On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 21:08 +1030, Ty John wrote: > On Mon, 1 Feb 2010 15:08:33 +0800 > Ray Rashif <schivmeister@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 01/02/2010, fons@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <fons@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 11:55:57PM +0100, Giovanni Scafora wrote: > > >> 2010/1/31, fons@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <fons@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > >> > that means that cdrkit has been renamed to cdrtools ? :-) > > >> > > >> Of course, it means that the software has benn renamed or replaced > > >> by another one. > > > > > > So it can mean two very different things. > > > > > > Which means that the exact background of the question > > > 'Replace kernel-headers by api-headers ?' is unclear, > > > and that the OP had good reason to ask what it meant. > > > Pacman did *not* tell him this was just a rename. > > > > Oh nono, $replaces isn't used like that. When for instance you have > > deleted a package and brought in a new one with a different name, > > often due to a name change (upstream or not), you need to make sure > > pacman will know and seamlessly "update" to the new package. > > Sometimes, projects go defunct and forks become active. > > > > Asking the user to answer the question resolves one big thing: > > > > 1) He will not complain later; he won't be freaked out when he finds > > one of his packages is missing and/or the system has something he > > can't recall installing. > > > > > > -- > > GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD > > > I understand what you are saying but it comes back to KISS ideals. > The Arch user should know exactly what's happening to their system and > not just let everything happen automagically. Does that preclude informing them? Not everyone is subscribed to [arch-dev-public], and that's probably the only place I heard of the switch from kernel-headers to linux-api-headers before it actually happened, both in [testing] and [core]. I see a distinction between 'knowing what's happening to your system' and 'having to find out the hard way what needs changing'.
