Arch Linux User Repository

So, why hide the DFHack version in the PKGBUILD other than to hide the fact that you're pushing betas in a so called stable package? The upstream URL even has the word "stable" in it.

Sleedy, the operative word in your quote is "built". DFHack does not require a version of DF to build, only to run.

It is trivially easy for users that want to use the betas to do so. By pushing betas in a package that doesn't make it obvious that they're betas, you make it harder for those that don't want to use betas to avoid them.

@Ziusudra The link you refer to states the following:

Stable packages package stable releases: Release candidates (i.e. 1.0.0-rc1), alpha (e.g. 1.0.0-alpha1) and beta (e.g. 1.0.0-beta1) releases are not allowed and are only to be used under the following circumstances:

• [...]

• The non-stable release allows for the package to be built (e.g. problems introduced due to updated dependencies) and those changes can not otherwise be backported easily.

Pushed the new version a few hours ago. I've been making AUR releases for the beta's in the past as well, so I'll keep on doing that.

It having been done in the past does not make it ok, in my opinion.

It currently builds just fine, and runs fine with the matching DF version, it just doesn't run with the updated DF, which is what holding a package in pacman.conf is for.

The -git package conflict is there in case anyone does make that package, which anyone is welcome to do.

If you check the version history, you can see that in the past beta packages were released and even alpha packages. In my opinion,it is correct to do so because the current package can not be built due to upgraded dependencies (DF itself). But it's your call. Please also note that though a dfhack-git package is mentioned in conflicts, such a package does not actually exist.

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_package_guidelines#Package_versioning

So that page specifies that "Stable packages package stable releases" and the current beta release does not qualify for any of the exceptions.

FYI, 0.47.04-7 is a new release for the previous version of DF, a new release for the current version is coming. The impatient can install DF manually and install an unstable DFHack build on that. See https://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/DF2014:Installation#Manual_or_multiple_installations and https://dfhack.org/builds/

The issues with DFHack being unable to write files has been fixed upstream¹ and a new release should be available soon. The impatient could install DF+DFHack manually: https://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/DF2014:Installation#Manual_or_multiple_installations

¹ https://github.com/DFHack/dfhack/issues/1671

I think I found the root of the issue. I had an old version of cmake in the system. Indeed I have the newest version installed by pacman, but the system, for some reason, still has an old binary file (cmake version 3.4.1) of cmake in /usr/local/bin directory. I just moved it to /usr/local/bin/cmake.bak, reinstalled the cmake, and all worked.

I am not sure how it happens, but I suspect the Antergos linux. Just before the Antergos died, I installed it on the machine as an experiment. After it falls, I did not reinstall the system - I just migrated to a clean arch. It looks like there are still some leftovers.

Sorry for the confusion, and thanks for your fantastic support. I am amazed at how helpful and responsive the dwarf-fortress related community is ;)

Thanks. I will try to dig deeper later, maybe I will figure out something. The interesting part is that no other applications give me problems with installation/update on this OS.

The second interesting part is that I have installed DFHack before using yay -, but I can not update it to the newer version.

Thanks for your support.