| 18 May 2025 |
 Grimmauld (any/all) | Okay, i give up-
Following package:
https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/blob/master/pkgs/by-name/sd/SDL_ttf/package.nix
We currently set the version "2.0.11.1-unstable-2024-04-23.
Upstream only has a tag for 2.0.11. They won't be tagging any more old versions for SDL_ttf for SDL1. But, canonically, we are on 2.0.11.1: https://github.com/libsdl-org/SDL_ttf/commit/e31d11a692e5b55e8e624ad766e4e44d655422c8
Currently, running the update script on SDL_ttf just crashes, because the 2.0.11.1 tag does not exist. But removing the .1 isn't entirely correct either. What is the best way to make the update script succeed and still correctly represent the version? | 21:17:46 |
 FliegendeWurst (@GPN23) | Removing the ".1" seems correct to me, we use the last released version in the unstable naming scheme. | 21:21:51 |
| FliegendeWurst (@GPN23) | And 2.0.11 is the last released version | 21:21:58 |
| Grimmauld (any/all) | pbsds said 2.0.11.1 was the actual version, but dropping the .1 would have been my solution too. It is common for release notes entries to be prepared before the tag (and edited later!). And https://repology.org/docs/requirements also explicitly says to do -post of tagged too:
Obviously, no fake versions, e.g. versions which were not officially released by upstream. Note that a mere mention of "next" version by upstream (in changelog or build system script) does not make it official. A git tag or a release announcement does.
| 21:23:36 |
 pbsds | just checked with repology, no one else cares about the .1 | 21:24:03 |
| Grimmauld (any/all) | As in:
- we can do whatever
- we should keep it
- we should drop it
- not required
- ???
| 21:25:29 |
| Grimmauld (any/all) | if we can drop the .1 then thats almost certainly the simplest and what i'd want to do | 21:25:54 |
| pbsds | i am agreeable to drop it | 21:26:06 |
| Grimmauld (any/all) | do they have a matrix/irc? | 21:26:58 |
| pbsds | https://repology.org/project/sdl-ttf/versions | 21:27:33 |
| pbsds | oh wait there are two distros | 21:28:05 |
| Grimmauld (any/all) | oh, that - yeah they mostly just set that ignored on nixpkgs becasue -unstable, not because .1. And they do not like the .1, or else it'd be green | 21:28:59 |
| pbsds | guix also has the .1 | 21:29:50 |
| 20 May 2025 |
|  kongrooparadox joined the room. | 21:45:47 |
| 21 May 2025 |
|  Philipp joined the room. | 18:20:24 |
| 22 May 2025 |
|  @surnamerefill:matrix.org joined the room. | 00:02:12 |
|  steeringwheelrules joined the room. | 04:44:26 |
|  tnias joined the room. | 11:00:51 |
|  Perchun Pak [don't ping; dm instead] changed their display name from Perchun Pak to Perchun Pak [don't ping; dm instead]. | 13:50:50 |
| 23 May 2025 |
|  divit joined the room. | 21:00:08 |
| 24 May 2025 |
| @surnamerefill:matrix.org left the room. | 20:07:59 |
| 25 May 2025 |
 ReecerTV | What should I do if ryantm thinks it has the latest version, but it's actually not the latest. Can I just close the PR? | 10:53:14 |
 Alyssa Ross | It'll update the PR next time it runs, if it finds the newer version then. | 10:54:22 |
| Alyssa Ross | I think if you close the PR but don't update the package it will open another one next time it finds a new version. | 10:54:45 |
| Alyssa Ross | Can you just update the package to the actual latest version, and then close the PR? | 10:54:58 |
| ReecerTV | In reply to @qyliss:fairydust.space
Can you just update the package to the actual latest version, and then close the PR? It is already updated to the latest version. | 10:57:33 |
| ReecerTV | https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/410686 | 10:58:17 |
| Alyssa Ross | And r-ryantm is trying to downgrade it? | 11:00:05 |
| Alyssa Ross | Right | 11:00:09 |
| Alyssa Ross | Yeah, since this looks like a one-off, just close the PR. | 11:00:16 |
