That's fair. I just thought it might be "cleaner" to get rid of it. I didn't
think of the support requirements, I will admit.
Dan, you can disregard the feature request that I filed (unless you've
changed your mind). As per Martti's pointing out that this wasn't the right
list, and as I couldn't figure out which one was, I just filed a report in
David J. Haines
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Dan McGee <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Martti Kühne <email@example.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 5:35 PM, David J. Haines <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >> All,
> >> I was wondering whether it would be perhaps closer to KISS and/or more
> >> logically coherent not to have pacman-mirrorlist as a dependency of
> >> You don't actually need the mirrors to use pacman, and if you maintain a
> >> local mirror or build your own packages with ABS,
> >> just gets in the way and/or becomes cruft.
> >> Thoughts?
> > Well, in case of Archlinux, that dependency makes totally sense.
> > Pacman delivered without any mirrorlist would be very confusing to new
> > users.
> > I guess you're looking at Archlinux' pacman PKGBUILD file, which I
> > assume is of course part of the Archlinux project, not of the pacman
> > project. A change of package name to archlinux-mirrorlist on that
> > front would make sense indeed. But that request I guess should be made
> > on a different mailing list.
> For Arch, it doesn't really make sense to have pacman without a mirror
> list, and I'm not interested in dealing with 50 bug reports to save
> someone one package install and 10KB saved on their system.
> There is no reason you can't point your pacman.conf at any other
> server file, there is no reason it needs to be only an "Include =
> /etc/pacman.d/mirrorlist", so keep that in mind.