[aur-general] [arch-general] warning: foobar: local (1.0.0-2) is newer than community (1.0.0-1)
info.mardorf at rocketmail.com
Sat Jan 17 23:05:04 UTC 2015
On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 23:02:25 +0100, Uwe Koloska wrote:
> Am 17.01.2015 um 20:05 schrieb Ralf Mardorf:
> > Why n+1?
> Because it is technically another package than the one created
> locally. So you can easily distinguish between the last one that you
> complied yourself from the AUR and the first one from Community.
> > I prefer no change of the current dot release.
> This was my first thought,too. But after thinking about it, in my
> oppinion n+1 ist the "right thing to do", because a community package
> is not only the metadata that describes how it is build (and even
> this has changed) but the binary package build with the arch build
I was thinking about this too and I've to admit that my wish is
selfish :). IOW I dislike it, but I've to agree, that the increment of
the package release is the correct way to go. To be honest, assumed I
should have build a package that differs to the default PKGBUILD, I
anyway need to compile upgrades from ABS. It's just a minor annoyance
that I might have to do it for a package, I've got already installed,
OTOH I seldom edit PKGBUILDs and I never edited a .install.
Hopefully everybody agrees with Rashif's paragraph. Now I'm convinced
that n+1 is what should be done in the future.
More information about the aur-general