[aur-general] Fwd: [REPORT] Banned for reporting Out of Date CVS packages by Alucryd

[Eli Schwartz]

On 11/04/2016 10:20 AM, Levente Polyak wrote:
> I don't think its worth trying to comfort all AUR wrappers in the
> way a PKGBUILD is handled. I have seen too often including horrible
> hacks here and there because one wrapper does or doesn't do X or Y and
> fails.Its not as harmful because at the end its just a different pkgver
> but the conclusion is the same: No gain other then to satisfy AUR
> wrappers. Therefor my personal opinion is to avoid that all together no
> matter if you think that it is overreacting or not.

That wasn't initially clear from what you said. :) I will stick with
making sure the PKGBUILD is well-written then, and if I feel in the
mood, commit the changes makepkg itself makes to the PKGBUILD. ;)

(No real gain != loss)

And I don't really see it as a "workaround for AUR wrappers". I see it
as getting more useful information into the AUR rpc interface.

It's similar to why I make sure to bump the pkgrel to trigger a rebuild
for soname bumps -- and there are people who insist that AUR users
should be required to check for that by hand.

-- 
Eli Schwartz