[aur-general] [PATCH 1/1] TUs can change package names
archlinux at cryptocrack.de
Wed Jun 1 12:54:27 EDT 2011
On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 04:13:09PM +0300, D. Can Celasun wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Martti Kühne <mysatyre at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I'm glad the patch looks fine, though I'm not sure I understand the issue
> > > about dependencies?
> > >
> > Well, AUR packages can depend on other AUR packages. If an AUR package
> > is renamed which is itself a dependency, packages that depend on the
> > old package name will be broken.
> > I assumed package deps are stored as package IDs (the proper way) not
> names, but I've checked the db and you are right.
There are a lot of dependencies that do not exist in the AUR
(dependencies that reside in the binary repos and probably a few ones
that do not exist anywhere at all). We used to use package IDs and a
dummy package concept to fix this but just storing package names is way
better. See also .
> > On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Daenyth Blank <daenyth+arch at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > This patch leaves the pkgname in the PKGBUILD as the old name.
> > > Probably not an issue, but the maintainer would have to submit an
> > > updated PKGBUILD after the name change.
> > >
> > That also seems to be valid for the dependencies=() array in depending
> > PKGBUILDs.
> > I suggest allowing renaming a package and marking it as out of date at
> > the same time to have the PKGBUILD updated. Also all packages that
> > depend on the renamed package should be marked out of date with an
> > automatic comment that the dependency was renamed.
> > This seems reasonable. One question: What user should the automatic comment
> belong to? Is there something like a pseudo user?
> An alternative would be parsing every PKGBUILD that has the package in
> deps/makedeps and updating them, but that would mean altering packages
> without the knowledge/consent of the maintainer.
> If no one has a better suggestion, I'll implement Martti's idea and
> re-submit the patch.
Automatic notification on dependency breakage has been discussed on
aur-dev before  (well, sort of :p )... Still not sure if we're gonna
implement this. I'd like to avoid making the AUR send out alerts for
More information about the aur-general