2008/2/18, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com>:
On Feb 17, 2008 10:14 AM, Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych@gmail.com> wrote:
2008/2/17, Xavier <shiningxc@gmail.com>:
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 05:37:13PM +0200, Roman Kyrylych wrote:
2008/2/16, Chantry Xavier <shiningxc@gmail.com>:
As it was already mentioned several times, the new -Sc behavior in 3.1 is great, but only when the package cache is not shared.
When this option is enabled, -Sc will clean packages that are no longer available in any sync db, rather than packages that are no longer in the local db. The resulting behavior should be better for shared cache.
Great name! :-)
BTW, I've just realized that there might be a problem with "no longer in any sync db" that, I think was not in 3.0's -Sc: if SystemA has core,extra,community enabled and SystemB only core&extra then doing -Sc on SystemB will cleanup community packages from the shared cache. I don't know if it's worth to fix this by using a more complicated (filename comparison, AFAIR) aproach like in 3.0. :-/
Indeed, that's a problem, but don't know if it's a big one. I would think it's rather common to use the same set of sync db on a set of machines sharing pkg cache. And that approach is indeed much simpler.
I mentioned this in the man page, that this option is rather meant for setup where same sync dbs are used.
Ah, OK, didn't read that. :-) Then we can forget about this corner case, it can be worked around by cache cleanup scripts based on filename parsing (available on BBS and ML).
And now we are back to the whole reason why I think this is a pointless problem to solve. :P
Not pointless at all, Xavier's solution will work on majority of configurations with a shared cache (that have the same set of repos enabled).
Once you venture into the shared cache realm, I just don't see a need for pacman to hand-hold you.
It's useful for users that don't use a shared cache, but want to keep non-installed but up-to-date packages in cache (e.g. me :-P) - there are some valid reasons for doing this.
So we have Xav and Roman in support of this, and me against it. I don't want to say "majority rules" here, but I would like to get a few more voices on this one. Aaron?
-- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)