[pacman-dev] Bug with rxvt-unicode version check

[Tobias Kieslich]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007, Dan McGee wrote:

> On Nov 22, 2007 12:48 PM, Xavier <shiningxc at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 22, 2007 at 12:37:21PM -0500, Dan McGee wrote:
> > > On Nov 22, 2007 5:32 AM, Xavier <shiningxc at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > This problem already happened. It's not a bug in pacman.
> > > > > It's either an user (well, developer) mistake, or a bug in the repo scripts.
> > > > >
> > > > > cat /var/lib/pacman/sync/extra/rxvt-unicode-8.5a-1/desc
> > > > >  %FILENAME%
> > > > >  rxvt-unicode-8.4-1-i686.pkg.tar.gz
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hm. this is not a pacman bug, but maybe pacman could have more sanity checks.
> > > > Maybe it could check that the FILENAME contains VERSION.
> > >
> > > No, the whole point of the filename field is to decouple the filename
> > > from being only based on the package name and version. We just happen
> > > to name our files the way we do.
> > >
> >
> > Decoupling it in which goal? Having filename independent from package name
> > and version, or introducing redundancy for more fiability?
> >
> > I'm not suggesting to recompute the filename based on package name and
> > version. Only to check everything is coherent. And if it isn't, just fail.
> > Because, currently, what pacman does is very misleading.
> 
> So what if I want to name packages based on their build date?
> (something like foobar-2007.11.22.pkg.tar.gz.) How would you deal with
> that?
> 
> I guess I don't see the misleading behavior. I see that something
> broke somewhere, but nothing else. We shouldn't have to do dirty
> tricks with parsing file names, having every iteration of a package
> named the same thing should be perfectly acceptable- just ensure your
> database is generated right.
I was following this thread for a while and I'm the one packaging the
file. So far I have still no clue where I screwed up and what I did
wrong in the process.

	-T