Dario Freddi wrote:
This is my thought. Out there, a lot of people have great ideas about pacman/alpm, but nobody here ever seemed to have listened to them. You asked for some code, I brought you Shaman. I'm ready to get up with some well documented ideas, but I don't know if there is the right attitude to accept other point of views. And I'm not talking about the SQLite stuff - I hate SQLite, and it sucks for a package manager. But honestly... would you give alpm the fault for all those void*s, for all that useless package structs, and whatever else?
There is someone who latched over libalpm, and it's me. I believed in it, even a lot of stuff was wrong, and the result is Shaman. You can say you don't like it, ok, that's fine. What you can't say is that it is a real step forward compared to gtkpacman & friends, that used pacman instead (I'm not saying they're bad, I'm just showing the difference in wrapping pacman and libalpm, gtkpacman still remains a piece of software IMHO)
-Dan
Didn't mean to offend anyone, sorry if I did. Cheers Dario
Well, I am not sure why you felt offended, Dan didn't mean it that way. What you did is indeed great, that would be the first real frontend using libalpm. (well there is also gfpm using frugalware's libpacman, but I don't think anyone really ported it to libalpm, at least it's not uptodate). But actually, that's the point, you are the only one, while there are countless of others tools simply calling pacman, or parsing the stuff themselves. Still, your project should give us a better idea about the quality and usefulness of libalpm, and I hope that you will have concrete suggestions for improving libalpm and making it more friendly to use :)