On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 3:42 AM, Rémy Oudompheng <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 2011/10/13 Pierre Schmitz <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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:
>>> 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
>> 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.
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 :
:: Do you want to cancel the current operation
:: and upgrade these packages now? [Y/n]
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