[arch-general] core/linux-api-headers?

[Ty John]

On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 20:35:56 +0800
Ng Oon-Ee <ngoonee at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 21:08 +1030, Ty John wrote:
> > On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 15:08:33 +0800
> > Ray Rashif <schivmeister at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On 01/02/2010, fons at kokkinizita.net <fons at kokkinizita.net> wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 11:55:57PM +0100, Giovanni Scafora
> > > > wrote:
> > > >> 2010/1/31, fons at kokkinizita.net <fons at kokkinizita.net>:
> > > >> >  that means that cdrkit has been renamed to cdrtools ? :-)
> > > >>
> > > >> Of course, it means that the software has benn renamed or
> > > >> replaced by another one.
> > > >
> > > > So it can mean two very different things.
> > > >
> > > > Which means that the exact background of the question
> > > > 'Replace kernel-headers by api-headers ?' is unclear,
> > > > and that the OP had good reason to ask what it meant.
> > > > Pacman did *not* tell him this was just a rename.
> > > 
> > > Oh nono, $replaces isn't used like that. When for instance you
> > > have deleted a package and brought in a new one with a different
> > > name, often due to a name change (upstream or not), you need to
> > > make sure pacman will know and seamlessly "update" to the new
> > > package. Sometimes, projects go defunct and forks become active.
> > > 
> > > Asking the user to answer the question resolves one big thing:
> > > 
> > > 1) He will not complain later; he won't be freaked out when he
> > > finds one of his packages is missing and/or the system has
> > > something he can't recall installing.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --
> > > GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD
> > 
> > 
> > I understand what you are saying but it comes back to KISS ideals.
> > The Arch user should know exactly what's happening to their system
> > and not just let everything happen automagically.
> 
> Does that preclude informing them? Not everyone is subscribed to
> [arch-dev-public], and that's probably the only place I heard of the
> switch from kernel-headers to linux-api-headers before it actually
> happened, both in [testing] and [core].
> 
> I see a distinction between 'knowing what's happening to your system'
> and 'having to find out the hard way what needs changing'.
> 

I'm not subscribed to it either and I must admit that I was a bit
surprised when I saw the message while updating.
I may be wrong but I believe pacman is limited in the way it produces
informing messages in that it can only do so in a post install script.
Am I right?