FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > ArchLinux > ArchLinux Pacman Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 11-06-2009, 07:02 PM
Xavier
 
Default makepkg: move pacman calls to a function

On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 8:47 PM, Cedric Staniewski <cedric@gmx.ca> wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Cedric Staniewski <cedric@gmx.ca>
> ---
> I'm not sure about that part
>
> pmout=$(run_pacman -T "$@")
>
> for two reasons. First, we have to work around sudo in run_pacman, and
> second, most of the pacman wrappers does not support -T or do not return
> the same codes as pacman does. For this second reason, the following patch
> would be (currently) useless for the majority of pacman wrapper users.
>
>

This comment makes more sense after reading your second patch
where you make run_pacman use a specified $PACMAN binary

I think its fine to keep calling pacman directly for -T operation, and
allow a wrapper for the others.
 
Old 11-09-2009, 03:26 AM
Dan McGee
 
Default makepkg: move pacman calls to a function

On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Cedric Staniewski <cedric@gmx.ca> wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Cedric Staniewski <cedric@gmx.ca>
> ---

Seems pretty reasonable to me; Allan, is this OK?

-Dan
 
Old 11-12-2009, 12:48 PM
Xavier
 
Default makepkg: move pacman calls to a function

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Cedric Staniewski <cedric@gmx.ca> wrote:
>>
>> I have been thinking about this and its companion patch. *I like the
>> refactoring of the pacman call into the function but dislike not
>> replacing the "pacman -T" call with it.
>>
>> If there is a config option for setting the "pacman" binary, and I have
>> program that replaces pacman (e.g. the one based on the python alpm
>> wrapper should work), then I should not need pacman on my system at all.
>>
>> So I prefer the original version where the "pacman -T" call was replaced
>> too.
>>
>
> And leave it to the pacman wrapper authors to fix their programs? Sounds
> good.
> I also prefer the original patch, mainly because it seems 'cleaner' to
> me, but being able to replace pacman completely on a system is a valid
> reason, too.
>
>

Well, I am still not convinced.
Why would any wrapper have to care about pacman -T ?
This is a hidden / undocumented / internal argument just for the usage
of makepkg.

In the best case, a wrapper will just forward it correctly. In the
worst case, it will break it.
 
Old 11-12-2009, 12:51 PM
Dan McGee
 
Default makepkg: move pacman calls to a function

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 7:48 AM, Xavier <shiningxc@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Cedric Staniewski <cedric@gmx.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>> I have been thinking about this and its companion patch. *I like the
>>> refactoring of the pacman call into the function but dislike not
>>> replacing the "pacman -T" call with it.
>>>
>>> If there is a config option for setting the "pacman" binary, and I have
>>> program that replaces pacman (e.g. the one based on the python alpm
>>> wrapper should work), then I should not need pacman on my system at all.
>>>
>>> So I prefer the original version where the "pacman -T" call was replaced
>>> too.
>>>
>>
>> And leave it to the pacman wrapper authors to fix their programs? Sounds
>> good.
>> I also prefer the original patch, mainly because it seems 'cleaner' to
>> me, but being able to replace pacman completely on a system is a valid
>> reason, too.
>>
>>
>
> Well, I am still not convinced.
> Why would any wrapper have to care about pacman -T ?
> This is a hidden / undocumented / internal argument just for the usage
> of makepkg.

Doesn't look undocumented to me:
-T, --deptest
Check dependencies; this is useful in scripts such as makepkg to
check installed packages. This operation will check each dependency
specified and return a list of those which are not currently
satisfied on the system. This operation accepts no other options.
Example usage: pacman -T qt "bash>=3.2".


> In the best case, a wrapper will just forward it correctly. In the
> worst case, it will break it.
 
Old 11-12-2009, 12:56 PM
Xavier
 
Default makepkg: move pacman calls to a function

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Doesn't look undocumented to me:
> * * * -T, --deptest
> * * * * * Check dependencies; this is useful in scripts such as makepkg to
> * * * * * check installed packages. This operation will check each dependency
> * * * * * specified and return a list of those which are not currently
> * * * * * satisfied on the system. This operation accepts no other options.
> * * * * * Example usage: pacman -T qt "bash>=3.2".
>
>

Ahah ok. Well I am still not sure what a wrapper could add to that
functionality, besides breaking it. But if everyone is against me,
then I will shut up It is not a big deal.
 
Old 11-20-2009, 03:08 AM
"Allan McRae"
 
Default makepkg: move pacman calls to a function

Cedric Staniewski wrote:

Signed-off-by: Cedric Staniewski <cedric@gmx.ca>
---


Pushed to my working branch.

Allan
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 03:16 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org