On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Lukas Fleischer wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 04:47:16PM +0300, Evangelos Foutras wrote:
> > On 1 June 2011 16:04, D. Can Celasun wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Daenyth Blank >wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 05:32, Alexander Rødseth
>
On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 04:47:16PM +0300, Evangelos Foutras wrote:
> On 1 June 2011 16:04, D. Can Celasun wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Daenyth Blank wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 05:32, Alexander Rødseth wrote:
> >> > I like both the idea of it being possible to change the
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 8:01 PM, Alexander Rødseth wrote:
> I think renaming a package should be slightly cumbersome, and not that
> easy.
> Just one rename has the potential to create work for dozens of package
> maintainers because of dependency issues.
> Let's say that maintainers has to upload
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Lukas Fleischer wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 04:13:09PM +0300, D. Can Celasun wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Martti Kühne wrote:
> >
> > > > I'm glad the patch looks fine, though I'm not sure I understand the
> issue
> > > > about dependencies?
> >
I have not mentioned this here for a while, but I am a big fan of seeing
what the Arch community is developing, and in the past I have gotten some
real interest from the Arch community on this front.
I just released Salt 0.8.8, salt is an application used for very fast remote
management of systems
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Lukas Fleischer
wrote:
> Automatic notification on dependency breakage has been discussed on
> aur-dev before [2] (well, sort of :p )... Still not sure if we're gonna
> implement this. I'd like to avoid making the AUR send out alerts for
> various stuff.
>
+1 on av
I think renaming a package should be slightly cumbersome, and not that easy.
Just one rename has the potential to create work for dozens of package
maintainers because of dependency issues.
Let's say that maintainers has to upload 10 updated packages per
rename, and that there are 10 renames a day,
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 7:48 PM, Ray Rashif wrote:
> On 1 June 2011 23:36, Jakob Gruber wrote:
> > On 06/01/2011 05:26 PM, D. Can Celasun wrote:
> >>
> >> Actually, it is still possible. Here's how it'd work:
> >>
> >> - TU changes package name from foo to bar.
> >> - This automatically triggers
On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 04:13:09PM +0300, D. Can Celasun wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Martti Kühne wrote:
>
> > > I'm glad the patch looks fine, though I'm not sure I understand the issue
> > > about dependencies?
> > >
> >
> > Well, AUR packages can depend on other AUR packages. If a
On 1 June 2011 23:36, Jakob Gruber wrote:
> On 06/01/2011 05:26 PM, D. Can Celasun wrote:
>>
>> Actually, it is still possible. Here's how it'd work:
>>
>> - TU changes package name from foo to bar.
>> - This automatically triggers an out-of-date notification (and an
>> explanation comment) for al
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 6:36 PM, Jakob Gruber wrote:
> On 06/01/2011 05:26 PM, D. Can Celasun wrote:
>
>>
>> Actually, it is still possible. Here's how it'd work:
>>
>> - TU changes package name from foo to bar.
>> - This automatically triggers an out-of-date notification (and an
>> explanation co
On 06/01/2011 05:26 PM, D. Can Celasun wrote:
Actually, it is still possible. Here's how it'd work:
- TU changes package name from foo to bar.
- This automatically triggers an out-of-date notification (and an
explanation comment) for all packages that depend on foo.
- Everyone updates their pac
2011/6/1 Lukáš Jirkovský
> >
> >
> > Possible, but is it really necessary? How is this different than the
> > original approach (TU changes the name, maintainer updates the PKGBUILD)
> ?
> >
>
> With this approach it is much easier to implement a transition period
> when the other packages can up
>
>
> Possible, but is it really necessary? How is this different than the
> original approach (TU changes the name, maintainer updates the PKGBUILD) ?
>
With this approach it is much easier to implement a transition period
when the other packages can update their dependencies. Assume that the
pac
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Evangelos Foutras wrote:
> On 1 June 2011 17:23, Evangelos Foutras wrote:
> > On 1 June 2011 17:03, D. Can Celasun wrote:
> >> Possible, but is it really necessary? How is this different than the
> >> original approach (TU changes the name, maintainer updates the
On 1 June 2011 17:03, D. Can Celasun wrote:
> Possible, but is it really necessary? How is this different than the
> original approach (TU changes the name, maintainer updates the PKGBUILD) ?
The main advantage is that the new package gets uploaded before the
name change, meaning there won't be a
On 1 June 2011 17:23, Evangelos Foutras wrote:
> On 1 June 2011 17:03, D. Can Celasun wrote:
>> Possible, but is it really necessary? How is this different than the
>> original approach (TU changes the name, maintainer updates the PKGBUILD) ?
>
> The main advantage is that the new package gets up
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Evangelos Foutras wrote:
> On 1 June 2011 16:04, D. Can Celasun wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Daenyth Blank >wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 05:32, Alexander Rødseth
> wrote:
> >> > I like both the idea of it being possible to change the names
On 1 June 2011 16:04, D. Can Celasun wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Daenyth Blank wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 05:32, Alexander Rødseth wrote:
>> > I like both the idea of it being possible to change the names of
>> > packages and the patch.
>> > But, what about dependencies? Shou
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 4:35 PM, Martti Kühne wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 3:13 PM, D. Can Celasun wrote:
> >> This seems reasonable. One question: What user should the automatic
> comment
> > belong to? Is there something like a pseudo user?
>
> The best choice would be the maintainer of the
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 3:13 PM, D. Can Celasun wrote:
>> This seems reasonable. One question: What user should the automatic comment
> belong to? Is there something like a pseudo user?
The best choice would be the maintainer of the package that is being
renamed. It's also the guy to be held respo
On 1 June 2011 16:13, Mark Foxwell wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The package xarchiver-xz-support [1] is a duplicate of xarchiver-xz [2] and
> should be deleted.
Removed, thanks.
Hi,
The package xarchiver-xz-support [1] is a duplicate of xarchiver-xz [2] and
should be deleted.
Kind Regards,
Mark
[1] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=48625
[2] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=45726
pgpRag6CEEcxo.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Martti Kühne wrote:
> > I'm glad the patch looks fine, though I'm not sure I understand the issue
> > about dependencies?
> >
>
> Well, AUR packages can depend on other AUR packages. If an AUR package
> is renamed which is itself a dependency, packages that depend
> I'm glad the patch looks fine, though I'm not sure I understand the issue
> about dependencies?
>
Well, AUR packages can depend on other AUR packages. If an AUR package
is renamed which is itself a dependency, packages that depend on the
old package name will be broken.
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 3
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Daenyth Blank wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 05:32, Alexander Rødseth wrote:
> > I like both the idea of it being possible to change the names of
> > packages and the patch.
> > But, what about dependencies? Should they be left dangling?
> >
> > - Alexander Rødset
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 05:32, Alexander Rødseth wrote:
> I like both the idea of it being possible to change the names of
> packages and the patch.
> But, what about dependencies? Should they be left dangling?
>
> - Alexander Rødseth
>
This patch leaves the pkgname in the PKGBUILD as the old name
Hi,
>> I maintain the kernel26-ck in the AUR.
>
> It's not possible. You'll need to submit the new package to AUR, then
> send a note on this ML to have the old one removed.
>
I had the same question for kernel26-source[1]. Thanks for the advice.
Cheers,
Emmanuel
[1] : http://aur.archlinux.org/
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Alexander Rødseth wrote:
> I like both the idea of it being possible to change the names of
> packages and the patch.
> But, what about dependencies? Should they be left dangling?
>
> - Alexander Rødseth
>
I'm glad the patch looks fine, though I'm not sure I under
I like both the idea of it being possible to change the names of
packages and the patch.
But, what about dependencies? Should they be left dangling?
- Alexander Rødseth
---
web/html/packages.php|2 ++
web/lib/pkgfuncs.inc | 29 +
web/template/pkg_details.php | 17 -
3 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/web/html/packages.php b/web/html/packages.php
index abc6637..9077ce2
31 matches
Mail list logo
