[aur-general] VCS package guidelines

[Eli Schwartz]

On 03/08/2017 04:06 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Mar 2017 18:00:52 -0300, Rafael Fontenelle wrote:
>> 2017-03-08 17:53 GMT-03:00 Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mardorf at alice-dsl.net>:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> my understanding is, that if possible, it should look like this
>>>
>>> 1.2.r3.gabcdef7
>>>
>>> and not alternatively
>>>
>>> 1.2_r3_gabcdef7
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> 1.2_3_gabcdef7
>>>
>>> A maintainer disagrees:
>>>
>>> "The pkgver extracts on the wiki are not there as strict rules that
>>> you need to comply with, but simply as examples that produce good,
>>> incrementing pkgvers."
>>>
>>> It's not important what AUR package I'm talking about, I just want to
>>> ensure that I'm not mistaken.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Ralf
>>>  
>>
>> Just add info to this thread, I don't know about "_" as separator, but
>> some packages in official repositories use "+". e.g. gedit
>> 3.22.0+4+g2c70ccb86-1
> 
> Then I'm seemingly mistaken. IMO it's odd, if there are many
> variations. It has a Debian/Ubuntu appeal, if packages have a
> different version/release formatting ;).

The fact that some repo packages go against established AUR packages
(when they formulate the pkgver for a non-release upload) is, as you
say, very odd and foments confusion.

I *really* wish they (Devs/TUs) wouldn't do that... unfortunately there
is no actual rule for or against it, for the simple reason that the only
hard rules are against actual malware and things like that.
No one is going to delete an AUR package (much less a repo package :p)
for a confusingly nonstandard pkgver, we don't even delete packages that
are *far* worse.
In other words, maintainers of any stripe are absolute dictators over
their package, as long as they don't commit offenses against the AUR
package-hosting service itself, which would be grounds for deleting the
package, and they keep their package up to date with upstream releases,
which failure to do so is grounds for package orphaning. You (rhet.) can
(and often do) highly disapprove of their choices, but at the end of the
day, they cannot be *forced* to do anything.

...

Nevertheless, none of that is an excuse to make things even worse, the
_______ Package Guidelines are there *not* as "good advice" but as "good
advice to make things both well-formed AND ORDERLY" (as the literal
expression of an ideal form) and you can quote me on that if you like. :)

-- 
Eli Schwartz

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/attachments/20170308/a165c46e/attachment.asc>