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 01-12-2008, 03:51 PM
Xavier
 
Default New --asexplicit option

Nagy Gabor wrote:
> diff --git a/doc/pacman.8.txt b/doc/pacman.8.txt
> index 0da83a6..5a64f1a 100644
> --- a/doc/pacman.8.txt
> +++ b/doc/pacman.8.txt
> @@ -86,11 +86,16 @@ You can also use `pacman -Su` to upgrade all packages that are out of date. See
> Options
> -------
> *--asdeps*::
> - Install packages non-explicitly; in other works, fake their install reason
> + Install packages non-explicitly; in other words, fake their install reason
> to be installed as a dependency. This is useful for makepkg and other
> build from source tools that need to install dependencies before building
> the package.
>
> +*--asexplicit*::
> + Install packages explicitly; in other words, force their install reason to
> + explicit. This is useful if you want mark a dependency as explictly
> + installed.
> +
> *-b, --dbpath*<'path'>::
> Specify an alternative database location (a typical default is
> ``/var/lib/pacman'). This should not be used unless you know what you are


It would be nice if native english speakers could review the formulation
of these two options.

For example what is better between :
in other words, fake their install reason to be installed as a
dependency.
and
in other words, force their install reason to explicit

Both sound a bit strange to me.

Also, I believe it should be : 'if you want *to* mark a dependency...'

> diff --git a/lib/libalpm/add.c b/lib/libalpm/add.c
> index 72b8934..5f0fbde 100644
> --- a/lib/libalpm/add.c
> +++ b/lib/libalpm/add.c

> @@ -671,12 +667,8 @@ static int commit_single_pkg(pmpkg_t *newpkg, int pkg_current, int pkg_count,
>
> /* we'll need to save some record for backup checks later */
> oldpkg = _alpm_pkg_dup(local);
> - /* copy over the install reason (unless alldeps is set) */
> - if(trans->flags& PM_TRANS_FLAG_ALLDEPS) {
> - newpkg->reason = PM_PKG_REASON_DEPEND;
> - } else {
> + /* copy over the install reason */
> newpkg->reason = alpm_pkg_get_reason(local);
> - }
>
> /* pre_upgrade scriptlet */
> if(alpm_pkg_has_scriptlet(newpkg)&& !(trans->flags& PM_TRANS_FLAG_NOSCRIPTLET)) {

Just leaving that comment alone here looks strange : /* copy over the
install reason */
Why not simply remove it?

The rest looks fine to me, thanks for the patch.

_______________________________________________
pacman-dev mailing list
pacman-dev@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
 
Old 01-12-2008, 04:08 PM
"Roman Kyrylych"
 
Default New --asexplicit option

2008/1/12, Nagy Gabor <ngaba@bibl.u-szeged.hu>:
> >From 99a8136cb82d75795a3224baf09ab5ca728e6bd9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Nagy Gabor <ngaba@bibl.u-szeged.hu>
> Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 17:08:03 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH] New --asexplicit option
>
> This is the brother of --asdeps, install packages explicitly.
> Documentation and completion files were updated accordingly.
> Added sync301.py and upgrade032.py pactest files to test this.
>
> I also made a little modification in ALLDEPS handling too.
>
> A typo was also fixed in the manual.

Can you give an example of --asexplicit usage?

For --asdeps (as I see it):
if one did -Rd pkg (or replaced with pkg2 that conflicts/privides pkg)
then -U/-S pkg --asdeps will restore the "installed as a dependency of
another package" status.

But for --asexplicit I'm a bit confused.
I can think only about -S pkg --asexplicit when pkg
_is_already_installed_ as a dependency - that would turn that package
to "explicitly installed".
But this is the same as -Rd then -S... :-/
Please enlighten me.

--
Roman Kyrylych (*оман Кирилич)
_______________________________________________
pacman-dev mailing list
pacman-dev@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
 
Old 01-12-2008, 04:19 PM
Xavier
 
Default New --asexplicit option

Roman Kyrylych wrote:
> 2008/1/12, Nagy Gabor<ngaba@bibl.u-szeged.hu>:
>> > From 99a8136cb82d75795a3224baf09ab5ca728e6bd9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Nagy Gabor<ngaba@bibl.u-szeged.hu>
>> Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 17:08:03 +0100
>> Subject: [PATCH] New --asexplicit option
>>
>> This is the brother of --asdeps, install packages explicitly.
>> Documentation and completion files were updated accordingly.
>> Added sync301.py and upgrade032.py pactest files to test this.
>>
>> I also made a little modification in ALLDEPS handling too.
>>
>> A typo was also fixed in the manual.
>
> Can you give an example of --asexplicit usage?
>
> For --asdeps (as I see it):
> if one did -Rd pkg (or replaced with pkg2 that conflicts/privides pkg)
> then -U/-S pkg --asdeps will restore the "installed as a dependency of
> another package" status.
>
> But for --asexplicit I'm a bit confused.
> I can think only about -S pkg --asexplicit when pkg
> _is_already_installed_ as a dependency - that would turn that package
> to "explicitly installed".
> But this is the same as -Rd then -S... :-/
> Please enlighten me.
>


It's exactly for that second case, and it can indeed probably be
achieved with -Rd then -S.
But it would be possible without using -Rd, so it would be nicer.

_______________________________________________
pacman-dev mailing list
pacman-dev@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
 
Old 01-12-2008, 04:26 PM
"Roman Kyrylych"
 
Default New --asexplicit option

2008/1/12, Xavier <shiningxc@gmail.com>:
> Roman Kyrylych wrote:
> > 2008/1/12, Nagy Gabor<ngaba@bibl.u-szeged.hu>:
> >> > From 99a8136cb82d75795a3224baf09ab5ca728e6bd9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> >> From: Nagy Gabor<ngaba@bibl.u-szeged.hu>
> >> Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 17:08:03 +0100
> >> Subject: [PATCH] New --asexplicit option
> >>
> >> This is the brother of --asdeps, install packages explicitly.
> >> Documentation and completion files were updated accordingly.
> >> Added sync301.py and upgrade032.py pactest files to test this.
> >>
> >> I also made a little modification in ALLDEPS handling too.
> >>
> >> A typo was also fixed in the manual.
> >
> > Can you give an example of --asexplicit usage?
> >
> > For --asdeps (as I see it):
> > if one did -Rd pkg (or replaced with pkg2 that conflicts/privides pkg)
> > then -U/-S pkg --asdeps will restore the "installed as a dependency of
> > another package" status.
> >
> > But for --asexplicit I'm a bit confused.
> > I can think only about -S pkg --asexplicit when pkg
> > _is_already_installed_ as a dependency - that would turn that package
> > to "explicitly installed".
> > But this is the same as -Rd then -S... :-/
> > Please enlighten me.
> >
>
>
> It's exactly for that second case, and it can indeed probably be
> achieved with -Rd then -S.
> But it would be possible without using -Rd, so it would be nicer.
>

Ah, ok. I agree -S --asexplicit looks more cleaner.

--
Roman Kyrylych (*оман Кирилич)
_______________________________________________
pacman-dev mailing list
pacman-dev@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
 
Old 01-12-2008, 04:31 PM
Nagy Gabor
 
Default New --asexplicit option

> But for --asexplicit I'm a bit confused.
> I can think only about -S pkg --asexplicit when pkg
> _is_already_installed_ as a dependency - that would turn that package
> to "explicitly installed".
> But this is the same as -Rd then -S... :-/
> Please enlighten me.
>

And theoretically you can mark all the pulled dependencies as explicit. I don't
know any reason for doing that, but it is also possible now.

Bye


----------------------------------------------------
SZTE Egyetemi Knyvtr - http://www.bibl.u-szeged.hu
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/


_______________________________________________
pacman-dev mailing list
pacman-dev@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:14 AM.

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