On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 9:10 PM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
Why call both -Qk and -Qkk? So lets say any external script calls -Ql and -Qkk. Two things.
Hi, Allan, 35% of the packages I have installed lack an mtree. And -Qkk performs no checks at all for those. Sure, I guess the external script can use the -Ql to fill in the gaps that -Qkk didn't check. But that's just shifting the work around: one fewer exec of pacman, but someone's got to perform those checks. If I were writing the script I would just as soon let -Qk take care of it for me instead of reimplementing something pacman can do for me.
Given if cchecking for unowned files is part of pacman, it _will not_ be part of -Qkk, both -Qkk and -Q --unowned will need called. Two things...
The consequence of this decision is that the user will experience twice the necessary run time, or three times if they want to also check packages lacking mtrees.
Also, I think this is the key factor to excluding this from pacman. From your implementation:
for ( item <- List( "dev", "proc", "run", "sys", "tmp", // these look wrong, but see .head & .tail below "certs/etc/ssl", "locale/usr/share", "pkg/var/cache/pacman" ) ) {
I assume these are exclusion lists. They will always be incomplete and non-portable so need to be configurable. We are not having such configuration in pacman.conf.
Those are only there because it's my script that I use on my system and I've hacked it to suit my needs. It's just a prototype, not the final product. I have not suggested, nor would I ever, that these be incorporated into pacman. A simple "|grep -v exclusion-pattern" is all that would be required to achieve what my hack does, and would certainly be the preferable solution for pacman. Jeremy