Thanks for all your suggestions I will build the package myself from source.
> 2021. febr. 28. dátummal, 17:38 időpontban Ralf Mardorf via aur-general > <aur-general@lists.archlinux.org> írta: > > On Sun, 28 Feb 2021 17:22:26 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote: >>> On Sun, 28 Feb 2021 14:44:57 +0000, Jonathon Fernyhough via aur-general >>> wrote: >>> On 28/02/2021 04:45, Ralf Mardorf via aur-general wrote: >>>> It might be unnecessary to build "the single `hugo` binary", but >>>> it's sort of necessary to build a package, at least if you prefer a >>>> well-structured over a poorly structured Arch Linux install. >>> >>> My point, supporting the discussion so far, was that building hugo >>> from source is not necessary to get the latest release in advance of >>> the package being updated. Download it, make it executable, run it. >>> >>> Nowhere did I say that using the existing PKGBUILD and building the >>> package locally was a bad idea. However, it's certainly not >>> necessary. >> >> For example: >> >> >> https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/tree/PKGBUILD?h=katamari >> >> depends=('hugo') >> >> >> It's still not necessary to build a hugo package, if you build the >> katamari package by not listing hugo as a dependency, or by building an >> empty dummy package for hugo. It's possible to maintain an Arch Linux >> install by this approach to some extent, without running into >> trouble. It's asking for trouble, if this approach does gain the upper >> hand. > > Or to make it even more fishy, don't remove the existing hugo package, > just overwrite the file(s) or even keep two versions and just override > the obsolete version via PATH. Where shall we end up?
