On Sun, 2026-09-27 at 13:15 +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > The tone has changed. This distorts the significance of stable, > release- > based non-CVS packages compared to CVS packages. I have no idea how > to > respond to this: > > " morsmortium commented on 2026-09-27 11:02 (UTC) > > I will not argue this anymore. > Someone having a crash and losing work is a larger annoyance than > someone having to do a 5 second rebuild, and this happened at times. > It will get reduced over time, when the library will become more > stable. > If you think this is so large of a violation of the guidelines, you > are > free to send an orphan/adoption request and make Arch staff decide > it." > - https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/gtk-nocsd-git
Ralf, I am just an accountant and have in general no idea what I am doing, but I have been facing this very same problem on both sides of the equation: 1) for any reason there are version numbers (and everybody wants to understand them as "stable" or "secure") 2) while the developer pretty much runs it as rolling release where every commit is the latest greatest version per definition (<-- that's usually me 😄 ) I have solved it by deriving a minor or minor-minor version direct from the GIT build number per `git describe` and so creating pseudo "stable" releases (instead of just calling it a "-SNAPSHOT"). So JSQLParser 5.3 (stable) became JSQLParser 5.3.719 (which in fact was the 719 commit after the 5.3 release). And I am doing the same now for AURSCAN, since "-git" was also not compatible with some package guidelines. Maybe this can help you to find a workaround because I actually do understand morsmortium's point. Best and cheers Andreas
