On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 3:42 AM, Rémy Oudompheng <remy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 2011/10/13 Pierre Schmitz <pierre@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Am 13.10.2011 20:22, schrieb Dan McGee: >>> The most anticipated release EVER has landed in [testing]. Do I expect >>> it to make it out before we need a 4.0.1? Not really. :) >>> >>> Upstream NEWS/changes: >>> http://projects.archlinux.org/pacman.git/tree/NEWS?h=maint >>> Disregard the 4.0.1 stuff that isn't in this package yet and hasn't >>> been actually released. >>> >>> Questions? Concerns? Comments? >> >> Big thanks to everybody involved with this great release. About that >> issue I am not supposed to talk here I'll send a mail tomorrow. :-) >> >> Good thing you moved this into testing so there are no excuses not to >> test the new pacman. Do you know if porting pyalpm will be easy or is >> already done? Would be beter to have this sorted out before moving 4.0 >> to core. (pyalpm is needed by namcap) I also need to have a look at this >> code: >> https://projects.archlinux.org/dbscripts.git/tree/cron-jobs/check_archlinux >> But should be easy enough to port if even necessary. > > I've followed pacman API changes in pyalpm's trunk all along and will > do the appropriate release asap. > > Rémy. > Something to note, even though pyalpm is updated to support pacman 4.0 some user intervention would be required, since they'd get this error on upgrade if they answer Y to the question below:- :: The following packages should be upgraded first : pacman :: Do you want to cancel the current operation :: and upgrade these packages now? [Y/n] resolving dependencies... looking for inter-conflicts... error: failed to prepare transaction (could not satisfy dependencies) :: pyalpm: requires pacman<3.6 Don't think there's a way to deal with that though, either the user answers 'n' or upgrades pacman with -d? Both are manual-intervention-required =)
