On 6/13/07, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/13/07, Johan Grahn <johan@cgeek.net> wrote:
On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 22:43 +0100, Andrew Fyfe wrote:
Are there any plans (if so when) to switch the official repositories over to the new package naming format?
Current/Old: name-ver-rel.pkg.tar.gz New: name-ver-rel-arch.pkg.tar.gz
Why do you wanna do this? I'm just curios...
Is it not better to just have separate repos because they are compiled differently and better to maintain.
I'm not saying that is it a bad idea, I just wanna know how you think
No body "wants" to do it - it's already done, and part of pacman 3.0. The rationalization is simple: the majority of the time you don't touch real package files... it's pacman -S, done. There is really nothing lost from adding the suffix - what is gained is clarity in looking at the filename.
To respond to Andrew: there actually is no real "plan" at the moment... but we want to make sure pacman2 users have sufficient time to make the switch before we kill their packages.
This drifts into something that should be on the pacman ML, so I'm moving it there. Is there any reason for pacman to enforce a naming convention at all when it comes to the packages? We should do any information gathering from the .PKGINFO file in the package itself rather than the name, shouldn't we? I also might be way off here- maybe pacman doesn't care. If so, let me know- I haven't dug into the code yet on this issue. -Dan