On Fri, 2011-02-25 at 14:42 -0700, Thomas S Hatch wrote:
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Peter Lewis <plewis@aur.archlinux.org>wrote:
On Friday 25 February 2011 11:12:15 Lukas Fleischer wrote:
Well, I'm addressing current blacklisting issues with the AUR [1]. I noticed that some of the packages in the official repos have AUR packages as provides, some of them (well, at least one of them, didn't search for more) were even added due to FRs [2]. Donnu if this applies to [core] and [extra] as well.
Is that regular practice? Imho, we shouldn't do that. The AUR is something to be considered separately. If we start to care about provides/conflicts with AUR packages, we'll need to add all "-devel"/"-svn"/"-git"/"-beta" packages in the AUR to the official packages conflicts and provides as well. And we'll need to start searching for alternative repos to ensure there's no conflict with our official packages.
Seriously, we should be consistent here.
Can't remember where I read this being discussed, but I'm pretty sure that no package in [core], [extra] or [community] should reference anything in the AUR.
Pete.
Right, if there is a package that is depending on an AUR package from a supported repo than it is a bug and can be reported.
-Thomas S Hatch
As I think has been previously mentioned, this probably happens with cleanups when packages are dropped? Because I don't think 'provides' gets checked, of course 'depends' and 'requires' does.