On Nov 22, 2007 10:50 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 22, 2007 12:48 PM, Xavier <shiningxc@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Nov 22, 2007 at 12:37:21PM -0500, Dan McGee wrote:
No, the whole point of the filename field is to decouple the filename from being only based on the package name and version. We just happen to name our files the way we do.
Decoupling it in which goal? Having filename independent from package name and version, or introducing redundancy for more fiability?
I guess I don't see the misleading behavior. I see that something broke somewhere, but nothing else. We shouldn't have to do dirty tricks with parsing file names, having every iteration of a package named the same thing should be perfectly acceptable- just ensure your database is generated right.
The intention was to "futureproof" the filename changes. Previously, due to the fact that we DID assume the version was in the filename, it was a big chunk of changes to add in the architecture flag. Furthermore, not all potential pacman users will want architectures or even versions in their filenames. Maybe I want my packages just named "pkgname.lol" /me shrugs The whole point of the decoupling is to allow us to remove assumptions and allow us to make changes easier next time. That said: On Dec 25, 2007 12:10 PM, Tobias Kieslich <tobias@justdreams.de> wrote:
I was following this thread for a while and I'm the one packaging the file. So far I have still no clue where I screwed up and what I did wrong in the process.
I have no idea either. Is this error in ONLY the db, or is it in both package metadata AND the db?