On 1 June 2011 16:04, D. Can Celasun <dcelasun@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Daenyth Blank <daenyth+arch@gmail.com>wrote:
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 05:32, Alexander Rødseth <rodseth@gmail.com> wrote:
I like both the idea of it being possible to change the names of packages and the patch. But, what about dependencies? Should they be left dangling?
- Alexander Rødseth
This patch leaves the pkgname in the PKGBUILD as the old name. Probably not an issue, but the maintainer would have to submit an updated PKGBUILD after the name change.
Yeah I thought about that, but when the package name goes from "foo" to "bar", the maintainer might want to add replaces=("foo") etc. So it's probably best to leave it up to the maintainer.
An idea I wouldn't mind seeing implemented is the ability to transfer the votes and comments to another package when deleting the old package. For example, suppose the "foo" package gets a new name, say "bar". - Its maintainer uploads a new "bar" package with provides=('foo') and conflicts=('foo'). Then, they request the old package to be removed and at the same time mention the name of the new package. - A TU puts the name (or ID?) of the new package in a box next to the delete check box and proceeds to delete it. The votes and comments get reassigned to the new package. The above should work much better than any attempt to rename packages in place. We also avoid the issue that came up regarding the name mismatch in the PKGBUILD right after the package is renamed in the AUR database.