On Fri, 2011-02-25 at 14:42 -0700, Thomas S Hatch wrote: > On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Peter Lewis <[email protected]>wrote: > > > On Friday 25 February 2011 11:12:15 Lukas Fleischer wrote: > > > Well, I'm addressing current blacklisting issues with the AUR [1]. I > > > noticed that some of the packages in the official repos have AUR > > > packages as provides, some of them (well, at least one of them, didn't > > > search for more) were even added due to FRs [2]. Donnu if this applies > > > to [core] and [extra] as well. > > > > > > Is that regular practice? Imho, we shouldn't do that. The AUR is > > > something to be considered separately. If we start to care about > > > provides/conflicts with AUR packages, we'll need to add all > > > "-devel"/"-svn"/"-git"/"-beta" packages in the AUR to the official > > > packages conflicts and provides as well. And we'll need to start > > > searching for alternative repos to ensure there's no conflict with our > > > official packages. > > > > > > Seriously, we should be consistent here. > > > > Can't remember where I read this being discussed, but I'm pretty sure that > > no > > package in [core], [extra] or [community] should reference anything in the > > AUR. > > > > Pete. > > > > Right, if there is a package that is depending on an AUR package from a > supported repo than it is a bug and can be reported. > > -Thomas S Hatch
As I think has been previously mentioned, this probably happens with cleanups when packages are dropped? Because I don't think 'provides' gets checked, of course 'depends' and 'requires' does.
