On 5/7/07, Aaron Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/7/07, Pierre Schmitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Am Montag, 7. Mai 2007 22:27:45 schrieb Dan McGee:
> > > If there are no objections in the next half-day or so, we (Aaron and
> > > I) would like to push pacman 3 to current. This is the only possible
> > > showstopper I know of that is not fixed in 3.0.3:
> > > <http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/7063>
> > > It is easily patched on the package building end, rather than release
> > > a 3.0.4 release.
> > >
> > > Let us know ASAP if this shouldn't happen tonight.
> > >
> > > -Dan
> >
> > What about the serverside parts and communitypkg, AUR etc.? Do they work
> > with
> > the new naming scheme (including the architecture)?
>
> Not yet, and that's on purpose. At the rate people update we should
> probably wait a few weeks to ensure everyone is off of pacman 2.X.
> Think about it this way: if we change the repo format, pacman 2.X
> users wouldn't be able to upgrade to 3.0
I've said this elsewhere, but maybe I should tack it on this list too:
* The pacman package and its deps (libarchive, libdownload) should be
renamed for the foreseeable future to the old style name (without the
arch) on our server in order to allow people to upgrade these first,
and then upgrade the rest of their system.
* Package builders and maintainers should rename their packages for
now into a format that extrapkg and friends understand- that means
removing the arch for now. I use this simple little bash alias to do
it for me; other options include manually editing the filename line in
makepkg (which I would recommend against).
makeoldname() {
mv $1 "${1%-*.pkg.tar.gz}.pkg.tar.gz"
}
-Dan
_______________________________________________
arch mailing list
[email protected]
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
