On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 02:37:03PM +0200, Matthias Matousek wrote: > On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 07:12:21PM +0800, Ng Oon-Ee wrote: > > On Fri, 2010-08-06 at 11:10 +0200, Matthias Matousek wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > I am currently maintaining the masqmail package in aur. masqmail is a > > > small mail transfer agent. Last week a new version 0.3.0 was released > > > which has no compatibility to the 0.2 branch. > > > The masqmail developer recommends users who already use masqmail to > > > stick with the 0.2 branch and new users to take the 0.3 branch. To make > > > that possible there needs to be a package for each branch in the aur. > > > I'm not sure how I should handle that. I was thinking about creating a > > > second package "masqmail-0.3" in addition to the currently existing > > > package "masqmail". I wasn't able to find anything about such issues in > > > the packaging guidelines. Are there any suggestions how this should be > > > handled? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > matou > > > > > As I understand, convention is to rename the old branch to masqmail-0.2 > > and update masqmail to 0.3. You could include a post-install file to > > inform users on updating that they may want to stick to masqmail-0.2 > > > > Alternatively (and this may be better) is to delete masqmail and create > > masqmail-0.2 (which replaces it) and masqmail-0.3. This of course would > > be a bit more future-proof if upstream is going to make releases like > > this often. > > > > Thank you very much for the answer. I guess I will go for the second > option, then.
I created masqmail-0.2 now and added a replaces=('masqmail'). But I was
still able to install both packages. Does masqmail need to be deleted
explicitely?
pgpNuJckO5OYc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
