On Mon, 2016-09-12 at 21:33 -0400, Eli Schwartz wrote: > On 09/12/2016 06:51 PM, Allan McRae wrote: > > > > This discussion has nothing to do with Arch. It is about whether > > this > > feature needs implemented in pacman. > > Which of course it doesn't. All we need is for the kernel maintainer > to > start packaging a dummy linux package that depends on linux-$pkgver > packages. > > As originally recommended by the bugtracker item which spawned this > odd > thread. > > ... > > I am not quite sure what is currently blocking such a resolution, but > that is already supposedly being discussed on the bugtracker. > > Meanwhile let us listen to people proposing convoluted workarounds > that > evade the issue entirely and are far less likely to actually be > accepted...
What about adding a new option to pacman's '-D, --database' operator which would enable users to rename packages and add a corresponding provide field. This would empower everyone to decide on their own which packages they want in different versions and which they don't want. Pacman would handle file conflicts as usual without introducing a new kind of packages. Plus it would avoid discussions about which package should be a dummy package and which shouldn't be. Best Regards, Gordian Edenhofer
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
