[pacman-dev] gensync and updatesync status

Xavier

27 Jan 2008 27 Jan '08

11:48 a.m.

I am confused by all the db scripts we have : gensync, updatesync, repo-add, repo-remove. So I had a look a bit at git history. It seems like originally, there were only gensync and updatesync. Then repo-add and repo-remove were created, doing mostly what gensync and updatesync did. But then, gensync and updatesync were rewritten using repo-add and repo-remove. What this done for a compatibility purpose maybe? Are these two tools still use anywhere? I heard (from Dan ;)) that core/extra used didn't even use the scripts in pacman git repo, but the ones in dbscripts git repo instead. But that community did use repo-add. Do they use repo-add directly, or do they use updatesync? What bothers me here is that there is apparently a functionality that is only found in updatesync/gensync, not repo-add : force flag support. Apparently, updatesync need both the PKGBUILD and the package. It reads the PKGBUILD, look if the force option is specified, and then calls repo-add (with --force option if force flag was found) on the package. That sounds rather ugly. Why don't we handle this the more usual way? makepkg could add a force line in .PKGINFO if it finds the force option in the PKGBUILD. And then repo-add add the force flag if it finds it in .PKGINFO. After that, gensync and updatesync could be totally removed, right?

Show replies by date

Roman Kyrylych

28 Jan 28 Jan

11:56 a.m.

2008/1/27, Xavier :

...

I am confused by all the db scripts we have : gensync, updatesync, repo-add, repo-remove. So I had a look a bit at git history. It seems like originally, there were only gensync and updatesync. Then repo-add and repo-remove were created, doing mostly what gensync and updatesync did. But then, gensync and updatesync were rewritten using repo-add and repo-remove. What this done for a compatibility purpose maybe?

Are these two tools still use anywhere? I heard (from Dan ;)) that core/extra used didn't even use the scripts in pacman git repo, but the ones in dbscripts git repo instead. But that community did use repo-add. Do they use repo-add directly, or do they use updatesync?

What bothers me here is that there is apparently a functionality that is only found in updatesync/gensync, not repo-add : force flag support. Apparently, updatesync need both the PKGBUILD and the package. It reads the PKGBUILD, look if the force option is specified, and then calls repo-add (with --force option if force flag was found) on the package. That sounds rather ugly.

Why don't we handle this the more usual way? makepkg could add a force line in .PKGINFO if it finds the force option in the PKGBUILD. And then repo-add add the force flag if it finds it in .PKGINFO.

After that, gensync and updatesync could be totally removed, right?

I want to emphasize on 'force' issue: FS#9347 and FS#9349. -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)

Miklos Vajna

7:44 p.m.

On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 11:48:33AM +0100, Xavier wrote:

...

So I had a look a bit at git history. It seems like originally, there were only gensync and updatesync.

right. i haven't followed the discussion that resulted in the repo-{add,remove} scripts, but we still just use updatesync (it can add/remove one or more packages) and gensync (since updatesync can't create pkgdbs) only. originally there were only gensync (written by Judd) then Jason wrote updatesync based on gensync. there is a code duplication in those scripts, but they at least do something different ;) - VMiklos

Aaron Griffin

7:47 p.m.

On Jan 27, 2008 4:48 AM, Xavier wrote:

...

I am confused by all the db scripts we have : gensync, updatesync, repo-add, repo-remove. So I had a look a bit at git history. It seems like originally, there were only gensync and updatesync. Then repo-add and repo-remove were created, doing mostly what gensync and updatesync did. But then, gensync and updatesync were rewritten using repo-add and repo-remove. What this done for a compatibility purpose maybe?

Yes. For all intents and purposes, these two tools are/should be deprecated.

...

What bothers me here is that there is apparently a functionality that is only found in updatesync/gensync, not repo-add : force flag support. Apparently, updatesync need both the PKGBUILD and the package. It reads the PKGBUILD, look if the force option is specified, and then calls repo-add (with --force option if force flag was found) on the package. That sounds rather ugly.

The only solution to this would be to place the FORCE flag into the package metadata so that repo-add can handle the flag without having to read the PKGBUILD. At this point, the force flag is ONLY in the DB and PKGBUILD so there is no way around it.

...

Why don't we handle this the more usual way? makepkg could add a force line in .PKGINFO if it finds the force option in the PKGBUILD. And then repo-add add the force flag if it finds it in .PKGINFO.

And you said that same thing! That's what I get for responding until reading the full message

Chantry Xavier

2 Feb 2 Feb

11:50 p.m.

New subject: [pacman-dev] [PATCH] add 'force' to PKGINFO, have repo-add respect it.

Ref: http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2008-January/011023.html Signed-off-by: Chantry Xavier --- scripts/makepkg.sh.in | 3 +++ scripts/repo-add.sh.in | 4 ++-- 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/scripts/makepkg.sh.in b/scripts/makepkg.sh.in index 0997386..68ad597 100644 --- a/scripts/makepkg.sh.in +++ b/scripts/makepkg.sh.in @@ -810,6 +810,9 @@ create_package() { if [ "$CARCH" != "" ]; then echo "arch = $CARCH" >>.PKGINFO fi + if [ "$(check_option force)" = "y" ]; then + echo "force = true" >> .PKGINFO + fi local it for it in "${license[@]}"; do diff --git a/scripts/repo-add.sh.in b/scripts/repo-add.sh.in index c37a12f..efd3bc0 100644 --- a/scripts/repo-add.sh.in +++ b/scripts/repo-add.sh.in @@ -136,7 +136,7 @@ db_write_entry() # blank out all variables and set pkgfile local pkgfile=$(readlink -f "$1") local pkgname pkgver pkgdesc url builddate packager csize size \ - group depend backup license replaces provides conflict \ + group depend backup license replaces provides conflict force \ _groups _depends _backups _licenses _replaces _provides _conflicts \ startdir @@ -209,7 +209,7 @@ db_write_entry() [ -n "$builddate" ] && echo -e "%BUILDDATE%\n$builddate\n" >>desc [ -n "$packager" ] && echo -e "%PACKAGER%\n$packager\n" >>desc write_list_entry "REPLACES" "$_replaces" "desc" - [ $FORCE -eq 1 ] && echo -e "%FORCE%\n" >>desc + [ $FORCE -eq 1 -o -n "$force" ] && echo -e "%FORCE%\n" >>desc # create depends entry msg2 "$(gettext "Creating 'depends' db entry...")" -- 1.5.4.rc4

Chantry Xavier

11:50 p.m.

New subject: [pacman-dev] [PATCH] remove --force option from repo-add.

The force option should only be specified in the PKGBUILD with options=(force). This information should be handled like any other meta info, and there is no need to have a special repo-add option for it. Signed-off-by: Chantry Xavier --- scripts/repo-add.sh.in | 13 +++---------- 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) diff --git a/scripts/repo-add.sh.in b/scripts/repo-add.sh.in index efd3bc0..297eb15 100644 --- a/scripts/repo-add.sh.in +++ b/scripts/repo-add.sh.in @@ -25,7 +25,6 @@ export TEXTDOMAINDIR='@localedir@' myver='@PACKAGE_VERSION@' confdir='@sysconfdir@' -FORCE=0 REPO_DB_FILE="" # ensure we have a sane umask set @@ -54,14 +53,10 @@ error() { # print usage instructions usage() { printf "repo-add (pacman) %s\n\n" "$myver" - printf "$(gettext "Usage: %s <path-to-db> [--force] <package> ...\n\n")" "$0" + printf "$(gettext "Usage: %s <path-to-db> <package> ...\n\n")" "$0" printf "$(gettext "\ repo-add will update a package database by reading a package file.\n\ Multiple packages to add can be specified on the command line.\n\n")" - printf "$(gettext "\ -The --force flag will add a 'force' entry to the sync database, which\n\ -tells pacman to skip its internal version number checking and update\n\ -the package regardless.\n\n")" echo "$(gettext "Example: repo-add /path/to/repo.db.tar.gz pacman-3.0.0.pkg.tar.gz")" } @@ -209,7 +204,7 @@ db_write_entry() [ -n "$builddate" ] && echo -e "%BUILDDATE%\n$builddate\n" >>desc [ -n "$packager" ] && echo -e "%PACKAGER%\n$packager\n" >>desc write_list_entry "REPLACES" "$_replaces" "desc" - [ $FORCE -eq 1 -o -n "$force" ] && echo -e "%FORCE%\n" >>desc + [ -n "$force" ] && echo -e "%FORCE%\n" >>desc # create depends entry msg2 "$(gettext "Creating 'depends' db entry...")" @@ -290,9 +285,7 @@ gstmpdir=$(mktemp -d /tmp/repo-add.XXXXXXXXXX) || (\ success=0 # parse arguments for arg in "$@"; do - if [ "$arg" == "--force" -o "$arg" == "-f" ]; then - FORCE=1 - elif [ -z "$REPO_DB_FILE" ]; then + if [ -z "$REPO_DB_FILE" ]; then REPO_DB_FILE=$(readlink -f "$arg") if ! test_repo_db_file; then error "$(gettext "Repository file '%s' is not a proper pacman database.")" "$REPO_DB_FILE" -- 1.5.4.rc4

Dan McGee

3 Feb 3 Feb

12:11 a.m.

New subject: [pacman-dev] [PATCH] remove --force option from repo-add.

Before I even dive into the patch, I asked Xavier to send this one here for opinions from others. I am currently in favor of not removing the --force option from repo-add, so that one would not have to rebuild a package in order to mark it as force in a database that might be on a different computer from where you built the package, so makepkg -R is unavailable. But I would love to hear your thoughts. With that said, I'll go ahead and review the patch as if it was going to be included. On Feb 2, 2008 4:50 PM, Chantry Xavier wrote:

...

The force option should only be specified in the PKGBUILD with options=(force). This information should be handled like any other meta info, and there is no need to have a special repo-add option for it.

Signed-off-by: Chantry Xavier --- scripts/repo-add.sh.in | 13 +++---------- 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/scripts/repo-add.sh.in b/scripts/repo-add.sh.in index efd3bc0..297eb15 100644 --- a/scripts/repo-add.sh.in +++ b/scripts/repo-add.sh.in @@ -25,7 +25,6 @@ export TEXTDOMAINDIR='@localedir@' myver='@PACKAGE_VERSION@' confdir='@sysconfdir@'

-FORCE=0 REPO_DB_FILE=""

# ensure we have a sane umask set @@ -54,14 +53,10 @@ error() { # print usage instructions usage() { printf "repo-add (pacman) %s\n\n" "$myver" - printf "$(gettext "Usage: %s <path-to-db> [--force] <package> ...\n\n")" "$0" + printf "$(gettext "Usage: %s <path-to-db> <package> ...\n\n")" "$0" printf "$(gettext "\ repo-add will update a package database by reading a package file.\n\ Multiple packages to add can be specified on the command line.\n\n")" - printf "$(gettext "\ -The --force flag will add a 'force' entry to the sync database, which\n\ -tells pacman to skip its internal version number checking and update\n\ -the package regardless.\n\n")" echo "$(gettext "Example: repo-add /path/to/repo.db.tar.gz pacman-3.0.0.pkg.tar.gz")" }

@@ -209,7 +204,7 @@ db_write_entry() [ -n "$builddate" ] && echo -e "%BUILDDATE%\n$builddate\n" >>desc [ -n "$packager" ] && echo -e "%PACKAGER%\n$packager\n" >>desc write_list_entry "REPLACES" "$_replaces" "desc" - [ $FORCE -eq 1 -o -n "$force" ] && echo -e "%FORCE%\n" >>desc + [ -n "$force" ] && echo -e "%FORCE%\n" >>desc

# create depends entry msg2 "$(gettext "Creating 'depends' db entry...")" @@ -290,9 +285,7 @@ gstmpdir=$(mktemp -d /tmp/repo-add.XXXXXXXXXX) || (\ success=0 # parse arguments for arg in "$@"; do - if [ "$arg" == "--force" -o "$arg" == "-f" ]; then - FORCE=1 - elif [ -z "$REPO_DB_FILE" ]; then + if [ -z "$REPO_DB_FILE" ]; then REPO_DB_FILE=$(readlink -f "$arg") if ! test_repo_db_file; then error "$(gettext "Repository file '%s' is not a proper pacman database.")" "$REPO_DB_FILE"

My only thought would be to put in (temporarily) something that looks for -f/--force and prints a big fat warning saying it won't be recognized- not sure what repo-add after this patch if that flag was passed. -Dan

Xavier

12:32 a.m.

New subject: [pacman-dev] [PATCH] remove --force option from repo-add.

Dan McGee wrote:

...

Before I even dive into the patch, I asked Xavier to send this one here for opinions from others. I am currently in favor of not removing the --force option from repo-add, so that one would not have to rebuild a package in order to mark it as force in a database that might be on a different computer from where you built the package, so makepkg -R is unavailable. But I would love to hear your thoughts.

Just for clarifying my point of view, I didn't like this special handling of the force flag. There are many other options you can get wrong in the PKGBUILD, and these aren't fixed by using repo-add flags. They are fixed in the PKGBUILD itself. I just like the idea of having everything in a single place ;) Secondly, is there anyone who uses that option? If I understood correctly, repo-add is only used by the community repo. And they don't even seem to know about the force flag. $ find /var/abs/community -name PKGBUILD | xargs grep "options.*force" | wc -l 8 $ find /var/abs/community -name PKGBUILD | xargs grep "force=y" |wc -l 12 $ grep -r FORCE /var/lib/pacman/sync/community <nothing> However, with my repo-add change, only the first 8 PKGBUILD who uses the options=(force) syntax would be supported. The force=y syntax used by the 12 others wouldn't work.

...

With that said, I'll go ahead and review the patch as if it was going to be included.

On Feb 2, 2008 4:50 PM, Chantry Xavier wrote:

...
The force option should only be specified in the PKGBUILD with options=(force). This information should be handled like any other meta info, and there is no need to have a special repo-add option for it.

Signed-off-by: Chantry Xavier --- scripts/repo-add.sh.in | 13 +++---------- 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/scripts/repo-add.sh.in b/scripts/repo-add.sh.in index efd3bc0..297eb15 100644 --- a/scripts/repo-add.sh.in +++ b/scripts/repo-add.sh.in @@ -25,7 +25,6 @@ export TEXTDOMAINDIR='@localedir@' myver='@PACKAGE_VERSION@' confdir='@sysconfdir@'

-FORCE=0 REPO_DB_FILE=""

# ensure we have a sane umask set @@ -54,14 +53,10 @@ error() { # print usage instructions usage() { printf "repo-add (pacman) %s\n\n" "$myver" - printf "$(gettext "Usage: %s<path-to-db> [--force]<package> ...\n\n")" "$0" + printf "$(gettext "Usage: %s<path-to-db> <package> ...\n\n")" "$0" printf "$(gettext "\ repo-add will update a package database by reading a package file.\n\ Multiple packages to add can be specified on the command line.\n\n")" - printf "$(gettext "\ -The --force flag will add a 'force' entry to the sync database, which\n\ -tells pacman to skip its internal version number checking and update\n\ -the package regardless.\n\n")" echo "$(gettext "Example: repo-add /path/to/repo.db.tar.gz pacman-3.0.0.pkg.tar.gz")" }

@@ -209,7 +204,7 @@ db_write_entry() [ -n "$builddate" ]&& echo -e "%BUILDDATE%\n$builddate\n">>desc [ -n "$packager" ]&& echo -e "%PACKAGER%\n$packager\n">>desc write_list_entry "REPLACES" "$_replaces" "desc" - [ $FORCE -eq 1 -o -n "$force" ]&& echo -e "%FORCE%\n">>desc + [ -n "$force" ]&& echo -e "%FORCE%\n">>desc

# create depends entry msg2 "$(gettext "Creating 'depends' db entry...")" @@ -290,9 +285,7 @@ gstmpdir=$(mktemp -d /tmp/repo-add.XXXXXXXXXX) || (\ success=0 # parse arguments for arg in "$@"; do - if [ "$arg" == "--force" -o "$arg" == "-f" ]; then - FORCE=1 - elif [ -z "$REPO_DB_FILE" ]; then + if [ -z "$REPO_DB_FILE" ]; then REPO_DB_FILE=$(readlink -f "$arg") if ! test_repo_db_file; then error "$(gettext "Repository file '%s' is not a proper pacman database.")" "$REPO_DB_FILE"

My only thought would be to put in (temporarily) something that looks for -f/--force and prints a big fat warning saying it won't be recognized- not sure what repo-add after this patch if that flag was passed.

As I said earlier, I thought no one used that option, so that it would be alright to simply remove it. But having a warning temporarily seems acceptable.

Chantry Xavier

1:20 a.m.

New subject: [pacman-dev] [PATCH] remove --force option from repo-add.

The force option should only be specified in the PKGBUILD with options=(force). This information should be handled like any other meta info, and there is no need to have a special repo-add option for it. Signed-off-by: Chantry Xavier --- scripts/repo-add.sh.in | 12 ++++-------- 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) diff --git a/scripts/repo-add.sh.in b/scripts/repo-add.sh.in index efd3bc0..00eec7e 100644 --- a/scripts/repo-add.sh.in +++ b/scripts/repo-add.sh.in @@ -25,7 +25,6 @@ export TEXTDOMAINDIR='@localedir@' myver='@PACKAGE_VERSION@' confdir='@sysconfdir@' -FORCE=0 REPO_DB_FILE="" # ensure we have a sane umask set @@ -54,14 +53,10 @@ error() { # print usage instructions usage() { printf "repo-add (pacman) %s\n\n" "$myver" - printf "$(gettext "Usage: %s <path-to-db> [--force] <package> ...\n\n")" "$0" + printf "$(gettext "Usage: %s <path-to-db> <package> ...\n\n")" "$0" printf "$(gettext "\ repo-add will update a package database by reading a package file.\n\ Multiple packages to add can be specified on the command line.\n\n")" - printf "$(gettext "\ -The --force flag will add a 'force' entry to the sync database, which\n\ -tells pacman to skip its internal version number checking and update\n\ -the package regardless.\n\n")" echo "$(gettext "Example: repo-add /path/to/repo.db.tar.gz pacman-3.0.0.pkg.tar.gz")" } @@ -209,7 +204,7 @@ db_write_entry() [ -n "$builddate" ] && echo -e "%BUILDDATE%\n$builddate\n" >>desc [ -n "$packager" ] && echo -e "%PACKAGER%\n$packager\n" >>desc write_list_entry "REPLACES" "$_replaces" "desc" - [ $FORCE -eq 1 -o -n "$force" ] && echo -e "%FORCE%\n" >>desc + [ -n "$force" ] && echo -e "%FORCE%\n" >>desc # create depends entry msg2 "$(gettext "Creating 'depends' db entry...")" @@ -291,7 +286,8 @@ success=0 # parse arguments for arg in "$@"; do if [ "$arg" == "--force" -o "$arg" == "-f" ]; then - FORCE=1 + warning "$(gettext "the -f and --force options are no longer recognized")" + msg2 "$(gettext "use options=(force) in the PKGBUILD instead")" elif [ -z "$REPO_DB_FILE" ]; then REPO_DB_FILE=$(readlink -f "$arg") if ! test_repo_db_file; then -- 1.5.4

Dan McGee

1:58 a.m.

New subject: [pacman-dev] [PATCH] remove --force option from repo-add.

On Feb 2, 2008 6:20 PM, Chantry Xavier wrote:

...

The force option should only be specified in the PKGBUILD with options=(force). This information should be handled like any other meta info, and there is no need to have a special repo-add option for it.

Signed-off-by: Chantry Xavier

Forgot to add one more thing when I reviewed this patch too- the manpage will need updating. -Dan

Chantry Xavier

9:33 a.m.

New subject: [pacman-dev] [PATCH] remove --force option from repo-add.

The force option should only be specified in the PKGBUILD with options=(force). This information should be handled like any other meta info, and there is no need to have a special repo-add option for it. Signed-off-by: Chantry Xavier --- doc/repo-add.8.txt | 10 ---------- scripts/repo-add.sh.in | 12 ++++-------- 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) diff --git a/doc/repo-add.8.txt b/doc/repo-add.8.txt index 5664949..495e553 100644 --- a/doc/repo-add.8.txt +++ b/doc/repo-add.8.txt @@ -34,16 +34,6 @@ specified on the command line. Multiple packages to remove can be specified on the command line. -Options -------- -*--force* (repo-add only):: - Add a force entry to the sync database, which tells pacman to skip version - number comparison and update the package regardless. This flag can be - specified in the middle of the command line, with any packages listed - before the flag being added as normal entries, and any specified after - being marked as force upgrades. - - See Also -------- linkman:makepkg[8], linkman:pacman[8] diff --git a/scripts/repo-add.sh.in b/scripts/repo-add.sh.in index efd3bc0..00eec7e 100644 --- a/scripts/repo-add.sh.in +++ b/scripts/repo-add.sh.in @@ -25,7 +25,6 @@ export TEXTDOMAINDIR='@localedir@' myver='@PACKAGE_VERSION@' confdir='@sysconfdir@' -FORCE=0 REPO_DB_FILE="" # ensure we have a sane umask set @@ -54,14 +53,10 @@ error() { # print usage instructions usage() { printf "repo-add (pacman) %s\n\n" "$myver" - printf "$(gettext "Usage: %s <path-to-db> [--force] <package> ...\n\n")" "$0" + printf "$(gettext "Usage: %s <path-to-db> <package> ...\n\n")" "$0" printf "$(gettext "\ repo-add will update a package database by reading a package file.\n\ Multiple packages to add can be specified on the command line.\n\n")" - printf "$(gettext "\ -The --force flag will add a 'force' entry to the sync database, which\n\ -tells pacman to skip its internal version number checking and update\n\ -the package regardless.\n\n")" echo "$(gettext "Example: repo-add /path/to/repo.db.tar.gz pacman-3.0.0.pkg.tar.gz")" } @@ -209,7 +204,7 @@ db_write_entry() [ -n "$builddate" ] && echo -e "%BUILDDATE%\n$builddate\n" >>desc [ -n "$packager" ] && echo -e "%PACKAGER%\n$packager\n" >>desc write_list_entry "REPLACES" "$_replaces" "desc" - [ $FORCE -eq 1 -o -n "$force" ] && echo -e "%FORCE%\n" >>desc + [ -n "$force" ] && echo -e "%FORCE%\n" >>desc # create depends entry msg2 "$(gettext "Creating 'depends' db entry...")" @@ -291,7 +286,8 @@ success=0 # parse arguments for arg in "$@"; do if [ "$arg" == "--force" -o "$arg" == "-f" ]; then - FORCE=1 + warning "$(gettext "the -f and --force options are no longer recognized")" + msg2 "$(gettext "use options=(force) in the PKGBUILD instead")" elif [ -z "$REPO_DB_FILE" ]; then REPO_DB_FILE=$(readlink -f "$arg") if ! test_repo_db_file; then -- 1.5.4

Aaron Griffin

4 Feb 4 Feb

12:30 a.m.

New subject: [pacman-dev] [PATCH] remove --force option from repo-add.

On Feb 2, 2008 5:32 PM, Xavier wrote:

...

Dan McGee wrote:

...
Before I even dive into the patch, I asked Xavier to send this one here for opinions from others. I am currently in favor of not removing the --force option from repo-add, so that one would not have to rebuild a package in order to mark it as force in a database that might be on a different computer from where you built the package, so makepkg -R is unavailable. But I would love to hear your thoughts.

Just for clarifying my point of view, I didn't like this special handling of the force flag. There are many other options you can get wrong in the PKGBUILD, and these aren't fixed by using repo-add flags. They are fixed in the PKGBUILD itself. I just like the idea of having everything in a single place ;)

I agree with Xavier here. The special force handling was annoying, and should be deleted no that the force metadata is in the package

Dan McGee

3 Feb 3 Feb

12:06 a.m.

New subject: [pacman-dev] [PATCH] add 'force' to PKGINFO, have repo-add respect it.

On Feb 2, 2008 4:50 PM, Chantry Xavier wrote:

...

Ref: http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2008-January/011023.html

Signed-off-by: Chantry Xavier --- scripts/makepkg.sh.in | 3 +++ scripts/repo-add.sh.in | 4 ++-- 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/scripts/makepkg.sh.in b/scripts/makepkg.sh.in index 0997386..68ad597 100644 --- a/scripts/makepkg.sh.in +++ b/scripts/makepkg.sh.in @@ -810,6 +810,9 @@ create_package() { if [ "$CARCH" != "" ]; then echo "arch = $CARCH" >>.PKGINFO fi + if [ "$(check_option force)" = "y" ]; then + echo "force = true" >> .PKGINFO + fi Good.

...

local it for it in "${license[@]}"; do diff --git a/scripts/repo-add.sh.in b/scripts/repo-add.sh.in index c37a12f..efd3bc0 100644 --- a/scripts/repo-add.sh.in +++ b/scripts/repo-add.sh.in @@ -136,7 +136,7 @@ db_write_entry() # blank out all variables and set pkgfile local pkgfile=$(readlink -f "$1") local pkgname pkgver pkgdesc url builddate packager csize size \ - group depend backup license replaces provides conflict \ + group depend backup license replaces provides conflict force \ _groups _depends _backups _licenses _replaces _provides _conflicts \ startdir

@@ -209,7 +209,7 @@ db_write_entry() [ -n "$builddate" ] && echo -e "%BUILDDATE%\n$builddate\n" >>desc [ -n "$packager" ] && echo -e "%PACKAGER%\n$packager\n" >>desc write_list_entry "REPLACES" "$_replaces" "desc" - [ $FORCE -eq 1 ] && echo -e "%FORCE%\n" >>desc + [ $FORCE -eq 1 -o -n "$force" ] && echo -e "%FORCE%\n" >>desc

Seems good to me. Master or maint for this one? Asking anyone on the list that has an opinion. Being that it is non-intrusive for most people, I'm fine with maint. -Dan

Xavier

12:34 a.m.

New subject: [pacman-dev] [PATCH] add 'force' to PKGINFO, have repo-add respect it.

Dan McGee wrote:

...

Seems good to me. Master or maint for this one? Asking anyone on the list that has an opinion. Being that it is non-intrusive for most people, I'm fine with maint.

I see this as a bugfix. Have a look at FS#9347 and FS#9349. And yes, it should also be non intrusive.

Roman Kyrylych

4 Feb 4 Feb

12:19 p.m.

New subject: [pacman-dev] [PATCH] add 'force' to PKGINFO, have repo-add respect it.

2008/2/3, Xavier :

...

Dan McGee wrote:

...
Seems good to me. Master or maint for this one? Asking anyone on the list that has an opinion. Being that it is non-intrusive for most people, I'm fine with maint.

I see this as a bugfix. Have a look at FS#9347 and FS#9349. And yes, it should also be non intrusive.

Agree. -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)

5920

Age (days ago)

5928

Last active (days ago)

List overview

Download

14 comments

6 participants

participants (6)

Aaron Griffin
Chantry Xavier
Dan McGee
Miklos Vajna
Roman Kyrylych
Xavier