[pacman-dev] [PATCH] etc: remove Arch-specific mirrorlist from repo

[Roman Kyrylych]

2008/1/11, Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych at gmail.com>:
> 2008/1/11, Dan McGee <dan at archlinux.org>:
> > We shouldn't have the stock config be Arch specific for a few reasons:
> >
> > * Although it is our package, others should be able to use it
> > * Keeping the mirrorlist coupled to the pacman package makes it hard to push
> >  updates to users without releasing a new copy of the pacman source
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dan McGee <dan at archlinux.org>
> > ---
> > In all our other removals of things before 3.1.0, I probably should have done
> > this too. I'm debating whether to queue this up for 3.1.1 or 3.2.0. I'd
> > appreciate any input you guys have on this.
> >
> > This is the last thing in the code that is still tied tightly to Arch. I think
> > a seperate 'core/mirrorlist' package would make a lot more sense here, or at
> > least bundle it with filesystem or something. However, being its own package
> > would be ideal becuase it could be version bumped at any time.
> >
>
> I think we can close FS#5885 after this (which means "yeah, bring it on!"). ;-)
> I think separate mirrorlist package is better than merging it with
> filesystem package
> - it will be more clear to users what pacman is trying to update.
> Of course, mirrorlist should be in a backup array. If user is
> satisfied with his/her (sorted) mirrorlist - he/she can just delete
> mirrorlist.pacnew.
> And 3.1.1 is perfectly fine for this, no need to wait for 3.2.

Emmm... I've just noticed you've removed Arch-specific changes from
pacman.conf too. This is good, but I think we need to have pacman.conf
useable by default.
So I suggest just adding our current pacman.conf to CVS and replace
distro-independent pacman.conf during the packaging stage.
Having pacman.conf in mirrorlist package is not a good idea IMO.

-- 
Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)