[aur-general] VCS PKGBUILD and Pacman 4.1: increase epoch?

WorMzy Tykashi wormzy.tykashi at gmail.com
Fri Apr 5 17:19:54 EDT 2013


On 5 April 2013 20:17, Doug Newgard <scimmia22 at outlook.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 15:11:40 -0400, luolimao at gmail.com wrote:
> > On 04/05/2013 10:05 AM, Jan Alexander Steffens wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Cédric Girard <girard.cedric at gmail.com
> >wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hello,
> > >>
> > >> I was wondering, as I am updating my PKGBUILDs to use the new VCS
> > >> features of pacman, if this specific case need an epoch increase for
> > >> those packages.
> > >>
> > >> Packages version were generated from the date (eg 20130401) and thus
> > >> will probably be bigger than new versions from the tags (eg
> > >> 0.3.1.32.gfb4117d). Thus an epoch increase should be needed to have a
> > >> correct behavior.
> > >>
> > >> But it seems most packagers are not increasing the epoch as they are
> > >> switching to this new versionning scheme.
> > >>
> > >> Is there a recommendation on this?
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Cédric Girard
> > >>
> > > Yes, the correct thing to do would be bumping epoch for every new
> release
> > > of the PKGBUILD.
> > I think you mean it just needs to be bumped this once, since the tag
> > versions are going to be increasing from here onward... (unless, of
> > course, the pkgver() function is changed in a way that this is not true).
>
> I'm sure an epoch is the correct way to handle this, but we have to
> remember this is the AUR, not the official repos. The officially supported
> way of building from the AUR is using makepkg then install with pacman, in
> which case the epoch won't make a difference. It will stop pacman from
> giving you a warning, and in return you're stuck with an epoch for the life
> of the package. If the maintainer wants to make it easier for AUR helpers,
> go ahead and add the epoch, but I don't see it as required in this case.
>


Is the new way of pkgver-ing VCS packages mandatory? The VCS Guidelines[0]
isn't clear, it just says that pkgver is more controllable, and lists a few
examples. Would it be wrong for me to continue using the date +%Y%m%d
versioning system, or is up to individual maintainers to choose which
system is more appropriate?


More information about the aur-general mailing list