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

[WorMzy Tykashi]

On 5 April 2013 22:19, WorMzy Tykashi <wormzy.tykashi at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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?
>
Oops. Forgot my reference.

[0]
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_CVS_%26_SVN_PKGBUILD_guidelines