On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 20:35:56 +0800 Ng Oon-Ee <ngoonee@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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'. > I'm not subscribed to it either and I must admit that I was a bit surprised when I saw the message while updating. I may be wrong but I believe pacman is limited in the way it produces informing messages in that it can only do so in a post install script. Am I right?
