10 Nov
2009
10 Nov
'09
10:28 p.m.
Dan McGee wrote:
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?
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. Allan