On 03/02/2016 09:19 PM, Balló György wrote:
If you don't specify tag or commit hash at the end of the git source, then you should use the -git suffix. Users expect if the package has no -git suffix, then it's a working static version tested by the maintainer, and not some experimental code from git HEAD.
I do have a sane reason indeed. Upstream is not following their github releases. If you look in openSUSE's package repo you will see >
Its not just a should but a guideline rule [0] that must be followed upon. For official repositories it is mandatory and will also be enforced because of multiple reasons: the most obvious ones are rebuilds on sobumps and reproducible packages (not yet there but a topic that is being worked on). The only difference is that (besides that the AUR is unsupported) on the AUR people may not notice it or care enough to enforce that. However, in my personal opinion, a trusted user should do things above the general average, that's IMHO why someone should be _trusted_. On 03/02/2016 08:21 PM, Dustin Falgout wrote: that they are packaging the latest master as the most recently
released version. Looking at the history of those packages it seems that whoever is maintaining the packages over at openSUSE does not use github releases in their release process on a regular basis.
It applies for just one out of 3 packages, you should fully check your claim before using it as an argument. Also 2/3 of those packages are not something that could be considered "not released on regular basis" obs-service-set_version: - last release: Sep 3, 2015 - patch commits since release: 4 - openSUSE version [1]: 0.5.3 release obs-service-tar_scm: - last release: Jun 1, 2015 - patch commits since release: 9 - openSUSE version [2]: 0.5.3 0b4ce51 (2 patch commits since release) obs-service-recompress: - last release: Nov 5, 2013 - patch commits since release: 7 - openSUSE version [3]: 7897d3f (7 patch commits since release) Actually, as mentioned above, its just the recompress packages that really falls out of scope. The tar_scm is just a debian control file fix and a missing extension parameter to service file. I don't see any point why the release is not sufficient for those. Also did you try to contact upstream about a recompress release? On 03/02/2016 08:21 PM, Dustin Falgout wrote:
Considering that, it doesnt make sense to tag the end of the pkgname > with "-git"
As mentioned in my very first section, this part is not something that can be argued upon [0], there are just two sane possibilities: 1) use a static version and have the pure package name 2) use non-static VCS (like git HEAD) and add such postfix to pkgname cheers, Levente [0] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/VCS_package_guidelines#Guidelines [1] https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/openSUSE:Tools/obs-service-set_versi... [2] https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/openSUSE:Tools/obs-service-tar_scm [3] https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/openSUSE:Tools/obs-service-recompres...