Community Packages

Please read this before reporting a bug:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Bug_reporting_guidelines

Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.

REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
Tasklist

FS#61138 - [libxpresent] the version in [community] is older than the one on AUR

Attached to Project: Community Packages
Opened by Chih-Hsuan Yen (yan12125) - Thursday, 20 December 2018, 11:50 GMT
Last edited by Balló György (City-busz) - Friday, 04 October 2019, 14:51 GMT
Task Type Bug Report
Category Packages
Status Closed
Assigned To Brad Fanella (cesura)
Architecture All
Severity Low
Priority Normal
Reported Version
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 0
Private No

Details

Description:
I got the following warning with `pacman -Syu`:

warning: libxpresent: local (1.0.0+3+g9d31d21-1) is newer than community (1.0.0-1)

If you really want 1.0.0 instead of 1.0.0+3+g9d31d21, use epoch.


Additional info:
* libxpresent 1.0.0


Steps to reproduce:
1. Installed libxpresent from AUR before today
2. Run `pacman -Syu` after libxpresent is added to [community]
This task depends upon

Closed by  Balló György (City-busz)
Friday, 04 October 2019, 14:51 GMT
Reason for closing:  Not a bug
Comment by Antonio Rojas (arojas) - Thursday, 20 December 2018, 11:55 GMT
AUR is unsupported
Comment by Chih-Hsuan Yen (yan12125) - Thursday, 20 December 2018, 11:58 GMT
So users should downgrade this package manually?
Comment by Antonio Rojas (arojas) - Thursday, 20 December 2018, 12:02 GMT
As far as Arch is concerned it is a new package. If users have some other unsupported version installed, be it from AUR or from somewhere else, it's their job to fix it, yes. Pacman warns about it so it's not like things are going to silently break.
Comment by Brad Fanella (cesura) - Thursday, 20 December 2018, 12:26 GMT
I don't see anything wrong with the versioning scheme. This package is built from a release tarball rather than the git snapshot that the AUR PKGBUILD used. If anything, *that* one was improperly named and should have included a "-git" suffix to indicate that it was pulling from a VCS repository, no? An "epoch" would technically work, but the packaging guidelines highly recommend against using it unless absolutely necessary, and I don't personally feel like this is a situation that warrants it (others can feel free chime in of course).
Comment by Chih-Hsuan Yen (yan12125) - Thursday, 20 December 2018, 12:42 GMT
> As far as Arch is concerned it is a new package. If users have some other unsupported version installed, be it from AUR or from somewhere else, it's their job to fix it, yes. Pacman warns about it so it's not like things are going to silently break.

Got it. Thanks for the answer!

> I don't personally feel like this is a situation that warrants it (others can feel free chime in of course).

In my opinion that forces transition from the AUR package with the same name and ensures the official package is installed. Not a big deal, though. Feel free to close the ticket if you're not going to do that.

Loading...