On 9/30/21 23:34, Tom Braack wrote:
> Hi,
>
> yes, I've read that.
>
> I created that to specifically provide the 1.x release line of docker-compose, as the official package was recently bumped to 2.x, which has major incompatibilities.
>
> If having such a package is not the right way, what's your suggestion for providing older, yet widely used versions?
>
> Thanks,
> sh0rez
>
>> On 30. Sep 2021, at 21:34, notify(a)aur.archlinux.org wrote:
>>
>> aminvakil [1] filed a deletion request for docker-compose1 [2]:
>>
>> https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/AUR_submission_guidelines#Rules_of_submiss…
>>
>> The submitted PKGBUILDs must not build applications already in any of
>> the official binary repositories under any circumstances. Check the
>> official package database for the package. If any version of it
>> exists, do not submit the package. If the official package is out-of-
>> date, flag it as such. If the official package is broken or is lacking
>> a feature, then please file a bug report.
>>
>> [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/aminvakil/
>> [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/docker-compose1/
Hi,
1.x is not going to be maintained anymore (except security fixes), so
I'd suggest using docker-compose-1.29.2 from your local cache until you
change your yaml files and make them compatible with 2.x.
Also --compatibility is a flag on 2.x.
Best Regards,
Amin Vakil
capSAR [1] filed a deletion request for multimc-git [2]:
The multimc-bin package is the official one which will update the
binaries itself, also supporting Microsoft accounts and the
Development/Release version selector. It is confusing to have multiple
packages for the same program when one is already being maintained by
the developer.
[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/capSAR/
[2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/multimc-git/