On Mon, Oct 15, 2007 at 01:30:05PM +0200, Nagy Gabor wrote:
OK. I try to explain what my problem is: If I send a patch, I have the feeling that it will be committed without modification or rejected. But this is a teamwork, so you can improve/fix my patch before commit. I don't care if you modify my patch, I don't care if my name is not listed as patch-author etc.; I suppose that before committing all accepted patch is carefully read, so fixing/improving is not an extra work IMHO, so I suggest to do that. For example, there are parts in my big checkdeps/alpm_sync_prepare patches which I don't like (the 2in1 remove+upgrade list loop for example); but that parts are unimportant; and (1.) I trust on your creativity and (2.) I couldn't do it better. Back to the current patch: First of all, I'm not a programmer, so I have few experience in c-programming.
I don't have any programming experience in C either (besides pacman). Maybe that's the problem. I didn't like much the 2in1 remove+upgrade list loop, and I think Dan didn't either. I tried a while ago to handle it in another way, but it was a dead end. And then I gave up..
And to tell the truth I was never interested in "programming language syntaxes", I'm interested in algorithmic problems instead. So I _knew_ that my patch is not perfect, but I hoped that it will be helpful (it points to some bugs and its concept is (hopefully) good.); but I also knew, that even a 5-year-old kid can fix it, if he knows C static/public/whatever syntax and alpm function-naming conversions.
If it was only the naming that was problematic, I would have fixed it. But there are other things that disturbed me. I already noted the conflict checking on my TODO list for testdb the first time you suggested it. I didn't do it yet for the reasons I already mentioned in this thread, that I am not satisfied with the current libalpm conflict checking interface. And also the asymetrical storing problem. For the other pkg->requiredby bug, I also replied, but AGAIN, I am clueless about what the correct fix is. My proposal was to duplicate the list before sorting it in testdb. I'm beginning to think that pacman was probably already a too complex project to start with, I always have to ask about how things should be done, and I'm very rarely able to come up with a patch I'm happy with. So I'm progressively losing the little motivation I had in the beginning. I also find it sad that pacman gets so little attention / is so short of manpower.