On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Peter Lewis <ple...@aur.archlinux.org>wrote:
> On Friday 25 February 2011 11:12:15 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. > > Can't remember where I read this being discussed, but I'm pretty sure that > no > package in [core], [extra] or [community] should reference anything in the > AUR. > > Pete. > Right, if there is a package that is depending on an AUR package from a supported repo than it is a bug and can be reported. -Thomas S Hatch