[aur-general] [PATCH 1/1] TUs can change package names

[D. Can Celasun]

On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Lukas Fleischer <archlinux at cryptocrack.de>wrote:

> 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 [1].
>
>
I see your point. I guess it makes sense.


>  > >  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 I suggest allowing renaming a package and marking it as out of date at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 depend on the renamed package should be marked out of date with an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 [2] (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
> various stuff.
>
>
Discussed? As in a single patch with no comments? :) Anyway, I think that
patch has a good idea behind it and maybe I can implement such an alert
under this.

I'm also against sending lots of unneeded alerts (we all remember the "I'm a
robot" comments) but I think this is one of those places that it is
justified.


> [1] http://projects.archlinux.org/aur.git/commit/?id=7c91c592
> [2] http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-dev/2011-March/001459.html
>

To everyone saying asking for action from maintainers is a bad idea: We'd be
asking to simply rename a dependency in their PKGUBILDs. Is that really that
much work?