[aur-general] shotwell / vala / provides() (Re: shotwell...)

[oliver]

On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 06:37:46PM +0200, Jan Steffens wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 5:44 PM, oliver <oliver at first.in-berlin.de> wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 05:18:08PM +0200, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
> >> On 09/04/12 16:53, oliver wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 04:23:23PM +0200, Markus Unterwaditzer wrote:
> >> >> You should write that into the comments section of the package.
> >> > [...]
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > OK, yes, good idea.
> >> >
> >> > Done.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Ciao,
> >> >    Oliver
> >> Shotwell requires vala > 0.15, we have vala 0.16 in [testing] so the new
> >> shotwell is now in [community-testing] along with the updated libgevix.
> >> As soon as vala will move, shotwell will move too.
> > [...]
> >
> > When I use
> >  http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=31429
> > to create vala, it builds vala 0.16.0,
> > but the package says it provides "vala=0.14.2".
> >
> > Not sure how such a PKGBUILD must be handled.
> > If it says it provides "vala=0.14.2" but
> > just downloads the current version via git,
> > then the provides-entrx is not correct.
> >
> > It willö then provide always the newest version.
> >
> > How to handle this in a package?
> > Is the PKGBUILD
> >  http://aur.archlinux.org/packages/va/vala-git/PKGBUILD
> > correct, or not?
> >
> > Does a provides-entry make any sense, if there always is the
> > current stuff that is downloaded?
> >
> > If the package PKGBUILD says, that it provides
> > vala=0.14.2, then it should only clone the git sources for that
> > certain vala version.
> >
> > So I rather think the PKGBUILD is wrong here.
> >
> > Are there general rules how to handle this correctly?
> >
> > Ciao,
> >   Oliver
> 
> During package(), extract the current version from "configure" using
> something like
> _providesver="$(awk -F\' '/^PACKAGE_VERSION=/{print $2}' <configure)"
> provides=("vala=$_providesver")

Aha, nice.

But then in AUR the package number could not be looked up before
the package is built....

Do you see, what problem I address?

Ciao,
   Oliver