[arch-dev-public] Fwd: [arch-commits] Commit in (9 files)
daniel.isenmann at gmx.de
Thu Nov 28 01:22:36 EST 2013
Am 28.11.2013 02:15, schrieb Sébastien Luttringer:
> On 27/11/2013 15:31, Sébastien Luttringer wrote:
>> On 27/11/2013 14:57, Alexander Rødseth wrote:
>>> A bit sad to be starting out the new docker package with "the mark of
>>> shame" (epoch=1), but so be it. ;)
>> I'm waiting some answer before pushing this package in our repository.
> I got answers/help from upstream. I want underline that they are really
> nice and it's a pleasure to work with them.
> So, I built a fresh new PKGBUILD for 0.7.0.
> Some notes on differences with AUR version:
> - docker is built dynamically (and no more upstream blob)
> - use upstream version for bash and zsh completions
> - move of dockerinit from /usr/libexec to /usr/lib/docker 
> - use improved systemd service file (e.g make-rpivate) 
> Now I need to test this new package more deeply.
> And we're waiting for Daniel words about renaming current docker
> package. In case this is not possible, upstream advice to use lxc-docker.
I had already answered:
the 'old' docker ist mainly used for windowmaker and not GNOME2 or KDE3.
Beside that it's working very well even it wasn't updated for decades.
Nevertheless I don't care what package name the 'old' docker have, so
feel free to rename it to 'docker-tray' or something similar. But I
don't see the case for moving or dropping it out of extra.
But how can we rename it without much hassle for the user? A provide
line in the PKGBUILD isn't possible if the 'new' docker is called docker
or am I wrong on this?
That was the reason for the discussion about the way we should rename it
and the epoch=1 solution which Alexander mentioned. ;-)
More information about the arch-dev-public