Ahoj, On Sun, 4 Aug 2024 16:24:19 +0200, Muflone <mufl...@archlinux.org> wrote:
> >>> I don't think there's anything to say that hasn't been said on the > >>> forums already. > >>> > >> I'm just a user, but I argue that just because the Chaotic-AUR > >> maintainers want to avoid epochs at all cost doesn't mean it's the > >> right thing to do. Yes, they should be used sparingly, I agree with > >> that. But I feel that the end-user experience is more important > >> than wanting a "clean" version number. > > given the answers that were given so far, and given that there is no > > authorative answer since 6 days, can I conclude that there is no > > authorative rule regarding the use of `$epoch` as questioned (only > > suggestions, but nothing that must be followed for an AUR package)?, > > and I can mentally "close" this issue? > > > Some answers in the forum were already given, the wiki itself for > PKGBUILD [1] states: > > > Used to force the package to be seen as newer than any previous > version with a lower epoch. > > > This is clear for anyone, its use covers exactly the cases where the > upstream version numbering changes or when the downstream version > number change would make the newer package with a version number > previous than the previous. For git packages the pkgver is set by > downstream in the PKGBUILD so it applies also to the previous > condition. > > There's not any exception for VCS packages (including -git of > course), so there's no reason for not applying the change (setting > the epoch) when the version numbering change, regardless being a VCS > package or not. OK. Can then you or anyone else with "authority" reach out to xiota if that really is true what you write? I do not dare & I am just a user. Regards!
pgpU7KPqMmqJf.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
