2011/6/1 Lukáš Jirkovský <[email protected]> > > > > > > Possible, but is it really necessary? How is this different than the > > original approach (TU changes the name, maintainer updates the PKGBUILD) > ? > > > > With this approach it is much easier to implement a transition period > when the other packages can update their dependencies. Assume that the > package foo is to be renamed to bar, but the package baz depends on > foo. Maintainer of foo can upload a new package bar and notify the > maintainer of baz to update the dependency. When the depends array in > baz is corrected to refer bar instead of foo, the package foo can be > deleted and its votes transfered to bar. > > If the the rename is done in place this would not be possible. > Therefore I support Evangelos' idea rather than in place rename. > > Lukas >
Actually, it is still possible. Here's how it'd work: - TU changes package name from foo to bar. - This automatically triggers an out-of-date notification (and an explanation comment) for all packages that depend on foo. - Everyone updates their packages to reflect the changes. Now all votes, comments and even notification lists are preserved without doing a single database query. I really don't think it gets more KISS than that.
