On 10/3/20 5:35 am, Anatol Pomozov wrote:
Hi
On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 5:15 PM Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 9/3/20 6:55 am, Anatol Pomozov wrote:
On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 6:05 AM Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
I got to here. Seems a lot of this is duplicated from the single db path. If both are going to coexist, can we do some refactoring?
It depends whether we want to keep the API backward-compatible. If it is fine to break one in pacman 6 release then we can just remove the function from ALPM API. Otherwise alpm_db_update() need to be reimplemented using alpm_dbs_update() functionality.
I was thinking that a non-pacman frontend may want to update a single db. But I suppose they just pass a single db to alpm_dbs_update().
Yep. Passing a single element list to alpm_dbs_update() is exact equivalent of alpm_db_update() functionality.
So, I'm OK with the temporary code duplication followed by change of API for 6.0.
Ok. I will remove alpm_db_update() at the end of this patch series.
Well... thinking about this some more, at the end of the patch the current alpm_db_update() and alpm_dbs_update() should be renamed to take its place. All our API for db operations is of the form alpm_db_... so we should keep it that way. A