Open filmor opened 2 weeks ago
Hi, I was considering this myself lately, I agree.
Would the following changes make sense to you?
epoch-1.0.0-alpha.1
tag, just noticed in the cosmic repos)I would avoid adding date-based ebuilds, because I would need to regenerate the list of crates in each ebuild at a different date, and anyway COSMIC is not shipping in date-based increments.
That's all fine. The date-based approach was not meant to imply that there are date-based releases. It was just meant to provide an increasing version number such that newer versions can be installed sooner. This is the approach that the Fedora COPR uses (1.0.0-<date>git<commit-hash>
).
The only problem with using the tags on the epoch repo is that there doesn't seem to be a lot of tagging activity right now. Looks more like they are running the alpha in a rolling release fashion.
I've published 1.0.0_alpha1
ebuilds, and 9999
ebuilds now point to master
branch.
I've tried to compile both sets and they seem to be working fine. Note that I haven't rechecked yet for possible packaging changes (installed files).
I'll leave this open for feedback, let me know if you have issues.
It's currently not really possible to update Cosmic packages, as
EGIT_COMMIT
changes are not represented in the version. Live ebuilds (9999 version) are expected to not be tied to a particular commit. Since this is not the case,smart-live-rebuild
will not detect changes.emerge @live-rebuild
is blunt in that it just unconditionally recompiles everything.I would suggest to either
20240909
)9999-r3
)