[aur-general] When should pkgrel be updated?

[Dave Reisner]

On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 05:31:34PM +0200, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 12:21 -0300, Denis A. Altoé Falqueto wrote: 
> > On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 4:12 AM, Ray Rashif <schiv at archlinux.org> wrote:
> > > On 1 April 2011 08:12, Oon-Ee Ng <ngoonee.talk at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> I've seen (in the past) various packages on the AUR which jumped by 3
> > >> or 4 pkgrels in a very short period of time. Sometimes it happens like
> > >> this:-
> > >>
> > >> 1. Maintainer changes something and breaks the package with pkgrel=2
> > >> 2. Bug reported on comments. Maintainer reverts changand makes pkgrel=3
> > >
> > > It's really very simple - you only need to remember this:
> > >
> > > Whenever the resulting binary changes (in an important way) for the
> > > user, you bump pkgrel.
> > >
> > > Examples:
> > >
> > > * Changing pkgdesc -> do NOT bump (unless it's severely wrong or something)
> > >
> > > * Changing deps -> bump
> > >
> > > * Changing makedeps -> do NOT bump, ever
> > >
> > > * Changing optdeps -> do NOT bump (unless very important functionality provided)
> > >
> > > * Changing build stuff (i.e changing PKGBUILD but no change to
> > > resulting binary) -> do NOT bump
> > 
> > Are you sure about that? I would bump pkgrel in all your examples,
> > except the first. Even though they may not change the resulting
> > binary, they change how they are built. I always thought of pkgrel as
> > a way to differentiate between versions of PKGBUILDs.
> > 
> 
> a Makedep isn't that important so i wouldn't bump there, just like the
> build stuff. And if someone used ABS the makedep fix would be already
> there in svn ;)
> 
> -- 
> Jelle van der Waa
> 

A change in makedeps might fix a broken build, or it might enable a new
feature that's conditionally linked in based on the presence of the dep.
Definitely seems worthy of a pkgrel bump.

dave