2008/1/11, Dan McGee <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> We shouldn't have the stock config be Arch specific for a few reasons:
> * Although it is our package, others should be able to use it
> * Keeping the mirrorlist coupled to the pacman package makes it hard to push
> updates to users without releasing a new copy of the pacman source
> Signed-off-by: Dan McGee <email@example.com>
> In all our other removals of things before 3.1.0, I probably should have done
> this too. I'm debating whether to queue this up for 3.1.1 or 3.2.0. I'd
> appreciate any input you guys have on this.
> This is the last thing in the code that is still tied tightly to Arch. I think
> a seperate 'core/mirrorlist' package would make a lot more sense here, or at
> least bundle it with filesystem or something. However, being its own package
> would be ideal becuase it could be version bumped at any time.
I think we can close FS#5885 after this (which means "yeah, bring it on!"). ;-)
I think separate mirrorlist package is better than merging it with
- it will be more clear to users what pacman is trying to update.
Of course, mirrorlist should be in a backup array. If user is
satisfied with his/her (sorted) mirrorlist - he/she can just delete
And 3.1.1 is perfectly fine for this, no need to wait for 3.2.
Roman Kyrylych (Ð*Ð¾Ð¼Ð°Ð½ ÐšÐ¸Ñ€Ð¸Ð»Ð¸Ñ‡)
pacman-dev mailing list