commit 7d37d9278d0ab6eb46ec4689c8091780382cbb95 Author: Nagy Gabor <ngaba@petra.hos.u-szeged.hu> Date: Sun Aug 12 22:26:54 2007 +0200
Fix for sync1003 and sync1004 pactests
checkdeps and resolvedeps now take both a remove list and an install list as arguments, allowing dependencies to be calculated correctly.
This broke the sync990 pactest, but this pactest used dependencies and provides in an unusual way, so it has been changed.
Dan: the sync990 pactest was just plain wrong. It didn't satisfy the dependencies correctly, so should never have succeeded.
Signed-off-by: Chantry Xavier <shiningxc@gmail.com> [Dan: some variable renaming, clarification in commit message] Signed-off-by: Dan McGee <dan@archlinux.org>
Wow, thanks. Special thanks to Xavier, who keep this patch in sync with the current tree. I noticed a little memleak in the patch: ---------- +char *missdepstring = alpm_dep_get_string(depend); -... +if(!alpm_depcmp(oldpkg, depend)) { + continue; +} ---------- Well, I will create a cosmetics patch for this, soon [I am also quite busy now, be patient ;-)]: 1. get rid of the ugly joined list [maybe with two for-loops] <- I used this to avoid duplicated code, and indeed... the result is _really_ ugly 2. remove compute_requiredby, and check the whole "untouched" localdb by hand [this is more suggestive imho, and a _little bit_ faster] 3. I need your feedback here: Well, the "universal" alpm_list_find is reimplemented in many places, for example we could use this as a search-for-satisfier with the help of alpm_depcmp, the only problem is, that alpm_depcmp's match is 1, not 0 <- So shall I implement a trivial not_alpm_depcmp function as a helper function (my opinion: no) or give a new "compare-function-indicates-match-with" parameter to alpm_list_find (my opinion: yes). Bye, ngaba ---------------------------------------------------- SZTE Egyetemi Könyvtár - http://www.bibl.u-szeged.hu This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/