On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 11:46:16AM +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
On 30/05/13 11:32, William Giokas wrote:
Honestly, this is when I would say to call paccache in your repo-add function. As there is no separation between pacman and pacman-contrib anymore, it doesn't need any extra deps. Then things could still be done in one step while not duplicating code and introducing possible bugs.
I'm actually leaning towards liking this patch (but have a fix that is needed...). Currently repo management is a very tedious process. This alleviates some of the strain.
Makes sense. I have no problems with it, I just think that if we already have a tool to do this and more, why not use that, but something simple works.
If you look at it, there is no code duplication. All it does is delete the current version from the repo directory before it updates to the new package. It won't clean up older packages than that.
Yes, but if this is going to expand, then it may become more and more similar to paccache.
paccache is a very much more generic cache cleaner. This is purely repo management and I think belongs in repo-add.
Does that make sense?
Makes complete sense. Just think that it's good to look at alternatives that we already have.
Allan
One more thing. I don't want repo-add depending on stuff in contrib. repo-add gets installed with "make install" but contrib does not.
Okay. I understand.
Allan
-- William Giokas | KaiSforza GnuPG Key: 0x73CD09CF Fingerprint: F73F 50EF BBE2 9846 8306 E6B8 6902 06D8 73CD 09CF