[PATCH] Display warning when flagging VCS packages

Lukas Fleischer lfleischer at archlinux.org
Sat May 25 22:52:09 UTC 2019

On Sat, 25 May 2019 at 18:33:55, Bruno Pagani wrote:
> Well I think it should instead be used for such bugs in the case of VCS
> packages, because those are the only cases where they can be OOD, and in
> contrary to normal packages those are valid OOD reasons. And that is the
> case for the linked package in the FS ticket. But I acknowledge this is
> not what we say currently, though I would use the opportunity of that
> addition to change the guidelines regarding this. And then I’m in favour
> of saying so in the message:
> “This is a VCS package. Please do not flag it out-of-date if the package
> version in the AUR does not match the most recent commit. Flagging this
> package should only be done if the sources moved or changes in the
> PKGBUILD are required because of recent upstream changes.”

That message sounds good to me.

> >>> +/**
> >>> + * Determine whether a package base is (or contains a) VCS package
> >>> + *
> >>> + * @param int $base_id The ID of the package base
> >>> + *
> >>> + * @return bool True if the package base is/contains a VCS package
> >>> + */
> >>> +function pkgbase_is_vcs($base_id) {
> >>> +     $suffixes = array("-cvs", "-svn", "-git", "-hg", "-bzr", "-darcs");
> >> What about false positives and missing items like -nightly’s? I think it
> >> would be a good time to implement FS#56602, auto-seed the value
> >> depending on your above list and let maintainers override this.
> > Yes, there are false positives and false negatives. That is why we only
> > display a warning and do not automatically disable the feature for VCS
> > packages. Read the comments in FS#62733 for details.
> All I’ve read was the same thing as before regarding the impossibility
> to correctly detect all VCS packages and just them, but I did not see
> why manual override wouldn’t be an option. ;) Regarding false positives,
> without override possibility they will be misleading to users, so I
> don’t agree on “it’s OK because we are not plainly disabling the
> feature”. Also for me the strongest reason to not disable the feature
> for VCS packages is rather because it is still useful even for those, as
> stated by Eli. :)

We could tune the message and say "This seems to be a VCS package."

I would prefer to keep this very simple. That message is just for
convenience and not really an essential part of the AUR.

More information about the aur-dev mailing list