On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Martti Kühne <[email protected]> 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 on the > old package name will be broken. > > I assumed package deps are stored as package IDs (the proper way) not names, but I've checked the db and you are right. > On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Daenyth Blank <[email protected]> > wrote: > > This patch leaves the pkgname in the PKGBUILD as the old name. > > Probably not an issue, but the maintainer would have to submit an > > updated PKGBUILD after the name change. > > > > That also seems to be valid for the dependencies=() array in depending > PKGBUILDs. > I suggest allowing renaming a package and marking it as out of date at > the same time to have the PKGBUILD updated. Also all packages that > depend on the renamed package should be marked out of date with an > automatic comment that the dependency was renamed. > > This seems reasonable. One question: What user should the automatic comment belong to? Is there something like a pseudo user? An alternative would be parsing every PKGBUILD that has the package in deps/makedeps and updating them, but that would mean altering packages without the knowledge/consent of the maintainer. If no one has a better suggestion, I'll implement Martti's idea and re-submit the patch. > regards > mar77i >
