On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 06:57:33PM -0500, Doug Newgard wrote:
On 2014-04-30 17:20, Lukas Fleischer wrote:
A first release candidate of the AUR 3.0.0 has been released! You can give it a try at [1]. Note that due to internal changes, the setup at aur-dev.archlinux.org uses a different database than aur.archlinux.org. You should be able login using your regular AUR account, though.
The most important changes are:
* Full split package support. * Support for {make,check,opt}depends, conflicts, provides, ... * Full support for the new fields in the RPC interface. * Metadata support. Use mkaurball instead of `makepkg --source` to generate source tarballs for the AUR`. You can get it from [2] -- it will eventually be moved to [community].
Note that in order to obtain the new fields, you need to request the new version of the RPC API explicitly, like this:
https://aur-dev.archlinux.org/rpc.php?type=info&arg=pass&v=2
Otherwise, the replies default to the old format for compatibility reasons.
Please report any bugs to the AUR bug tracker [3].
[1] https://aur-dev.archlinux.org/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/pkgbuild-introspection-git/ [3] https://bugs.archlinux.org/index.php?project=2
It appears that pkgbase is now the important part of a PKGBUILD,
But note that it doesn't need to be included. Same as makepkg, it defaults to pkgname[0] if it isn't defined.
that's what people would be requesting deletion or merging on? Makes merges a bit tough, since you can't upload a PKGBUILD with a different pkgbase but an overlapping pkgname.
You'd be referring to the package by its pkgbase, since that's the unifying factor. If 'foo' is split into 'python-foo' and 'python2-foo', you wouldn't ask to merge/delete 'python-foo' or 'python2-foo'. This doesn't make sense -- you'd just upload a new source tarball with the modification. I don't understand your concern over overlapping pkgnames. If you want to take ownership of existing packages, you should be asking for the package to be disowned, not merged, same as today.