On 6/26/07, Dan McGee firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On 5/17/07, Roman Kyrylych email@example.com wrote:
2007/4/23, Aaron Griffin firstname.lastname@example.org:
I may be missing some history here, but I am wondering why the package metadata is in a different format than the DB metadata.
As far as parsing goes, it would be ideal to unify the two formats.
Does anyone (judd, you're CC'd on this) know any reason to keep two different formats, or any tools that would be negatively impacted by such a change? Please note, a "negative impact" is not that same as "we have to change it for the new format" - more along the lines of "we can no longer do XYZ".
Status? I don't know any reason to keep them different.
-- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич) _______________________________________________ pacman-dev mailing list email@example.com http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
This died a LONG way back. But I have something relevant here, courtesy of Chantry: http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2006-March/005702.html
I'm all in favor of doing this, although it is going to break some things. We will need to plan a transition roadmap, especially if we want to get the local DB in the same format.
And it died again it seems!
This is a lot of work, and I'm trying to keep on top of these things....
So here's the operative question to get the ball rolling.
Which format do we like more?
[ foo = bar baz = blah ] vs [ %FOO% bar
%BAZ% blah ]
And try not to think about where/when bash and python and things like that need this data - that's a non-issue as we can always write helper utils using libalpm's parsing if it becomes really hard for things like, say, namcap.