Re: [pacman-dev] [PATCH] makepkg: treat pkgrel more similarly to pkgver

On 30/08/14 13:56, Luke Shumaker wrote:

At Fri, 29 Aug 2014 17:16:11 -0500, Dan McGee wrote:

...

On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Luke Shumaker wrote:

...

This is perfectly fine with libalpm; it was only makepkg that was more strict with pkgrel than pkgver.

Correct.

However, did you look at the NEWS file? This was an explicit change made in pacman 4.1.0 (commit 708a22757) to tighten the format of this value. I'd be -1 on this change, unless someone can show me a real reason pkgrel should be complicated, given this is something the packager influences and we're not trying to copy or match an upstream value.

Sorry, I did not catch that in NEWS.

In my opinion, this is most useful to other distros that are downstream from Arch. For example, in Parabola, packages that are repackaged/modified from Arch, they like to set it like `pkgrel=${archrel}.${parabolarel}`. If an Arch package uses both places, then Parabola's scheme breaks. There's also been discussion that it would be nice to be able to do `pkgrel=${archrel}.parabola${parabolarel}`.

For kernel modules that must be built against a specific version of the kernel, it would be nice to be able to do `pkgrel=${_pkgrel}.${_basekernel}`, which would make it so one wouldn't have to mess around with pkgrel when just bumping _basekernel.

Sans the desire to stick 'parabola' into pkgrel, I guess at a minimum, that really advocates changing it from

[[ $i != +([0-9])?(.+([0-9])) ]]

to

[[ $i != +([0-9])*(.+([0-9])) ]]

So that would allow x.y.z pkrels?

...

...

Further, the former error message about invalid pkgrel formats claimed that pkgrel was a "decimal", which would mean that `1.1 == 1.10`. This was not the case; alpm parsed pkgrel as a version, not a decimal. In that light, enforcing /[0-9]+(\.([0-9]+)?/ on a version spec seems silly.

If you do reject this change, would you at least accept a patch clarifying that it is a simplified 'version', not a decimal?

I'm personally of the opinion that the pkgrel should be a positive integer and nothing else. However, I have seen what could be considered valid uses of the x.y pkgrel - preparing a release and packaging with 0.1, 0.2,..., and rebuilds that are architecture specific (which is more of an issue for distributions that have more architectures than Arch has). So decimals need to stay.g Saying all of this... spec files (rpm) often have something like: Release: 1%{?dist} where dist is a distribution specific tag. What I will consider (my mind is changeable): 1) A documentation patch saying pkgrel is an (positive) integer. A sub-release (or better name) can be specified by adding another interger after a period. 2) Inclusion of a "dist" keyword in PKGBUILDs. If present, this gets added onto the end of the pkgrel. Allan