13 Jul
2007
13 Jul
'07
4:06 p.m.
On 6/13/07, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
The old code attempted to upgrade pacman by itself and automate the process by creating a new transaction and a bunch of other complicated stuff. We should just leave such actions to the user to decide instead of trying to do it for them, and it caused problems when pulling in dependencies.
Going through some older mails. Not sure if this was implemented or not, but I always figured pacman should be handled exactly like every other HoldPkg. It makes sense to me. That way an end user has complete control of the warning level for this, AND we don't have weird special case code like this.