Hi, Eli and I disagree about how dependency conflicts should be handled when packaging. This was prompted by the libxfont dependency conflict arising from recent xorgproto changes .
My position in this case: it would be really easy to avoid this conflict, by adding libxfont to the Replaces() array of xorgproto. This would cause libxfont to be automatically uninstalled upon sysupgrade, which is nice because it's an obsolete and now-useless package. I think this kind of automatic handling of dependencies and obsolete packages is desirable whenever possible, precisely because it is *automated*. On the contrary, with the current libxfont/xorgproto situation, every Arch user has to spend time to *manually* fix the dependency issue (by removing libxfont). As packagers, I believe we have better things to do than purposefully waste the time of Arch users. Especially for dependency conflicts like this one, which is so trivial and boring: libxfont should clearly be deleted, and an Arch user will learn nothing interesting by having to manually fix the dependency issue. But it seems that this position is not shared by Eli (and possibly others), who thinks that Arch users should be able to figure out this kind of issues by themselves. I agree, but this is not a reason to force boring tasks on them, while we could have easily avoided the issue in the first place. If there are some existing rules or "traditions" that address this question, please provide pointers. Otherwise, I would like to know if there is a consensus one way or the other. Thanks, Baptiste  https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/57495
Description: PGP signature