On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Diego Ferigo <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi guys! > I have a propose for pacman/makepkg...Now I'm going to explain my idea... > > In AUR there are some problems regarding the dependencies > management...Particularly when a package, that from this moment I'll call * > subpackage*, is a part of another package, that I'll call > *main_package*(example gnome-python-desktop and python-wnck). > > It would be nice if the maintainer of the subpackage could add a field * > provided* (or another name), that point out to the package that contains > it... > > Obliviously the 2 packages go in conflict because they share the same > files..Now the solution is to add a provides field in the main_package, done > by his maintainer...The maintainer of the main_package has to add a new > object in provides array, every new subpackage created. > > This new field, provided, get the main_package maintainer off to this > change, and it give the duty to the subpackage maintainer. I opened a bug > some weeks ago, requesting the add of provides= in a extra package, but the > problem remained unsolved because AUR and repos are 2 different things. > > This method can solve a lot of dependencies problem that happened (to me) in > this period...And it is more kiss imho.... > > What do you think?
I'm not sure I agree. What we have now works well for almost all situations and this new field would add yet some more trickyness to the mix- we already have provides and conflicts, I'd rather not have another. It seems like what we have here is a problem that is best solved at the packaging level, by either of the packages, rather than by adding another option. What good is it to have half of an [extra] package in the AUR? -Dan
