2011/6/1 Lukáš Jirkovský <l.jirkovsky@gmail.com>
Possible, but is it really necessary? How is this different than the original approach (TU changes the name, maintainer updates the PKGBUILD)
?
With this approach it is much easier to implement a transition period when the other packages can update their dependencies. Assume that the package foo is to be renamed to bar, but the package baz depends on foo. Maintainer of foo can upload a new package bar and notify the maintainer of baz to update the dependency. When the depends array in baz is corrected to refer bar instead of foo, the package foo can be deleted and its votes transfered to bar.
If the the rename is done in place this would not be possible. Therefore I support Evangelos' idea rather than in place rename.
Lukas
Actually, it is still possible. Here's how it'd work: - TU changes package name from foo to bar. - This automatically triggers an out-of-date notification (and an explanation comment) for all packages that depend on foo. - Everyone updates their packages to reflect the changes. Now all votes, comments and even notification lists are preserved without doing a single database query. I really don't think it gets more KISS than that.