Allan McRae wrote:
> Dan McGee wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Cedric Staniewski <email@example.com> wrote:
>>> Signed-off-by: Cedric Staniewski <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> Seems pretty reasonable to me; Allan, is this OK?
> 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