should be handled?

Thanks, matou

As I understand, convention is to rename the old branch to masqmail-0.2 and update masqmail to 0.3. You could include a post-install file to inform users on updating that they may want to stick to masqmail-0.2

Alternatively (and this may be better) is to delete masqmail and create masqmail-0.2 (which replaces it) and masqmail-0.3. This of course would be a bit more future-proof if upstream is going to make releases like this often.

Thank you very much for the answer. I guess I will go for the second option, then.

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Matthias Matousek wrote:

On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 02:37:03PM +0200, Matthias Matousek wrote:

...

On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 07:12:21PM +0800, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:

...

On Fri, 2010-08-06 at 11:10 +0200, Matthias Matousek wrote:

...

Hello,

I am currently maintaining the masqmail package in aur. masqmail is a small mail transfer agent. Last week a new version 0.3.0 was released which has no compatibility to the 0.2 branch. The masqmail developer recommends users who already use masqmail to stick with the 0.2 branch and new users to take the 0.3 branch. To make that possible there needs to be a package for each branch in the aur. I'm not sure how I should handle that. I was thinking about creating a second package "masqmail-0.3" in addition to the currently existing package "masqmail". I wasn't able to find anything about such issues in the packaging guidelines. Are there any suggestions how this should be handled?

Thanks, matou

As I understand, convention is to rename the old branch to masqmail-0.2 and update masqmail to 0.3. You could include a post-install file to inform users on updating that they may want to stick to masqmail-0.2

Alternatively (and this may be better) is to delete masqmail and create masqmail-0.2 (which replaces it) and masqmail-0.3. This of course would be a bit more future-proof if upstream is going to make releases like this often.

Thank you very much for the answer. I guess I will go for the second option, then.

I created masqmail-0.2 now and added a replaces=('masqmail'). But I was still able to install both packages. Does masqmail need to be deleted explicitely?

well, it will replace masqmail-$PKGVER-$PKGREL.pkg.tar.gz if it is installed on the system, but it won't replace masqmail-0.2-$PKGVER-$PKGREL.pkg.tar.gz . It will only complain about the other version being installed if you put a conflicts=('masqmail-0.2') in the -0.3 PKGBUILD. (and vice-versa in the -0.2 PKGBUILD.) Hope that clears things up. G *note* $PKGVER and $PKGREL aren't strict expansions of the variable in the current PKGBUILD, I'm just using them in place of the asterisk glob to prevent confusion.

On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Matthias Matousek wrote:

On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 02:14:55PM -0600, Gary Wright wrote:

...

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Matthias Matousek wrote:

...

On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 02:37:03PM +0200, Matthias Matousek wrote:

...

On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 07:12:21PM +0800, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:

...

On Fri, 2010-08-06 at 11:10 +0200, Matthias Matousek wrote:

...

Hello,

I am currently maintaining the masqmail package in aur. masqmail is a small mail transfer agent. Last week a new version 0.3.0 was released which has no compatibility to the 0.2 branch. The masqmail developer recommends users who already use masqmail to stick with the 0.2 branch and new users to take the 0.3 branch. To make that possible there needs to be a package for each branch in the aur. I'm not sure how I should handle that. I was thinking about creating a second package "masqmail-0.3" in addition to the currently existing package "masqmail". I wasn't able to find anything about such issues in the packaging guidelines. Are there any suggestions how this should be handled?

Thanks, matou

As I understand, convention is to rename the old branch to masqmail-0.2 and update masqmail to 0.3. You could include a post-install file to inform users on updating that they may want to stick to masqmail-0.2

Alternatively (and this may be better) is to delete masqmail and create masqmail-0.2 (which replaces it) and masqmail-0.3. This of course would be a bit more future-proof if upstream is going to make releases like this often.

Thank you very much for the answer. I guess I will go for the second option, then.

I created masqmail-0.2 now and added a replaces=('masqmail'). But I was still able to install both packages. Does masqmail need to be deleted explicitely?

well, it will replace masqmail-$PKGVER-$PKGREL.pkg.tar.gz if it is installed on the system, but it won't replace masqmail-0.2-$PKGVER-$PKGREL.pkg.tar.gz .   It will only complain about the other version being installed if you put a conflicts=('masqmail-0.2') in the -0.3 PKGBUILD. (and vice-versa in the -0.2 PKGBUILD.)

Hope that clears things up.

G

*note* $PKGVER and $PKGREL aren't strict expansions of the variable in the current PKGBUILD, I'm just using them in place of the asterisk glob to prevent confusion.

I added a conflicts entry which makes it complain about other installed masqmail versions. But I still want to replace 'masqmail' with 'masqmail-0.2'. But pacman or yaourt does not try to replace masqmail.

Looks like I was wrong... usually happens when I open my mouth :P After checking out the PKGBUILD page on ArchWiki [1], it would appear that the replaces=() array is only used by pacman -Sy when it is examining the repo.db files. When working with the AUR, there are no repo.db files to deal with, only a source tarballs that yaourt and others conveniently download and process for you. In short, makepkg and pacman -U (which is basically what yaourt does) don't care what it says in the replaces=() array. Best advice would be to add masqmail (the old pkgname) into the conflicts() array of the masqmail-0.2 PKGBUILD, and put a message up in the comments for masqmail-0.2 advising users to remove the original masqmail package before upgrading.