Lukas Fleischer wrote: > Well, I'm addressing current blacklisting issues with the AUR [1]. I > noticed that some of the packages in the official repos have AUR > packages as provides, some of them (well, at least one of them, didn't > search for more) were even added due to FRs [2]. Donnu if this applies > to [core] and [extra] as well. > > Is that regular practice? Imho, we shouldn't do that. The AUR is > something to be considered separately. If we start to care about > provides/conflicts with AUR packages, we'll need to add all > "-devel"/"-svn"/"-git"/"-beta" packages in the AUR to the official > packages conflicts and provides as well. And we'll need to start > searching for alternative repos to ensure there's no conflict with our > official packages. > > Seriously, we should be consistent here.
Maybe that's unintentional. It could be a simple matter of forgetting to update the PKGBUILD when moving the package from AUR to [community]. > The AUR is something to be considered separately. I agree that the two should be considered separate, but officially they're not: http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2011-February/013403.html