Created attachment 777728 [details] dev-lang/julia-bin versions https://packages.gentoo.org/packages/dev-lang/julia-bin says: > It seems that version 1.7.2 is available upstream, while the latest version in the Gentoo tree is 1.6.5. But there is =dev-lang/julia-bin-1.7.1, also. Bug?
soko=# select * from outdated_packages where atom = 'dev-lang/julia-bin'; atom | gentoo_version | newest_version --------------------+----------------+---------------- dev-lang/julia-bin | 1.6.5 | 1.7.2 (1 row) Seems like a data bug; the gentoo_version should be 1.7.1. Problem with the feed?
Outdated Changelog example: https://packages.gentoo.org/packages/net-misc/rclone/changelog vs https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/log/net-misc/rclone (5 commits after f90926b committed on 2 May 2022).
Also: * https://packages.gentoo.org/packages/added is outdated/broken (last is 5 June 2022), * https://packages.gentoo.org/packages/updated is empty, * https://packages.gentoo.org/packages/stable is totally strange, * https://packages.gentoo.org/packages/keyworded is empty.
We've redeployed it, more or less. Seems to be working now?
No, at least first comment is actual.
Moreover, one more case: https://packages.gentoo.org/packages/app-laptop/tuxedo-keyboard : Version 6.0.9-3.0.9 is available upstream. Please consider updating! It seems that version 6.0.9-3.0.9 is available upstream, while the latest version in the Gentoo tree is 3.0.10. $ cd gentoo && git ls-files app-laptop/tuxedo-keyboard app-laptop/tuxedo-keyboard/Manifest app-laptop/tuxedo-keyboard/metadata.xml app-laptop/tuxedo-keyboard/tuxedo-keyboard-3.0.10-r1.ebuild $ cd tuxedo-keyboard && git tag -l | sort -V | tail -n 2 v3.1.0 v3.1.1
That's an invalid version in Repology. You can report it to be ignored for such calculations in Repology. The message you're quoting also says, "You think this warning is false? Read more about it here." with a link to: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/b793f4da5a5b5e20a063ea431500a820 Which says, "This is because we currently take information about outdated package versions from repology.org, which are not always accurate." We can't make Repology perfect from soko.
(In reply to John Helmert III from comment #7) > That's an invalid version in Repology. You can report it to be ignored for > such calculations in Repology. > > The message you're quoting also says, "You think this warning is false? Read > more about it here." with a link to: > > https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/ > b793f4da5a5b5e20a063ea431500a820 > > Which says, "This is because we currently take information about outdated > package versions from repology.org, which are not always accurate." > > We can't make Repology perfect from soko. John, ok. But at least the first comment is not about Repology.
Ok, let's consider as fixed. Will reopen on fresh examples.
Interesting that `dev-lang/julia-bin` (`1.8.3`) shows "consider updating to 1.8.5" while `dev-lang/julia` (`1.8.3-r2`) doesn't. `metadata.xml` are the same. Not in `ignored-packages`.
Alec, could you, please, check the situation of the previous comment via soko's database? Thanks!
