On 07/21/13 at 01:03pm, Allan McRae wrote:
On 21/07/13 03:28, Jonathan Frazier wrote:
On 07/20/13 at 12:30pm, Allan McRae wrote:
On 20/07/13 12:03, Dave Reisner wrote:
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 11:12:35AM +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
On 19/07/13 09:29, Dave Reisner wrote:
>> +check_pacsave(){ >> + for f in "${1}" ${1}.[0-9]; do Strange that you quoted one of these but not the other. You're hitting the same 10+ pacsave problem here, too.
for f in "$1"{,.+([0-9])}
Question: do we actually care about that? Getting pacsaves with that many suffixes actually takes quite a bit of effort.
Allan
It doesn't require a whole lot of effort to support -- I see no reason to implement the correct solution rather than a 90% solution.
OK:
@Jonathan: the "Search and ..." patch will need adjusted too.
Sure, I will rebase and send a v2. I have at least three of the 10 patches I sent which need to be improved. I guess I buried the --help and option rework in a previous thread. So please review those if you haven't already.
my todo list is: rename the pacmandb printing function remove expansion in arithmetic tests (option handling) fix spelling in pacmandb commit msg. fix some quoting of parameters match pacnew.[0-9]* files instead of pacnew.[0-9] in two patches implement updatedb question and execution.
I added a couple of minor comments.
Do you have somewhere you can push a repo with these patches? It would make it easier for me to pull them all, but I can manage if not.
Allan
thanks, I reworked them and I think I got everything. I had to modify the pacmandb patch a bit more to work with the extra pacsaves so it may not be ideal. it is on github: https://github.com/JohnFrazier/pacman let me know if you want me post the current version here. Jonathan