2008/1/11, Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych@gmail.com>:
2008/1/11, Dan McGee <dan@archlinux.org>:
We shouldn't have the stock config be Arch specific for a few reasons:
* Although it is our package, others should be able to use it * Keeping the mirrorlist coupled to the pacman package makes it hard to push updates to users without releasing a new copy of the pacman source
Signed-off-by: Dan McGee <dan@archlinux.org> --- In all our other removals of things before 3.1.0, I probably should have done this too. I'm debating whether to queue this up for 3.1.1 or 3.2.0. I'd appreciate any input you guys have on this.
This is the last thing in the code that is still tied tightly to Arch. I think a seperate 'core/mirrorlist' package would make a lot more sense here, or at least bundle it with filesystem or something. However, being its own package would be ideal becuase it could be version bumped at any time.
I think we can close FS#5885 after this (which means "yeah, bring it on!"). ;-) I think separate mirrorlist package is better than merging it with filesystem package - it will be more clear to users what pacman is trying to update. Of course, mirrorlist should be in a backup array. If user is satisfied with his/her (sorted) mirrorlist - he/she can just delete mirrorlist.pacnew. And 3.1.1 is perfectly fine for this, no need to wait for 3.2.
Emmm... I've just noticed you've removed Arch-specific changes from pacman.conf too. This is good, but I think we need to have pacman.conf useable by default. So I suggest just adding our current pacman.conf to CVS and replace distro-independent pacman.conf during the packaging stage. Having pacman.conf in mirrorlist package is not a good idea IMO. -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)