Moin Jürgen, sorry I'm a bit stubborn, narrow-minded and learn-resistant here. ;) Am 23.10.2022 23:51 schrieb BiT dev:
$ yay -Ss backintime aur/backintime-git 1.3.1.r1.ge1ae23dd-2 (+27 0.01) Simple backup/snapshot system inspired by Flyback and TimeVault. Qt5 GUI version. aur/backintime-cli-git 1.3.1.r1.ge1ae23dd-2 (+27 0.01) Simple backup/snapshot system inspired by Flyback and TimeVault. CLI version. aur/ba ckintime-cli 1.3.2-2 (+287 1.81) Simple backup system inspired from the Flyback Project and TimeVault. CLI version. aur/backintime 1.3.2-2 (+287 1.81) Simple backup system inspired from the Flyback Project and TimeVault. QT5 GUI version.
Ah, two versions not four. Just the usual qt/cli separation in two versions. I know that Arch is rolling and doesn't have a major version number. But maybe the 27 and 28 indicates something like the "current stable" and "the previous/old stable"?
I'm not sure about all details. But it seems to me that this script does build an arch package with version "1.3.1.r1.ge1ae23dd" in it's name but use the current upstream master for that. This is a bug on Arch side.
This irritated me too. The version in the display name is not used to pull from Git,
We should open a bug report about that at Arch to investigate this further and to get feedback from the distro maintainers. There must be (good) reasons why the do it that way and we should learn that. But IMHO distros shouldn't do that. No matter that there users now offers us with upstream bug reports because they involuntarily and unknowingly do test the latest upstream code in there distros.
as developer I am happy to get early feed-back as soon as possible to fix bugs timely.
I agree and see your point. From my point of view I see two bugs mixed here. At one side the distro specific Arch/AUR package is buggy. That is not our business except for just opening a ticket about that. Can you open a ticket against that AUR package and link it in #1333 please? But because of that bug we luckily received another bug report that indicates problems with our upstream-master code. Every time I read something about "distro" (e.g. the tag "distro-specific") in our Issues I'm confused. In that case I assume that is not for upstream and should thrown back to the distro maintainer and the ticket system there. Maybe this is a good Issue to learn for me why "distro-specific" tag is useful for us. Why? ;) Kind Christian