On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Ionut Biru <[email protected]> wrote: > On 06/24/2012 11:37 PM, Ronald van Haren wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 10:23 PM, Ionut Biru <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On 06/24/2012 11:10 PM, Ronald van Haren wrote: >>> >>>>>> I'd like to move 2.00 to [core] via [testing] when it is released, >>>>>> letting the grub-bios (atm grub2-bios) replace the old grub package. >>>>>> Adding an install message and a news item is probably a good idea at >>>>>> the time. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Do not replace grub. Most users won't read the pacman output and the >>>>> configuration syntax was changed, resulting in a non booting system. >>>>> >>>>> Let them move to grub-bios. >>>>> >>> >>>> Well sure, but grub-bios will be part of the grub group. Won't it >>>> automatically replace the grub package with the group in that case? >>>> >>>> Ronald >>>> >>> >>> I don't believe that pacman replaces a package with a group. Do we >>> really need a group called grub? What's the use case for that? >>> >>> -- >>> Ionuț >>> >>> >>> >> >> sorry I meant pkgbase >> >> Ronald >> > > it's fine to have pkgbase=grub.
I'm not sure but I think that the devtools and/or dbscripts expects PKGBUILDs to be in $pkgbase/trunk/ in the svn repo. If that is correct, you can't have both a grub package and a grub pkgbase, unless they are provided by the same PKGBUILD. > > -- > Ionuț > > >
