On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Ionut Biru <ibiru@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 06/24/2012 11:37 PM, Ronald van Haren wrote:
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 10:23 PM, Ionut Biru <ibiru@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 06/24/2012 11:10 PM, Ronald van Haren wrote:
I'd like to move 2.00 to [core] via [testing] when it is released, letting the grub-bios (atm grub2-bios) replace the old grub package. Adding an install message and a news item is probably a good idea at the time.
Do not replace grub. Most users won't read the pacman output and the configuration syntax was changed, resulting in a non booting system.
Let them move to grub-bios.
Well sure, but grub-bios will be part of the grub group. Won't it automatically replace the grub package with the group in that case?
Ronald
I don't believe that pacman replaces a package with a group. Do we really need a group called grub? What's the use case for that?
-- Ionuț
sorry I meant pkgbase
Ronald
it's fine to have pkgbase=grub.
I'm not sure but I think that the devtools and/or dbscripts expects PKGBUILDs to be in $pkgbase/trunk/ in the svn repo. If that is correct, you can't have both a grub package and a grub pkgbase, unless they are provided by the same PKGBUILD.
-- Ionuț