You are not logged in.

#1 2013-05-09 23:57:15

fukawi2
Forum Moderator
From: .vic.au
Registered: 2007-09-28
Posts: 5,253
Website

Version Selection for AUR Packages

I'm sure it's been discussed before, but my Google-fu returns nothing for me this morning....

Is there any form of official, unofficial, gentleman's agreement or other written ideas on how version selection in the AUR should be made?

Example, foobar-widget project has released 1.0, 2.0, 2.2 and 2.4-RC3. Should the AUR contain 2.2 or 2.4RC3?

The official repositories would contain 2.2 until 2.4 became a proper release (ie, not alpha, beta, RC etc), but the AUR doesn't seem to have any guidelines (that I can find).

Feel free to just point me to the appropriate docs if it's just my Google-fu failing me smile

Offline

#2 2013-05-10 08:49:48

Raynman
Member
Registered: 2011-10-22
Posts: 1,063

Re: Version Selection for AUR Packages

Typically you would have a package foo-widget at version 2.2. Additionally, there might be foo-widget-beta or something. An -rc suffix is less common, but not unheard of.

If it is the third release candidate and it is quite stable, you could consider bumping foo-widget to that version. Sometimes official repos also contain release candidates, but (I think) always with good reason (e.g., the latest stable is so old that it is hard to build against up-to-date arch packages or important features are missing).

Offline

#3 2013-05-10 09:20:42

tomk
Forum Fellow
From: Ireland
Registered: 2004-07-21
Posts: 9,835

Re: Version Selection for AUR Packages

The AUR's guidelines are the same as the official repos i.e. the most recent release that upstream regard as stable should be packaged. Raynman's suggestions represent the various ways that AUR users work around, or bend, or disregard, those guidelines. smile

Offline

#4 2013-05-10 09:30:09

fukawi2
Forum Moderator
From: .vic.au
Registered: 2007-09-28
Posts: 5,253
Website

Re: Version Selection for AUR Packages

Thanks tomk, that's what I suspected (unless the package is foobar-widget-beta etc). Is that written anywhere that you're aware of?

Offline

#5 2013-05-10 12:46:56

tomk
Forum Fellow
From: Ireland
Registered: 2004-07-21
Posts: 9,835

Re: Version Selection for AUR Packages

I don't think so, isn't it just common sense?

Offline

#6 2013-05-11 00:11:09

fukawi2
Forum Moderator
From: .vic.au
Registered: 2007-09-28
Posts: 5,253
Website

Re: Version Selection for AUR Packages

Common sense isn't so common tongue

Offline

#7 2013-05-11 00:53:04

progandy
Member
Registered: 2012-05-17
Posts: 2,143

Re: Version Selection for AUR Packages

The rules are in the wiki:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/AU … g_packages
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Ar … _Standards

--> don't duplicate any pacakges unless there are new features (because of new version or different patches). Bugfixe releases are not allowed (use out-of-date flag and update original package instead)
--> never duplicate names, use provide instead
The only thing not mentioned is the preferred version except that VCS-packages have to end with the name of the vcs. Common sense is the latest stable version.
If there are two or more, the version number for the older release should be added to the name. You may also add the version for the current release if you expect that future versions will not replace the old one, but be used alongside it (I derived that from the naming scheme of gtk, python, qt, ...)

Offline

#8 2013-05-11 00:54:18

Xyne
Moderator/TU
Registered: 2008-08-03
Posts: 5,616
Website

Re: Version Selection for AUR Packages

The AUR is the wild west of Arch packaging. The written law of the civilized repos applies but enforcement is sometimes spotty. The TUs are the sheriffs. We're there to enforce the law, but sometimes we've been out there too long and we occasionally turn a blind eye to such activity. Some of us may even be guilty of minor infractions.

aur-general is the sheriff's office/local courthouse/town hall. Sometimes the dev's come in from the big cities to admire out quaintness and lay down new laws before they scuttle back into the urban jungle, but most of the time it's quiet with the comings and goings of the locals. We listen to their grievances and do what we can. Some show up with solid claims and their papers in order, others stumble in blind-drunk mumbling about packages they want and random nonsense without a link in sight.

The general IRC channel is the local saloon, and the TU IRC channel is the private backroom with a perpetual poker game.

Offline

#9 2013-05-11 11:32:19

tomk
Forum Fellow
From: Ireland
Registered: 2004-07-21
Posts: 9,835

Re: Version Selection for AUR Packages

Awesome, Xyne - on a par with your Fortune 500 story smile

Offline

#10 2013-05-11 13:48:53

Allan
Developer
From: Brisbane, AU
Registered: 2007-06-09
Posts: 10,327
Website

Re: Version Selection for AUR Packages

Xyne wrote:

the TU IRC channel is the private backroom with a perpetual poker game.

Why was I not informed!

Offline

#11 2013-05-11 14:15:45

x33a
Forum Moderator
Registered: 2009-08-15
Posts: 3,183
Website

Re: Version Selection for AUR Packages

Because you are not a TU? tongue

Offline

#12 2013-05-11 14:18:41

HalosGhost
Member
From: Twin Cities, MN
Registered: 2012-06-22
Posts: 1,485
Website

Re: Version Selection for AUR Packages

Is the TU IRC channel also constantly smoke-filled?

All the best,

-HG


"All errors are ᴘᴇʙᴋᴀᴄ errors—It's just a matter of narrowing down which keyboard and chair." -Trilby
\ldots

Offline

#13 2013-05-11 14:20:23

Trilby
Forum Moderator
From: Massachusetts, USA
Registered: 2011-11-29
Posts: 13,371
Website

Re: Version Selection for AUR Packages

No, but it does have the perpetual stench of stale tacos.


InterrobangSlider
• How's my coding? See this page.
• How's my moderating? Feel free to email any concerns, complaints, or objections.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB