On 23/09/14 00:02, Dan McGee wrote:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 7:44 AM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
This is v2 of a patchset submitted long ago. It has been rebased and had its memory leaks fixed.
With this patchset, pacman will create a local database directory if it is missing (but not the root of the database - i.e. /var/lib/pacman/ still needs to be present). When creating the database or finding an empty local database it will add the .alpm_db_version file and add the version. For existing pacman databases this file is created by the pacman-db-upgrade script. Finally the version of the local database is checked during db validation.
I'm fine with the idea, but on a more meta level, is there any reason this should be a hidden file? Why not just call it something like DB-VERSION so it is big and obvious? I find the idea of hidden files in non-user home directories less than ideal as it makes investigation that much harder until you remember to do a full `ls -la`.
(For example: svn stores its version in the root of the repository in a `format` file, http://serverfault.com/questions/277441/difference-between-the-format-and-db... )
I'm happy renaming this. I'll use ALPM_DB_VERSION unless someone speaks up.