> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Cedric Staniewski <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
>> And leave it to the pacman wrapper authors to fix their programs? Sounds
>> 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.
Since pacman 3.3 it is not that hidden anymore.