On 09/22/2016 03:53 AM, Gordian Edenhofer wrote:
> I wouldn't assume that the user has done anything wrong, rather
> something with the system is wrong if one feels the need to 'backup'
Awesome, we must be in agreement, because I don't think people should
feel the need to backup package*s* either.
> Since one is intending to backup a package one should be highly aware
> of the purpose of the package.
What does that have to do with anything???
> The provide field makes sure that it is still treated the same. But to
> allow backups for all packages, the user has to live with them not
> being signed-off.
Okay. What about reinstalling this mysterious ghost-like package?
And when, precisely, did you decide that "backups for all packages" was
a desirable feature, rather than a highly kludgy workaround for the edge
case of the linux kernel?
> I dislike dummy packages and therefore would keep the current way of
> creating e.g. the linux package.
> If using dummy packages the main question becomes where to draw the
> line. You are currently referring to linux as "for that specific
> package" but what if users need different versions for another
> package... The system of everyone else would become more and more
> cluttered with dummy packages.
To add to my previous objections: Arch Linux doesn't believe in running
old software, and the linux is a unique exception whereby we don't want
to delete a currently-running kernel, the solution to which is not
"let's modify pacman".
Maybe the source of this confusion is, you should read the bugtracker to
see why this thread was initially proposed, and then decide if backing
up package*s* is a good solution.
Rather than presupposing it is a wanted feature. (feature creep)