On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 02:01:47 +0100, Christian Rebischke wrote: >On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 05:12:19PM -0500, Eli Schwartz wrote: >> No one is going to delete an AUR package (much less a repo >> package :p) for a confusingly nonstandard pkgver, we don't even >> delete packages that are *far* worse. > >There are reasons why AUR is also called 'unsupported'. If the people >would only push nice and clean AUR packages into the AUR, I guess the >AUR would be nearly empty.
And I neither want to force a maintainer to do something, nor that a package gets deleted, but a maintainer, as well as a user might want to learn from mistakes. On Wed, 8 Mar 2017 19:52:05 -0500, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote: >> In short, if you don't like what you see on the AUR and it's not >> actually harmful, ignore it. You'll be happier you did. > >Thank you for the advice. This is, in fact, what I already do (if it >affects the built package in any way). :) And I do it, too. Btw. I didn't edit this particular unnamed PKGBUILD, since I can live with "_" instead of ".". I'm used to something similar from Debian and Ubuntu, where at least package releases are "very colourful". In my experiences upstream usually uses "1.2-3-gabcdef7", which conflicts a little bit with the "-" used for the Arch package release. Since the commits are part of the package version "1.2.r3.gabcdef7" seems to be a good compromise. I'm fine with anything else, just would prefer if all packages share the same formatting. "." as well as "_" and "+" are ok for me, just that one package does use another formatting than another package makes it difficult to digest the read versions.
