On 23/10/18 4:52 am, Jonathon Fernyhough wrote:
On 22/10/2018 11:27, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote:
To clarify the confusion here, this is not a decimal.
1.0 is no different here than in the pkgver itself -- it is 1, and a
subrel of 0.
...
So Jonathon's system only works at all, due to
On 22/10/2018 16.29, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote:
On 10/22/18 7:52 AM, LoneVVolf wrote:
I think this can be solved by clarifying what upstream is.
example :
archlinux foo package has foo.org as upstream
archlinux32 uses archlinux foo package as base , upstream = archlinux
manjaro32
On 22/10/2018 21:17, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote:
> I suppose you could collaborate so that they use 1.10 and you use 1.11
>
> 10 < 11 < 20
I like this for three reasons:
10 Collaboration
20 Fixes my problem
30 Reminds me of BASIC line numbering to allow space for "missed" lines
15 GOTO
On 10/22/18 4:52 PM, Jonathon Fernyhough wrote:
> I'll need to find another approach here... I can see this causing
> spurious errors with packages built against different/incorrect library
> versions (i.e. I rebuild 1.0 as 1.01 then arch32 rebuild as 1.1 and it's
> not seen as a newer version).
On 22/10/2018 11:27, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote:
> To clarify the confusion here, this is not a decimal.
>
> 1.0 is no different here than in the pkgver itself -- it is 1, and a
> subrel of 0.
...
> So Jonathon's system only works at all, due to the fact that whenever
> archlinux32
On 10/22/18 10:16 AM, Tinu Weber wrote:
>> […] More generally, the pkgrel system allowed by the makepkg
>> spec doesn't acknowledge the use case of infinitely cascading derivatives.
>
> That makes me sad, but I'll accept that as an anwer.
>
> How about pacman/libalpm/vercmp? Can I rely on them
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 16:16:27 +0200, Tinu Weber wrote:
> I guess for the mortals among us, the best/cleanest way is to bump the
> pkgVER (as pointed out by LoneVVolf [2]), and stop attributing any sort
> of semantic meaning (upstream/downstream) to the pkgrel?
… or, well, judging from your
On 10/22/18 7:52 AM, LoneVVolf wrote:
> I think this can be solved by clarifying what upstream is.
>
>
> example :
> archlinux foo package has foo.org as upstream
> archlinux32 uses archlinux foo package as base , upstream = archlinux
> manjaro32 uses archlinux32 package as base , upstream =
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 07:27:21 -0400, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote:
> On 10/22/18 5:47 AM, Tinu Weber wrote:
> > Ah, indeed. I'm sorry, I should've tested with makepkg.
> >
> > More generally, however, what would be the best approach to applying
> > downstream/user-specific changes
On 22/10/2018 12.16, hagar wrote:
Or is the answer simply: "Don't rely on package versioning for your
modified packages"?
Best,
Tinu
Unfortunately maybe something is needed as I use a local repository to
serve my localnet.
I build once and then install by update from my repository.
On 22/10/18 7:30 pm, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote:
On 10/22/18 7:19 AM, mar77i via aur-general wrote:
I must be misreading this, because I don't see why you shouldn't use
the exact same pkgver/pkgrel as the original package? If you want to
port the modified package to the subsequent
On 10/22/18 7:19 AM, mar77i via aur-general wrote:
> I must be misreading this, because I don't see why you shouldn't use
> the exact same pkgver/pkgrel as the original package? If you want to
> port the modified package to the subsequent pkgrel or pkgver, you can
> always put the package on hold
On 10/22/18 5:47 AM, Tinu Weber wrote:
> Ah, indeed. I'm sorry, I should've tested with makepkg.
>
> More generally, however, what would be the best approach to applying
> downstream/user-specific changes without breaking the versioning? The
> ones I know all have some issue:
>
> * Dotted pkgrel
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, October 22, 2018 11:47 AM, Tinu Weber wrote:
> More generally, however, what would be the best approach to applying
> downstream/user-specific changes without breaking the versioning? The
> ones I know all have some issue:
>
I must be misreading this,
On 22/10/18 5:47 pm, Tinu Weber wrote:
On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 21:01:56 -0400, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote:
On 10/20/18 7:51 AM, Tinu Weber wrote:
On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 12:11:04 +0100, Jonathon Fernyhough wrote:
On 20/10/2018 03:05, hagar wrote:
Because of the Maintainers increasing
On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 21:01:56 -0400, Eli Schwartz via aur-general wrote:
> On 10/20/18 7:51 AM, Tinu Weber wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 12:11:04 +0100, Jonathon Fernyhough wrote:
> >> On 20/10/2018 03:05, hagar wrote:
> >>> Because of the Maintainers increasing pkgrel I was considering
>
On 10/20/18 7:51 AM, Tinu Weber wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 12:11:04 +0100, Jonathon Fernyhough wrote:
>> On 20/10/2018 03:05, hagar wrote:
>>> Because of the Maintainers increasing pkgrel I was considering
>>> increasing the pkgrel by 0.01 each new build.
>>>
>>> This would allow for 99
On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 12:11:04 +0100, Jonathon Fernyhough wrote:
> On 20/10/2018 03:05, hagar wrote:
> > Because of the Maintainers increasing pkgrel I was considering
> > increasing the pkgrel by 0.01 each new build.
> >
> > This would allow for 99 subsequent builds on each pkgrel.
> >
> >
On 20/10/2018 03:05, hagar wrote:
> Because of the Maintainers increasing pkgrel I was considering
> increasing the pkgrel by 0.01 each new build.
>
> This would allow for 99 subsequent builds on each pkgrel.
>
> The docs say that it can be of type ver.subver.
>
> would this work?
I use this
Thanks all for the information.
It would probably help if this information was more easily available and
explained when reading the docs.
Especially the below information.
Thanks
Macca
On 20/10/18 4:24 pm, Florian Bruhin wrote:
On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 10:05:44AM +0800, hagar wrote:
On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 10:05:44AM +0800, hagar wrote:
> Because of the Maintainers increasing pkgrel I was considering increasing
> the pkgrel by 0.01 each new build.
>
> This would allow for 99 subsequent builds on each pkgrel.
You can probably just start with .1, as .10 is bigger than .1 (or
This was my thought - then I came across Mythtv -
epoch=1
pkgrel=5
pkgver=29.1
The docs say that pkgrel should be for changes in the packaging files.
Because of the Maintainers increasing pkgrel I was considering
increasing the pkgrel by 0.01 each new build.
This would allow for 99
22 matches
Mail list logo
