[aur-general] pkgrel - Is it correct that some "fixes" aren't "fixes"?
eschwartz at archlinux.org
Fri Jun 22 18:05:22 UTC 2018
On 06/22/2018 01:33 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> Moving a package from AUR to Community or vice versa also doesn't
> change the content. I guess the pkgrel should inform about each change
> done to a package providing the same pkgver.
That's a change to the built package, which merits a pkgrel. Not a
change to the PKGBUILD, which does not merit one.
> Somebody might have experienced that 2.201801-1 didn't build. The user
> is monitoring the package and expects that the fixed version is >
> 2.201801-1, so assuming the pkgver should be the same, it should be
Anyone is more than free to expect whatever they want, but if they
literally have zero grounds for expecting it, then their expectations
are completely untethered from reality and they should additionally
expect, that they will often be wrong.
> If the pkgrel isn't increased, how should the user notice
> that the issue is fixed, by monitoring each change to the URL? Keep in
> mind, if the content of the URL does change, it just could be an
> additional comment, it not necessarily is a fix.
Are you seriously worried that maintainer will add comments but leave
the PKGBUILD broken?
And how about this, what if the PKGBUILD "fixed" itself by having
upstream sources become available, that used to not be available? How
will any sort of monitoring detect that?
It's not a problem. PKGBUILDs are not written for the explicit sake of
some weird monitoring program. Try to build it, see if it works, if yes,
good, if not, complain on the details page. We're not going to replace
human interaction with pkgrel bumps -- it is both technologically and
Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the aur-general