FS#7324 - Remove (or move) old scripts.

Attached to Project: Pacman
Opened by Andrew Fyfe (space-m0nkey) - Thursday, 31 May 2007, 21:42 GMT
Last edited by Dan McGee (toofishes) - Friday, 06 June 2008, 04:45 GMT
Task Type Feature Request
Category makepkg
Status Closed
Assigned To Aaron Griffin (phrakture)
Architecture All
Severity Low
Priority Normal
Reported Version 3.0.4
Due in Version 3.2.0
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 0
Private No

Details

Are there any objections to the removal (or move to contrib) of
- gensync
- updatesync
- makeworld
This task depends upon

Closed by  Dan McGee (toofishes)
Friday, 06 June 2008, 04:45 GMT
Reason for closing:  Fixed
Additional comments about closing:  These scripts are dead now
Comment by Aaron Griffin (phrakture) - Thursday, 31 May 2007, 22:41 GMT
We currently use them for the official repos, and a handful of people might too... moving them is a good idea, but *when* is the operative question
Comment by Dan McGee (toofishes) - Thursday, 31 May 2007, 23:31 GMT
I believe makeworld would be better maintained outside of pacman (as a standalone package such as srcpac). gensync/updatesync should probably move to contrib/ first but there isn't much reason to keep them around if repo-add does the job a lot better.
Comment by Andrew Fyfe (space-m0nkey) - Thursday, 31 May 2007, 23:33 GMT
repo-{add,remove} could(/should) be merged into 1 script, repo-add already has all the functionality of repo-remove.
Comment by Dan McGee (toofishes) - Thursday, 31 May 2007, 23:42 GMT
I was going to mention that in my last comment, although i like the idea of two commands to do it (think git commands). repo-remove could easily be a symlink to repo-add and the operations are chosen based on what name it was called with. I don't think it is that big of deal to install two different scripts though.
Comment by Dan McGee (toofishes) - Wednesday, 16 January 2008, 05:24 GMT
Well makeworld has been shuffled off to the Arch-specific ABS package. Next would be to deprecate updatesync and gensync. Should we do this for 3.2?
Comment by Aaron Griffin (phrakture) - Wednesday, 16 January 2008, 22:50 GMT
Yes, keel them keel them!

I do have db script changes on my docket... at which point I can kill off {update,gen}sync in there.

Loading...