[pacman-dev] [PATCH] Only notify of dependency check in removal if performed
Off topic : wow, I miss mutt so much, thunderbird didn't even quote the patch for me to reply ... I either need mutt with thunderbird's imap and multiple accounts support or thunderbird with mutt's keyboard control and neat features. Anyway, that patch looks fine, but it would be more logical if PM_TRANS_EVT_CHECKDEPS_DONE event wasn't sent in this case either. Note that the same problems exist in libalpm/add.c. And also that the _DONE events don't do anything anymore (see pacman/callback.c), so it's not a big deal.
Xavier wrote:
Off topic : wow, I miss mutt so much, thunderbird didn't even quote the patch for me to reply ... I either need mutt with thunderbird's imap and multiple accounts support or thunderbird with mutt's keyboard control and neat features.
Still off topic: I spent a while searching for an extension to do this with no luck...
Anyway, that patch looks fine, but it would be more logical if PM_TRANS_EVT_CHECKDEPS_DONE event wasn't sent in this case either.
Note that the same problems exist in libalpm/add.c. And also that the _DONE events don't do anything anymore (see pacman/callback.c), so it's not a big deal
I did not move PM_TRANS_EVT_CHECKDEPS_DONE EVENT() in remove.c because there is other checking for recursive dependencies done just before the EVENT() statement. Thus, there could still be some sort of dependency checking done when using pacman -Rsd. However, now you mention it, I can't think of possible frontend output for the ..._DONE counterpart that would make sense without the ..._START so maybe it should be moved. Opinions? libalpm/add.c looks fine to me. Both the ..._START and ..._DONE EVENT() statements are in the if(!(trans->flags & PM_TRANS_FLAG_NODEPS)) loop - line 136. Am I missing something? Allan
Allan McRae wrote:
Xavier wrote:
Off topic : wow, I miss mutt so much, thunderbird didn't even quote the patch for me to reply ... I either need mutt with thunderbird's imap and multiple accounts support or thunderbird with mutt's keyboard control and neat features.
Still off topic: I spent a while searching for an extension to do this with no luck...
:(
Anyway, that patch looks fine, but it would be more logical if PM_TRANS_EVT_CHECKDEPS_DONE event wasn't sent in this case either.
I did not move PM_TRANS_EVT_CHECKDEPS_DONE EVENT() in remove.c because there is other checking for recursive dependencies done just before the EVENT() statement. Thus, there could still be some sort of dependency checking done when using pacman -Rsd. However, now you mention it, I can't think of possible frontend output for the ..._DONE counterpart that would make sense without the ..._START so maybe it should be moved. Opinions?
Ah, I was rather thinking about just adding a second check for the CHECKDEPS_DONE event. Attaching a patch.
Note that the same problems exist in libalpm/add.c. And also that the _DONE events don't do anything anymore (see pacman/callback.c), so it's not a big deal libalpm/add.c looks fine to me. Both the ..._START and ..._DONE EVENT() statements are in the if(!(trans->flags& PM_TRANS_FLAG_NODEPS)) loop - line 136. Am I missing something?
No, my mistake, I misread the code.
participants (3)
-
Allan McRae
-
Allan McRae
-
Xavier