For the information, his package ended up with the wrong name because the PKGBUILD contains this:
pkgname=identicurse pkgver=git pkgrel=1 Instead of: pkgname='identicurse-git' pkgver=20120123 pkgrel=1 The name of the package must end with -git in order to be a git package. Then the pkgver is the version, or in our case, the current date its submited to AUR for a git package. - When a change is done in Git, your users will get the new files. - If you ever have to update the PKGBUILD file for any reason, update the pkgver variable with the new current date, then upload to AUR as a new package, it'll automatically replace the older one with your fixes. - If you have to do it twice in the same day, increment pkgrel to, say, 2 or 3, etc. but keep the same date. SO! The best way to go, again in my opinion, ask for a removal of both packages in the AUR, then fix the two PKGBUILDs and their names, then re-upload online. That's what I'd do. On Jan 23, 2012, at 6:50 PM, Psychedelic Squid <[email protected]> wrote: > On 23/01/12 at 06:29pm, Alex Belanger wrote: >> I'm not a Trusted User (they know much more stuff than I do about packages), >> but in my opinion the name choices were wrong in the first place. >> >> You may want to go through the trouble of warning your users about the >> future name changes, then ask here to make it happen. >> >> Of course it's annoying for the end-users but if its for the better... why >> not. >> >> Most of us will quickly give a look in the AUR as soon as something break >> for an explanation. Just don't forget to write about it in the comments. >> >> Btw, does the other maintainer knows? >> >> On Jan 23, 2012, at 5:07 PM, Psychedelic Squid <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> -- SNIP -- > > Yes, the wrong name choices are why both myself and timttmy would prefer > them to be changed (he made a previous attempt at some time around the > 26th of Oct last year[1], but somehow the package just ended up with > a different version number. I'm not 100% sure why). > > I was hoping there was some way to have AUR wrappers understand that the > packages had renamed, but I had suspected that there wasn't anything of > that nature. Ah well. > > Anyway, I'll get on with making sure people are reasonably aware of the > name change, then post a follow-up here once it should be safe to do the > rename. > > Thanks for the help! > > > [1] see the comments on <https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=42734>
