[aur-general] aur-out-of-date: determine out-of-date AUR packages w.r.t. upstream

Marcin Wieczorek marcin at marcin.co
Fri Feb 2 21:48:27 UTC 2018

On 02/01/2018 11:08 AM, Simon Legner via aur-general wrote:
> Hi aur-general,
> as a maintainer of fifty-something AUR packages I found it difficult
> to keep track of new upstream versions. I would subscribe to various
> RSS feeds to keep track of some.
> Recently, I sat down and wrote a tool "aur-out-of-date" which, given a
> username or a list of packages, checks upstream for newer versions. It
> does so by inspecting the upstream URL and/or source URL, and calling
> a suitable API (github.com, registry.npmjs.org, pypi.python.org,
> cpan.org for now) to determine the latest released version.
> Out-of-date packages are output in red color on the command line.
> Give it a try:
> https://github.com/simon04/aur-out-of-date
> https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/aur-out-of-date/
> I'm happy to hear you feedback :)
> Simon

Awesome project. I made myself a similar one, a bash script that
checks GitHub API for new versions and updates the PKGBUILD. I was
planning on making something bigger with ruby, so it would be easily
extensible for non-regular cases (custom download pages etc.).
So I'm testing it at the moment. Looks cool.
First of all please modify the name of the
source in AUR. Some people use common source directories and that causes
conflicts. Secondly I think the program is too verbose. It would be
better readable displaying only brief information like:
"[OUT-OF-DATE] [$pkgname] Flagged: 1.0.0 -> 1.0.1"
or something like that. An option to ignore [UNKNOWN] packages would be
great too. I might be wrong, but it seems to go crazy with metapackages.
I don't know Go, but I'll try to patch if anything else comes to my mind.

Eli Schwartz via aur-general <aur-general at archlinux.org> writes:
> 1) How does this handle PKGBUILDs that, say, have their homepage on
> github, but do not tag releases there -- because :( :( :( -- and instead
> push releases to PyPI or npmjs or something?

Imho such cases should be always reported upstream as that is a very bad

Marcin Wieczorek
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 487 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/attachments/20180202/8a23b10b/attachment.asc>

More information about the aur-general mailing list