On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 03:56:28PM +0100, Nagy Gabor wrote:
Hi! This is a not-to-commit pactest, I just refer to this old thread...: http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2007-August/009072.html I don't know whether we should fix this or not... This is not a critical bug, just resolvedeps is a bit negligent, but checkdeps will report its negligence (however, pacman doesn't seem to be very informative...).
Yes I noticed, I think this little bug was in your original checkdeps patch. At the end of sync_prepare, you should do s/FREELIST(deps);/*data = deps;/ Then the missing dependencies message will magically appear again in the frontend :)
By fixing this the code would be cleaner, more clever, but _notably_ slower, so I still don't know what to do... What do you think?
---resolvedeps.py--- self.description = "resolvedeps test"
sp1 = pmpkg("pkg1") sp1.depends = [ "pkg2>=2.0-1" , "provision" ] self.addpkg2db("sync", sp1)
sp2 = pmpkg("pkg2", "2.0-1") self.addpkg2db("sync", sp2)
sp3 = pmpkg("provision") self.addpkg2db("sync", sp3)
lp = pmpkg("pkg2", "1.0-1") lp.provides = [ "provision" ] self.addpkg2db("local", lp)
self.args = "-S pkg1 pkg2"
self.addrule("PACMAN_RETCODE=0") self.addrule("PKG_EXIST=pkg1") self.addrule("PKG_EXIST=pkg2") self.addrule("PKG_VERSION=pkg2|2.0-1") self.addrule("PKG_EXIST=provision")
I think it would be interesting to see the patch you propose for fixing it, and a benchmark for measuring how slower it is :)