[pacman-dev] CVS update of pacman-lib (NEWS)
Date: Friday, February 16, 2007 @ 16:49:00 Author: dan Path: /home/cvs-pacman/pacman-lib Modified: NEWS (1.7 -> 1.8) Updated NEWS file with some of Roman's suggestions. ------+ NEWS | 8 ++++++-- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) Index: pacman-lib/NEWS diff -u pacman-lib/NEWS:1.7 pacman-lib/NEWS:1.8 --- pacman-lib/NEWS:1.7 Tue Feb 6 17:36:13 2007 +++ pacman-lib/NEWS Fri Feb 16 16:48:59 2007 @@ -15,19 +15,23 @@ - reduced unnecessary calling of ldconfig - selective loading of database to speed up certain operations - switch to usage of libdownload and libarchive + - improved proxy support as a result of switch to libdownload - debugging output improved with --debug flag - added 'rankmirrors' - script to show best available mirrors - added 'repo-add' - the backbone script for building repos - added pactest testing suite - abs - supports cvsup/csup, expanded configuration + - abs - supports fetching of testing repository - makepkg fixes: - new configuration file options format - support alternate integrity checks - extract files using filetype, not extension - added noextract array - - added option to log build process - - added repackage option - repackage pkg/ w/o building + - new option to log build process + - new repackage option - repackage pkg/ w/o building + - user-selectable paths for doc stripping - configurable source cache location + - dependencies now removed on a build success or failure - pacman-optimize - support DB's on separate filesystem 2.9.8 - Changed behaviour with original=X,current=Y,new=Z scenario - keep old in place, install new as .pacnew
2007/2/16, dan@archlinux.org <dan@archlinux.org>:
Date: Friday, February 16, 2007 @ 16:49:00 Author: dan Path: /home/cvs-pacman/pacman-lib
Modified: NEWS (1.7 -> 1.8)
Updated NEWS file with some of Roman's suggestions.
+ - dependencies now removed on a build success or failure
Not exactly correct, IMHO. Dependencies was removed in pacman 2.9.8 too, but not on failure. More correct would be " - dependencies now removed on build failure too", IMHO. -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)
On 2/16/07, Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych@gmail.com> wrote:
Not exactly correct, IMHO. Dependencies was removed in pacman 2.9.8 too, but not on failure. More correct would be " - dependencies now removed on build failure too", IMHO.
If we're debating grammar, either one is correct 8) saying "build success or failure" implies nothing about the previous state - neither could have worked, or only one could have worked... but I'm being nit-picky 8)
2007/2/17, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>:
On 2/16/07, Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych@gmail.com> wrote:
Not exactly correct, IMHO. Dependencies was removed in pacman 2.9.8 too, but not on failure. More correct would be " - dependencies now removed on build failure too", IMHO.
If we're debating grammar, either one is correct 8) saying "build success or failure" implies nothing about the previous state - neither could have worked, or only one could have worked... but I'm being nit-picky 8)
OK then. :) -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)
participants (3)
-
Aaron Griffin
-
dan@archlinux.org
-
Roman Kyrylych