6 Nov
2009
6 Nov
'09
8:02 p.m.
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 8:47 PM, Cedric Staniewski <cedric@gmx.ca> wrote:
Signed-off-by: Cedric Staniewski <cedric@gmx.ca> --- I'm not sure about that part
pmout=$(run_pacman -T "$@")
for two reasons. First, we have to work around sudo in run_pacman, and second, most of the pacman wrappers does not support -T or do not return the same codes as pacman does. For this second reason, the following patch would be (currently) useless for the majority of pacman wrapper users.
This comment makes more sense after reading your second patch :) where you make run_pacman use a specified $PACMAN binary I think its fine to keep calling pacman directly for -T operation, and allow a wrapper for the others.