[pacman-dev] 'replaces' confusion

eliott at cactuswax.net eliott at cactuswax.net
Mon Feb 26 12:36:58 EST 2007

> The REAL question here is, should the pacman 3.0 release be delayed
> for something like this, or should we hold of until 3.1?

Such a change like that (new backends) would illicit a major version
increment I would think.
Nothing says there must be a huge lag from pacman 3.x to pacman 4.x. ;)

In regard to the backend talk. I think the number of possible backends
should be very limited. Think of it from a supportability standpoint. With
people using different backends, when something happens with one users
pacman install, it would be much harder to pin down the issue. More
backends means less users running the same basic configuration, harder to
support, etc.

I say choose a single backend. Modify it as needed, but keep the backend
choice simple. Ie... one backend.

More information about the pacman-dev mailing list