On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Lukas Fleischer <[email protected]>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 <[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. > > There are a lot of dependencies that do not exist in the AUR > (dependencies that reside in the binary repos and probably a few ones > that do not exist anywhere at all). We used to use package IDs and a > dummy package concept to fix this but just storing package names is way > better. See also [1]. > > I see your point. I guess it makes sense. > > > 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 I suggest allowing renaming a package and marking it as out of date at 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 depend on the renamed package should be marked out of date with an 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. > > 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. > > Discussed? As in a single patch with no comments? :) Anyway, I think that patch has a good idea behind it and maybe I can implement such an alert under this. I'm also against sending lots of unneeded alerts (we all remember the "I'm a robot" comments) but I think this is one of those places that it is justified. > [1] http://projects.archlinux.org/aur.git/commit/?id=7c91c592 > [2] http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-dev/2011-March/001459.html > To everyone saying asking for action from maintainers is a bad idea: We'd be asking to simply rename a dependency in their PKGUBILDs. Is that really that much work?
