On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 23:02:25 +0100, Uwe Koloska wrote: > Am 17.01.2015 um 20:05 schrieb Ralf Mardorf: > > Why n+1? > > Because it is technically another package than the one created > locally. So you can easily distinguish between the last one that you > complied yourself from the AUR and the first one from Community. > > > I prefer no change of the current dot release. > > This was my first thought,too. But after thinking about it, in my > oppinion n+1 ist the "right thing to do", because a community package > is not only the metadata that describes how it is build (and even > this has changed) but the binary package build with the arch build > machines.
Hi Uwe, I was thinking about this too and I've to admit that my wish is selfish :). IOW I dislike it, but I've to agree, that the increment of the package release is the correct way to go. To be honest, assumed I should have build a package that differs to the default PKGBUILD, I anyway need to compile upgrades from ABS. It's just a minor annoyance that I might have to do it for a package, I've got already installed, OTOH I seldom edit PKGBUILDs and I never edited a .install. Hopefully everybody agrees with Rashif's paragraph. Now I'm convinced that n+1 is what should be done in the future. Regards, Ralf
