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 05-16-2008, 01:06 PM
Allan McRae
 
Default A variety of small changes

1. makepkg - Reduces the missing arch error to a warning when only
generating intergity checks (-g or --geninteg flag)

2. libalpm - remove unused handle->uid from pmhandle_t. The need to
check permissions should be determined by the frontend (and is in pacman).

3. libalpm - fix comment on noextract in pmhandle_t.

4. pacman - only ask for removal confirmation when the recusre or
cascade options add packages to the removal list

Signed-off-by: Allan McRae <mcrae_allan@hotmail.com>
---
lib/libalpm/handle.c | 1 -
lib/libalpm/handle.h | 3 +--
scripts/makepkg.sh.in | 2 +-
src/pacman/remove.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++----------------
4 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lib/libalpm/handle.c b/lib/libalpm/handle.c
index 5f209d4..2b871b5 100644
--- a/lib/libalpm/handle.c
+++ b/lib/libalpm/handle.c
@@ -54,7 +54,6 @@ pmhandle_t *_alpm_handle_new()
handle->logstream = NULL;

/* see if we're root or not */
- handle->uid = geteuid();
handle->root = NULL;
handle->dbpath = NULL;
handle->cachedirs = NULL;
diff --git a/lib/libalpm/handle.h b/lib/libalpm/handle.h
index 5051917..9c537b1 100644
--- a/lib/libalpm/handle.h
+++ b/lib/libalpm/handle.h
@@ -30,7 +30,6 @@

typedef struct _pmhandle_t {
/* internal usage */
- uid_t uid; /* current UID */ /* TODO is this used? */
pmdb_t *db_local; /* local db pointer */
alpm_list_t *dbs_sync; /* List of (pmdb_t *) */
FILE *logstream; /* log file stream pointer */
@@ -50,7 +49,7 @@ typedef struct _pmhandle_t {

/* package lists */
alpm_list_t *noupgrade; /* List of packages NOT to be upgraded */
- alpm_list_t *noextract; /* List of packages NOT to extract */ /*TODO is this used?*/
+ alpm_list_t *noextract; /* List of files NOT to extract */
alpm_list_t *ignorepkg; /* List of packages to ignore */
alpm_list_t *holdpkg; /* List of packages which 'hold' pacman */
alpm_list_t *ignoregrp; /* List of groups to ignore */
diff --git a/scripts/makepkg.sh.in b/scripts/makepkg.sh.in
index cc44c68..8009ef0 100644
--- a/scripts/makepkg.sh.in
+++ b/scripts/makepkg.sh.in
@@ -1315,7 +1315,7 @@ if [ "$arch" = 'any' ]; then
fi

if ! in_array $CARCH ${arch[@]}; then
- if [ "$IGNOREARCH" = "0" ]; then
+ if [ "$IGNOREARCH" = "0" -o "$GENINTEG" = "1" ]; then
error "$(gettext "%s is not available for the '%s' architecture.")" "$pkgname" "$CARCH"
plain "$(gettext "Note that many packages may need a line added to their %s")" "$BUILDSCRIPT"
plain "$(gettext "such as arch=('%s').")" "$CARCH"
diff --git a/src/pacman/remove.c b/src/pacman/remove.c
index 4fe9bc8..9ae9262 100644
--- a/src/pacman/remove.c
+++ b/src/pacman/remove.c
@@ -121,23 +121,26 @@ int pacman_remove(alpm_list_t *targets)
/* Warn user in case of dangerous operation */
if(config->flags & PM_TRANS_FLAG_RECURSE ||
config->flags & PM_TRANS_FLAG_CASCADE) {
- /* list transaction targets */
- alpm_list_t *lst = NULL;
- /* create a new list of package names only */
- for(i = alpm_trans_get_pkgs(); i; i = alpm_list_next(i)) {
- pmpkg_t *pkg = alpm_list_getdata(i);
- lst = alpm_list_add(lst, strdup(alpm_pkg_get_name(pkg)));
- }
- printf("
");
- list_display(_("Targets:"), lst);
- FREELIST(lst);
- /* get confirmation */
- if(yesno(1, _("
Do you want to remove these packages?")) == 0) {
- trans_release();
- FREELIST(finaltargs);
- return(1);
+ /* check if recurse or cascade added packages to remove */
+ if(alpm_list_count(finaltargs) != alpm_list_count(alpm_trans_get_pkgs())) {
+ /* list transaction targets */
+ alpm_list_t *lst = NULL;
+ /* create a new list of package names only */
+ for(i = alpm_trans_get_pkgs(); i; i = alpm_list_next(i)) {
+ pmpkg_t *pkg = alpm_list_getdata(i);
+ lst = alpm_list_add(lst, strdup(alpm_pkg_get_name(pkg)));
+ }
+ printf("
");
+ list_display(_("Targets:"), lst);
+ FREELIST(lst);
+ /* get confirmation */
+ if(yesno(1, _("
Do you want to remove these packages?")) == 0) {
+ trans_release();
+ FREELIST(finaltargs);
+ return(1);
+ }
+ printf("
");
}
- printf("
");
}

/* Step 3: actually perform the removal */
--
1.5.5.1


_______________________________________________
pacman-dev mailing list
pacman-dev@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
 
Old 05-16-2008, 04:00 PM
"Dan McGee"
 
Default A variety of small changes

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 8:06 AM, Allan McRae <mcrae_allan@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 1. makepkg - Reduces the missing arch error to a warning when only
> generating intergity checks (-g or --geninteg flag)
Probably smart, this seems good.

> 2. libalpm - remove unused handle->uid from pmhandle_t. The need to
> check permissions should be determined by the frontend (and is in pacman).
Hmm- I almost think the backend should do something (such as verifying
we have read/write perms on the relevant dbs if necessary), but you
are right, it is unused now so it should go. Any headers that can be
dropped in handle.c because of this change?

> 3. libalpm - fix comment on noextract in pmhandle_t.
So we definitely use this and it still works? Heh. We might need to
beef up pactests in this area.

> 4. pacman - only ask for removal confirmation when the recusre or
> cascade options add packages to the removal list
I thought this came up a few months ago, and I believe I at least
thought it wasn't the greatest of ideas. I wanted behavior to be
consistent with the option, as some people might use these flags as "I
know it will ask me for confirmation" step. I know it would confuse me
(and scripts) if it asked sometimes and other times did not, and it is
not immediately apparent to the end user why this is happening.

-Dan

_______________________________________________
pacman-dev mailing list
pacman-dev@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
 
Old 05-16-2008, 04:18 PM
Allan McRae
 
Default A variety of small changes

Dan McGee wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 8:06 AM, Allan McRae <mcrae_allan@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 1. makepkg - Reduces the missing arch error to a warning when only
>> generating intergity checks (-g or --geninteg flag)
>>
> Probably smart, this seems good.
>
>
>> 2. libalpm - remove unused handle->uid from pmhandle_t. The need to
>> check permissions should be determined by the frontend (and is in pacman).
>>
> Hmm- I almost think the backend should do something (such as verifying
> we have read/write perms on the relevant dbs if necessary), but you
> are right, it is unused now so it should go. Any headers that can be
> dropped in handle.c because of this change?
>
>

Probably. I'll look into it.

>> 3. libalpm - fix comment on noextract in pmhandle_t.
>>
> So we definitely use this and it still works? Heh. We might need to
> beef up pactests in this area.
>

Well, a quick search showed it is still used in the libalpm code. The
option is documented in the pacman.conf man page so I assume it still works!

>
>> 4. pacman - only ask for removal confirmation when the recusre or
>> cascade options add packages to the removal list
>>
> I thought this came up a few months ago, and I believe I at least
> thought it wasn't the greatest of ideas. I wanted behavior to be
> consistent with the option, as some people might use these flags as "I
> know it will ask me for confirmation" step. I know it would confuse me
> (and scripts) if it asked sometimes and other times did not, and it is
> not immediately apparent to the end user why this is happening.
>

Fair enough. I just found it annoying to be asked when no additional
packages were flagged. I was thinking this was consistent with the -R
option no longer asking for confirmation. Anyway, it is a small
annoyance and I will get over it.




_______________________________________________
pacman-dev mailing list
pacman-dev@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
 
Old 05-17-2008, 02:53 AM
Allan McRae
 
Default A variety of small changes

Allan McRae wrote:
> Dan McGee wrote:
>
>> On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 8:06 AM, Allan McRae <mcrae_allan@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> 3. libalpm - fix comment on noextract in pmhandle_t.
>>>
>>>
>> So we definitely use this and it still works? Heh. We might need to
>> beef up pactests in this area.
>>
>>
>
> Well, a quick search showed it is still used in the libalpm code. The
> option is documented in the pacman.conf man page so I assume it still works!
>
>

And there is a pactest - upgrade070.py. We should probably have a sync
one too.... Which brings up the issue of how it handles the file
conflict. It seems I have a task for the day!

Allan



_______________________________________________
pacman-dev mailing list
pacman-dev@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
 
Old 05-19-2008, 11:57 AM
Allan McRae
 
Default A variety of small changes

1. makepkg - Reduces the missing arch error to a warning when only
generating intergity checks (-g or --geninteg flag)

2. libalpm - remove unused handle->uid from pmhandle_t. The need to
check permissions should be determined by the frontend (and is in pacman).

3. libalpm - fix comment on noextract in pmhandle_t.

Signed-off-by: Allan McRae <mcrae_allan@hotmail.com>
---
lib/libalpm/handle.c | 2 --
lib/libalpm/handle.h | 3 +--
scripts/makepkg.sh.in | 2 +-
3 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lib/libalpm/handle.c b/lib/libalpm/handle.c
index 5f209d4..94317bf 100644
--- a/lib/libalpm/handle.c
+++ b/lib/libalpm/handle.c
@@ -23,7 +23,6 @@

#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
-#include <unistd.h>
#include <limits.h>
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <syslog.h>
@@ -54,7 +53,6 @@ pmhandle_t *_alpm_handle_new()
handle->logstream = NULL;

/* see if we're root or not */
- handle->uid = geteuid();
handle->root = NULL;
handle->dbpath = NULL;
handle->cachedirs = NULL;
diff --git a/lib/libalpm/handle.h b/lib/libalpm/handle.h
index 5051917..9c537b1 100644
--- a/lib/libalpm/handle.h
+++ b/lib/libalpm/handle.h
@@ -30,7 +30,6 @@

typedef struct _pmhandle_t {
/* internal usage */
- uid_t uid; /* current UID */ /* TODO is this used? */
pmdb_t *db_local; /* local db pointer */
alpm_list_t *dbs_sync; /* List of (pmdb_t *) */
FILE *logstream; /* log file stream pointer */
@@ -50,7 +49,7 @@ typedef struct _pmhandle_t {

/* package lists */
alpm_list_t *noupgrade; /* List of packages NOT to be upgraded */
- alpm_list_t *noextract; /* List of packages NOT to extract */ /*TODO is this used?*/
+ alpm_list_t *noextract; /* List of files NOT to extract */
alpm_list_t *ignorepkg; /* List of packages to ignore */
alpm_list_t *holdpkg; /* List of packages which 'hold' pacman */
alpm_list_t *ignoregrp; /* List of groups to ignore */
diff --git a/scripts/makepkg.sh.in b/scripts/makepkg.sh.in
index cc44c68..8009ef0 100644
--- a/scripts/makepkg.sh.in
+++ b/scripts/makepkg.sh.in
@@ -1315,7 +1315,7 @@ if [ "$arch" = 'any' ]; then
fi

if ! in_array $CARCH ${arch[@]}; then
- if [ "$IGNOREARCH" = "0" ]; then
+ if [ "$IGNOREARCH" = "0" -o "$GENINTEG" = "1" ]; then
error "$(gettext "%s is not available for the '%s' architecture.")" "$pkgname" "$CARCH"
plain "$(gettext "Note that many packages may need a line added to their %s")" "$BUILDSCRIPT"
plain "$(gettext "such as arch=('%s').")" "$CARCH"
--
1.5.5.1


_______________________________________________
pacman-dev mailing list
pacman-dev@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
 
Old 05-19-2008, 12:21 PM
Xavier
 
Default A variety of small changes

On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 1:57 PM, Allan McRae <mcrae_allan@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 1. makepkg - Reduces the missing arch error to a warning when only
> generating intergity checks (-g or --geninteg flag)
>
> 2. libalpm - remove unused handle->uid from pmhandle_t. The need to
> check permissions should be determined by the frontend (and is in pacman).
>
> 3. libalpm - fix comment on noextract in pmhandle_t.
>
> Signed-off-by: Allan McRae <mcrae_allan@hotmail.com>
> ---
> lib/libalpm/handle.c | 2 --
> lib/libalpm/handle.h | 3 +--
> scripts/makepkg.sh.in | 2 +-
> 3 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/libalpm/handle.c b/lib/libalpm/handle.c
> index 5f209d4..94317bf 100644
> --- a/lib/libalpm/handle.c
> +++ b/lib/libalpm/handle.c
> @@ -23,7 +23,6 @@
>
> #include <stdlib.h>
> #include <string.h>
> -#include <unistd.h>
> #include <limits.h>
> #include <sys/types.h>
> #include <syslog.h>
> @@ -54,7 +53,6 @@ pmhandle_t *_alpm_handle_new()
> handle->logstream = NULL;
>
> /* see if we're root or not */
> - handle->uid = geteuid();
> handle->root = NULL;
> handle->dbpath = NULL;
> handle->cachedirs = NULL;


Maybe the comment should go as well?


> diff --git a/lib/libalpm/handle.h b/lib/libalpm/handle.h
> index 5051917..9c537b1 100644
> --- a/lib/libalpm/handle.h
> +++ b/lib/libalpm/handle.h
> @@ -30,7 +30,6 @@
>
> typedef struct _pmhandle_t {
> /* internal usage */
> - uid_t uid; /* current UID */ /* TODO is this used? */
> pmdb_t *db_local; /* local db pointer */
> alpm_list_t *dbs_sync; /* List of (pmdb_t *) */
> FILE *logstream; /* log file stream pointer */
> @@ -50,7 +49,7 @@ typedef struct _pmhandle_t {
>
> /* package lists */
> alpm_list_t *noupgrade; /* List of packages NOT to be upgraded */
> - alpm_list_t *noextract; /* List of packages NOT to extract */ /*TODO is this used?*/
> + alpm_list_t *noextract; /* List of files NOT to extract */
> alpm_list_t *ignorepkg; /* List of packages to ignore */
> alpm_list_t *holdpkg; /* List of packages which 'hold' pacman */
> alpm_list_t *ignoregrp; /* List of groups to ignore */


I wonder if NoUpgrade and NoExtract could not be somehow combined.
But this requires a discussion to know in which situation these are
used (I use none of them ...).


> diff --git a/scripts/makepkg.sh.in b/scripts/makepkg.sh.in
> index cc44c68..8009ef0 100644
> --- a/scripts/makepkg.sh.in
> +++ b/scripts/makepkg.sh.in
> @@ -1315,7 +1315,7 @@ if [ "$arch" = 'any' ]; then
> fi
>
> if ! in_array $CARCH ${arch[@]}; then
> - if [ "$IGNOREARCH" = "0" ]; then
> + if [ "$IGNOREARCH" = "0" -o "$GENINTEG" = "1" ]; then
> error "$(gettext "%s is not available for the '%s' architecture.")" "$pkgname" "$CARCH"
> plain "$(gettext "Note that many packages may need a line added to their %s")" "$BUILDSCRIPT"
> plain "$(gettext "such as arch=('%s').")" "$CARCH"


I really don't understand the logic here

_______________________________________________
pacman-dev mailing list
pacman-dev@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
 
Old 05-19-2008, 01:20 PM
Allan McRae
 
Default A variety of small changes

Xavier wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 1:57 PM, Allan McRae <mcrae_allan@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 1. makepkg - Reduces the missing arch error to a warning when only
>> generating intergity checks (-g or --geninteg flag)
>>
>> 2. libalpm - remove unused handle->uid from pmhandle_t. The need to
>> check permissions should be determined by the frontend (and is in pacman).
>>
>> 3. libalpm - fix comment on noextract in pmhandle_t.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Allan McRae <mcrae_allan@hotmail.com>
>> ---
>> lib/libalpm/handle.c | 2 --
>> lib/libalpm/handle.h | 3 +--
>> scripts/makepkg.sh.in | 2 +-
>> 3 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/lib/libalpm/handle.c b/lib/libalpm/handle.c
>> index 5f209d4..94317bf 100644
>> --- a/lib/libalpm/handle.c
>> +++ b/lib/libalpm/handle.c
>> @@ -23,7 +23,6 @@
>>
>> #include <stdlib.h>
>> #include <string.h>
>> -#include <unistd.h>
>> #include <limits.h>
>> #include <sys/types.h>
>> #include <syslog.h>
>> @@ -54,7 +53,6 @@ pmhandle_t *_alpm_handle_new()
>> handle->logstream = NULL;
>>
>> /* see if we're root or not */
>> - handle->uid = geteuid();
>> handle->root = NULL;
>> handle->dbpath = NULL;
>> handle->cachedirs = NULL;
>>
>
>
> Maybe the comment should go as well?
>
>

O_o maybe it should!

>
>> diff --git a/lib/libalpm/handle.h b/lib/libalpm/handle.h
>> index 5051917..9c537b1 100644
>> --- a/lib/libalpm/handle.h
>> +++ b/lib/libalpm/handle.h
>> @@ -30,7 +30,6 @@
>>
>> typedef struct _pmhandle_t {
>> /* internal usage */
>> - uid_t uid; /* current UID */ /* TODO is this used? */
>> pmdb_t *db_local; /* local db pointer */
>> alpm_list_t *dbs_sync; /* List of (pmdb_t *) */
>> FILE *logstream; /* log file stream pointer */
>> @@ -50,7 +49,7 @@ typedef struct _pmhandle_t {
>>
>> /* package lists */
>> alpm_list_t *noupgrade; /* List of packages NOT to be upgraded */
>> - alpm_list_t *noextract; /* List of packages NOT to extract */ /*TODO is this used?*/
>> + alpm_list_t *noextract; /* List of files NOT to extract */
>> alpm_list_t *ignorepkg; /* List of packages to ignore */
>> alpm_list_t *holdpkg; /* List of packages which 'hold' pacman */
>> alpm_list_t *ignoregrp; /* List of groups to ignore */
>>
>
>
> I wonder if NoUpgrade and NoExtract could not be somehow combined.
> But this requires a discussion to know in which situation these are
> used (I use none of them ...).
>
>
>

I don't either but when looking into making the pactests, they do serve
slightly different purposes.... Maybe similar enough to combine
though. In fact, at first I thought NoExtract should do things
NoUpgrade does. I have added this to my TODO list so I will remember to
look into it later.

>> diff --git a/scripts/makepkg.sh.in b/scripts/makepkg.sh.in
>> index cc44c68..8009ef0 100644
>> --- a/scripts/makepkg.sh.in
>> +++ b/scripts/makepkg.sh.in
>> @@ -1315,7 +1315,7 @@ if [ "$arch" = 'any' ]; then
>> fi
>>
>> if ! in_array $CARCH ${arch[@]}; then
>> - if [ "$IGNOREARCH" = "0" ]; then
>> + if [ "$IGNOREARCH" = "0" -o "$GENINTEG" = "1" ]; then
>> error "$(gettext "%s is not available for the '%s' architecture.")" "$pkgname" "$CARCH"
>> plain "$(gettext "Note that many packages may need a line added to their %s")" "$BUILDSCRIPT"
>> plain "$(gettext "such as arch=('%s').")" "$CARCH"
>>
>
>
> I really don't understand the logic here
>

I will add a comment there. Essentially, if we are only generating
integrity checks, then we don't care if the arch line is missing. Well,
at least not error level care. Maybe in that case a warning should
still be printed. Opinions?

Allan



_______________________________________________
pacman-dev mailing list
pacman-dev@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
 
Old 05-19-2008, 01:57 PM
Xavier
 
Default A variety of small changes

On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 3:20 PM, Allan McRae <mcrae_allan@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>> diff --git a/scripts/makepkg.sh.in b/scripts/makepkg.sh.in
>>> index cc44c68..8009ef0 100644
>>> --- a/scripts/makepkg.sh.in
>>> +++ b/scripts/makepkg.sh.in
>>> @@ -1315,7 +1315,7 @@ if [ "$arch" = 'any' ]; then
>>> fi
>>>
>>> if ! in_array $CARCH ${arch[@]}; then
>>> - if [ "$IGNOREARCH" = "0" ]; then
>>> + if [ "$IGNOREARCH" = "0" -o "$GENINTEG" = "1" ]; then
>>> error "$(gettext "%s is not available for the '%s' architecture.")" "$pkgname" "$CARCH"
>>> plain "$(gettext "Note that many packages may need a line added to their %s")" "$BUILDSCRIPT"
>>> plain "$(gettext "such as arch=('%s').")" "$CARCH"
>>>
>>
>>
>> I really don't understand the logic here
>>
>
> I will add a comment there. Essentially, if we are only generating
> integrity checks, then we don't care if the arch line is missing. Well,
> at least not error level care. Maybe in that case a warning should
> still be printed. Opinions?
>

It was more the implementation that I didn't understand :
if [ "$IGNOREARCH" = "0" -o "$GENINTEG" = "1" ]; then
Shouldn't it rather be something like this :
if [ "$IGNOREARCH" = "0" -a "$GENINTEG" = "0" ]; then
?

otherwise an additional if before that check :
if [ "$GENINTEG" = "1" ]; then
IGNOREARCH=1
fi


But I think the current behavior is fine, just print an error in any cases.
Are there really situations where you only want to generate md5sums,
but not build the package or simply fix the pkgbuild so that others
can build it?

_______________________________________________
pacman-dev mailing list
pacman-dev@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
 
Old 05-19-2008, 02:24 PM
Allan McRae
 
Default A variety of small changes

Xavier wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 3:20 PM, Allan McRae <mcrae_allan@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>> diff --git a/scripts/makepkg.sh.in b/scripts/makepkg.sh.in
>>>> index cc44c68..8009ef0 100644
>>>> --- a/scripts/makepkg.sh.in
>>>> +++ b/scripts/makepkg.sh.in
>>>> @@ -1315,7 +1315,7 @@ if [ "$arch" = 'any' ]; then
>>>> fi
>>>>
>>>> if ! in_array $CARCH ${arch[@]}; then
>>>> - if [ "$IGNOREARCH" = "0" ]; then
>>>> + if [ "$IGNOREARCH" = "0" -o "$GENINTEG" = "1" ]; then
>>>> error "$(gettext "%s is not available for the '%s' architecture.")" "$pkgname" "$CARCH"
>>>> plain "$(gettext "Note that many packages may need a line added to their %s")" "$BUILDSCRIPT"
>>>> plain "$(gettext "such as arch=('%s').")" "$CARCH"
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I really don't understand the logic here
>>>
>>>
>> I will add a comment there. Essentially, if we are only generating
>> integrity checks, then we don't care if the arch line is missing. Well,
>> at least not error level care. Maybe in that case a warning should
>> still be printed. Opinions?
>>
>>

My bad.... it does actually print a warning as it is. That is in the
else block of this if statement almface:

>
> It was more the implementation that I didn't understand :
> if [ "$IGNOREARCH" = "0" -o "$GENINTEG" = "1" ]; then
> Shouldn't it rather be something like this :
> if [ "$IGNOREARCH" = "0" -a "$GENINTEG" = "0" ]; then
> ?
>
>

Yes. I have no idea who wrote the original code. An implementation
that bad/wrong could not have come from me...

> otherwise an additional if before that check :
> if [ "$GENINTEG" = "1" ]; then
> IGNOREARCH=1
> fi
>
>

I think going the above way with a comment would be clearer.

> But I think the current behavior is fine, just print an error in any cases.
> Are there really situations where you only want to generate md5sums,
> but not build the package or simply fix the pkgbuild so that others
> can build it?
>
When using the geninteg flag, it is not a error condition for the
operation being run so it should continue. It is an edge case but I am
sure I saw someone else suggest this as well so that is my justification
of usefulness... Found it:
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Romashka#Pacman

Allan



_______________________________________________
pacman-dev mailing list
pacman-dev@archlinux.org
http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
 
Old 05-19-2008, 02:51 PM
Xavier
 
Default A variety of small changes

On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 4:24 PM, Allan McRae <mcrae_allan@hotmail.com> wrote:
> When using the geninteg flag, it is not a error condition for the
> operation being run so it should continue. It is an edge case but I am
> sure I saw someone else suggest this as well so that is my justification
> of usefulness... Found it:
> http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/User:Romashka#Pacman
>

Yeah ok. By the way, the way it is formulated there : "should not be
checked at this step"
made me think that we could maybe reorder the way things are done.
Either delay arch check after integ check, or put integ check before arch check.
But it is obviously harder to do this, so it might be not worth it.

_______________________________________________
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 06:59 PM.

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