Re: [arch-general] What's happening about libdjvu?
I noticed this by compiling the package myself... When I sent this mail, the web page was not updated and I saw an old list of files that did not contain the .so file. I should have tried it first rather than relying on a presumably delayed response on the web site. Sorry for the false alarm.
Message: 6 Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 13:43:43 +0200 From: Thomas B?chler <thomas@archlinux.org> Subject: Re: [arch-general] What's happening about libdjvu? To: General Discussion about Arch Linux <arch-general@archlinux.org> Message-ID: <4CC0276F.9050906@archlinux.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15"
Am 21.10.2010 13:38, schrieb Auguste Pop:
For instance, /usr/lib/evince/3/backends/libdjvudocument.so from evince package links to /usr/lib/libdjvulibre.so.21, which would be removed if I update the system to allow djvulibre to replace libdjvu.
This is false, the djvulibre package contains this library.
Am 21.10.2010 15:56, schrieb Auguste Pop:
I noticed this by compiling the package myself... When I sent this mail, the web page was not updated and I saw an old list of files that did not contain the .so file. I should have tried it first rather than relying on a presumably delayed response on the web site. Sorry for the false alarm.
The update of the file list in the web interface might be delayed compared to the update of the package data itself. Dan, what can we do here? Should a version mismatch between $repo.db and $repo.files cause archweb to discard the file list, stating that "There is currently no file list available for this package", or should archweb print a warning "This is a file list from an older version of this package and might differ from the current package". Is anything like this already done in archweb? Should it? Right now, the delay between updating the package info and the file list can be (in the worst case) little over 24 hours. Given that our packages update and change frequently, I think we should avoid confusion like in Auguste's case.
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:
Am 21.10.2010 15:56, schrieb Auguste Pop:
I noticed this by compiling the package myself... When I sent this mail, the web page was not updated and I saw an old list of files that did not contain the .so file. I should have tried it first rather than relying on a presumably delayed response on the web site. Sorry for the false alarm.
The update of the file list in the web interface might be delayed compared to the update of the package data itself.
Dan, what can we do here? Should a version mismatch between $repo.db and $repo.files cause archweb to discard the file list, stating that "There is currently no file list available for this package", or should archweb print a warning "This is a file list from an older version of this package and might differ from the current package". Is anything like this already done in archweb? Should it?
Right now, the delay between updating the package info and the file list can be (in the worst case) little over 24 hours. Given that our packages update and change frequently, I think we should avoid confusion like in Auguste's case.
It's actually updated every 12 hours, and this is an extreme case. We shouldn't hide the filelist for all new packages when 90% of the time the list doesn't change. We can put a "this might be out of date" message there quite easily, I'll look into it sometime but a feature request/bug report would be awesome so I don't lose track of it. -Dan
Am 21.10.2010 17:29, schrieb Dan McGee:
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:
Right now, the delay between updating the package info and the file list can be (in the worst case) little over 24 hours. Given that our packages update and change frequently, I think we should avoid confusion like in Auguste's case.
It's actually updated every 12 hours, and this is an extreme case. We shouldn't hide the filelist for all new packages when 90% of the time the list doesn't change. We can put a "this might be out of date" message there quite easily, I'll look into it sometime but a feature request/bug report would be awesome so I don't lose track of it.
participants (3)
-
Auguste Pop
-
Dan McGee
-
Thomas Bächler