On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 11:39:34AM -0400, Dan McGee wrote: > On 5/28/07, Roman Kyrylych <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 2007/5/28, Michael Towers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Is it now allowed to have a '.' in the 'pkgrel'? Was it always allowed? > > > If so, is it necessary? If not, why does pacman accept it? > > > > It is allowed to state that this is a change for one arch only (i.e. > > x86-64-specific). > > I've brought this up elsewhere, but I will state an opinion on this > thread- I think keeping pkgrel to an integer is a much smarter idea. > First off, that version number is hard to parse by a human- far too > many dashes and dots to know which is what. Second, the only change > I've ever seen that uses a .1 increment is adding an architecture to > the arch array. This is completely unnecessary- there is no need to > bump the pkgrel at all, and if you do want to bump it, then just bump > it a full integer. > > Thoughts?
Are you sure about that? When Andy and I first talked about it, it was for when arch64 needed to change a PKGBUILD to release their version of a package. That way foo-1.2.3-1 always meant exactly the same PKGBUILD. foo-1.2.3-1.1 was a different PKGBUILD that just didn't happen to be released for x86 but *was* released for arch64. The next time that package is released it will probably not need to be modified for arch64, so the arch64 version will be foo-1.2.3-2 just like the x86 version. I never thought the pkgrel was so confusing. Maybe it's because I looked at the pacman code and realized it's treated exactly the same as the version. My fear with updating a full integer is having people say, "why hasn't x86 updated to -5?!? arch64 has -5, why does x86 only have -4?!? are we that far behind?!?" I always thought of the -1.1 notation as being a revision of the revision. Jason
pgp0KgQkphR41.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
