Closed klemensn closed 7 months ago
Not sure what's appropiate here (ignore
or incorrect
?) and how that'd effect the listing.
Arch's package should still be listed and be comparable, but not cause others to seem outdated.
I maintain these packages on OpenBSD seeing them under https://repology.org/projects/?maintainer=kn@openbsd.org&inrepo=openbsd&outdated=1 despite matching upstream's latest releases is annoying.
FYI @kevku presuming you're the same kevku
mentioned as Arch's package maintainer:
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/libdigidocpp
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/qdigidoc4
It is the only system that adds a fourth version component to the official x.y.z schema, thus falsely marking other systems as outdated, e.g. Arch libdigidocpp-3.16.0.1442 vs. OpenBSD libdigidocpp-3.16.0.