On 1/11/08, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 11, 2008 6:25 AM, Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych@gmail.com> wrote:
2008/1/11, Xavier <shiningxc@gmail.com>:
On Jan 11, 2008 12:32 PM, Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych@gmail.com> wrote:
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.
Funny, I missed that part too. I am also curious how pacman.conf would be handled then.
I guess pacman.conf in CVS and this in pacman's PKGBUILD: install -Dm644 pacman.conf $startdir/pkg/etc/pacman.conf
Yes.
Step back for a second and look at it this way. With any package, we normally install our own conf file if the out-of-box one is not usable or does not have sane defaults for Arch Linux. Pacman should be no different.
Having a pacman.conf in CVS is absolutely fine, and this wouldn't require a whole new release of pacman just to satisfy the addition or removal of repositories. There should be *no* Arch Linux specifics in the code that are not reasonable defaults for everyone.
Just to clarify, do you mean "no arch specific code" in the pacman release tarballs, not the archlinux pacman package. Correct? I agree. The pacman project is an arch 'sponsored' project, but it isn't designed soley for arch. These types of changes should make it easier for other distributions, like frugalware for example, to package it up and use it -- I would think. In theory, at some time in the future, I imagine the pacman devs wouldn't even need to be the ones to own the arch pacman package. It just works out well that way right now.