Package Details: pencil-git 3.0.3.r167.g043ca48-1

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/pencil-git.git (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: pencil-git
Description: An open-source GUI prototyping tool
Upstream URL: http://pencil.evolus.vn/
Licenses: GPL2
Conflicts: pencil
Provides: pencil
Replaces: evolus-pencil-devel-git, evolus-pencil-git, evolus-pencil-git-dev-branch, evolus-pencil-svn
Submitter: elia-defcon7
Maintainer: elia-defcon7 (stativ)
Last Packager: alerque
Votes: 54
Popularity: 0.000074
First Submitted: 2021-08-14 16:21 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2021-08-14 17:19 (UTC)

Latest Comments

1 2 3 4 5 6 Next › Last »

FabioLolix commented on 2021-08-14 19:23 (UTC)

I'm aware of pencil-v2, it can simply conflicts pencil (like it does now). A package that specifically is for pencil (v3) can use depends=(pencil) while one that target pencil v2 can use depends=(pencil2)

alerque commented on 2021-08-14 18:04 (UTC)

I just had a look upstream and I think the tag situation is correct. The v3.1.0 release upstream was made on the master branch and includes some things that are NOT in development branch, hence not having that as an ancestor. This r167 is correct relative to the last release that had a common ancestor commit, so I think this is probably the best compromise. The only other way to to it would be munge the repo to fake the tag location, but that probably isn't wise. I would suggest encouraging upstream to merge the master branch into development to get the differences and provide a point to count ancestry from again.

alerque commented on 2021-08-14 17:56 (UTC) (edited on 2021-08-14 17:58 (UTC) by alerque)

Using git describe --long --tags at the moment isn't an improvement since last version is 3.1.0 not 3.0.3

If you post a patch here I'll review as well. I didn't think twice since that's what the pencil package was versioned at but it could be out of date. In the current tag not the right type or something?

Also don't see the need to have =$pkgver in provides=()

Yes, there could be such a need. Without that the provide data is just bare package name with no version data at all. This is different that say what the pencil package puts in the packaging system with both it's name and version. In many cases the version is not important, but since we also have a pencil-v2 package (should be pencil2 but that's for another place) in the mix, it seems like setting the version could be important. Somebody could setup their system to specifically depend on pencil<3 or pencil>=3 and in order for this VCS package to be considered as an alternative it needs to register the version it provides.

It's almost always a good idea to include this in provides. The thing is it's very hard for other packages to accommodate the lack of this information when the need arises but very easy to provide ahead of time for when it might be useful.

FabioLolix commented on 2021-08-14 17:28 (UTC)

Hello alerque, I also send a mail to Elia with some fixes,

Using git describe --long --tags at the moment isn't an improvement since last version is 3.1.0 not 3.0.3

Also don't see the need to have =$pkgver in provides=()

alerque commented on 2021-08-14 17:23 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, after merging several packages into this I took the liberty of fixing some obviously broken windows. The provide/conflicts/replaces were all wrong and with so many package name changes I figured it was worth setting the record straight on those ASAP. You don't need to provide/conflict every iteration of the package, just the main stable version of the package. The inter-relations will be figured out from there. The replaces is only for the things that this exactly obsoletes, not other alternatize (e.g. use it for all the old VCS package names but not for -bin package alternatives).

Also I fixed the pkgver() function to return a sensible value relative to the stable tags (i.e. that can be compared using vercmp against the pencil package version) and added that to the provides as well.

Good luck!

alerque commented on 2021-08-14 14:34 (UTC)

@elia-defcon7 I've looked into this further and see there is a pencil package for the stable tags of this and nothing in particular blocking that namespace. This should actually be called pencil-git to match (with provides/replaces for the evolus- prefixed iterations like this. I would like to suggest you post your Git build of this using the development branch under that name and then file a merge request for this package into that one and I'll approve that, then add stativ as a co-maintainer for good measure. That will get this mess cleaned up even faster than waiting for the orphan request.

elia-defcon7 commented on 2021-08-12 08:01 (UTC)

Same as last comment - I've added a new AUR package that tracks the currently active development branch of evolus/pencil @ github -

https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/evolus-pencil-git-dev-branch/

annguyenfoss commented on 2019-09-10 07:55 (UTC)

I think this AUR package is meant for master branch. Thus, I have forked this AUR into https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/evolus-pencil-devel-git/.

Anyone who may be suffering the annoying issue with saving file can use the -devel-git above.

lysergia commented on 2019-08-15 14:06 (UTC)

I think this should be using the development branch:

https://github.com/evolus/pencil/tree/development

stativ commented on 2017-07-30 16:26 (UTC)

Fixed & updated.