[pacman-dev] [PATCH] Only query pacman upgrade when performing actual upgrade

[Dan McGee]

On Dec 9, 2007 5:01 AM, Allan McRae <mcrae_allan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Xavier wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 07:54:37PM +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
> >
> >> Attached is a patch that fixes FS#7147.  The query about upgrading
> >> pacman separately is not needed when the -p and -w flags are used.  It
> >> is really only a one line patch...
> >>
> >> I wasn't sure whether to use "alpm_trans_get_flags()" or "config->flags"
> >> as this seems to vary across files.
> >>
> >> Allan
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Ah yes, I see. I think you don't really have the choice before the trans is
> > initialized (before alpm_trans_init call). You have to use config->flags.
> > But in the part you edited, the trans is already initialized, so I guess we
> > can use both there, without any differences. Since alpm_trans_get_flags is
> > already used in that part, it's probably fine to use that.
> >
> >
> >>  From df921cc477d3c999bb8889b4c88cdb3867691c0c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> >> From: Allan McRae <mcrae_allan at hotmail.com>
> >> Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 19:44:30 +1000
> >> Subject: [PATCH] Only query pacman upgrade when performing actual upgrade
> >>
> >> Fixes FS#7147.  Do not ask about upgrading pacman when -w and -p
> >> flags are used.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Allan McRae <mcrae_allan at hotmail.com>
> >> ---
> >>  src/pacman/sync.c |   74
> >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------
> >>  1 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
> >>
> >>
> >
> > The lines are broken again :(
> >
> > I believe the policy is to put the patch inline, but personally I would
> > prefer a working attached patch, rather than a broken inline one.
> > Besides, as vmiklos pointed out earlier, mutt shows them inline, even when
> > they are attached. Why don't other mail clients do this :p
> >
> >
> Attached version...
>
> You are right about policy.  The submitting-patches files says:
>
>   Patches should be contained in the actual body of the email.  There
> are many
>   reasons for this.  Firstly, it makes them easier to read with any mail
> reader,
>   it allows easier review "at a glance", and most importantly, it allows
> people
>   to comment on exact lines of the patch in reply emails.

I find sending them using git-send-email works great and never has
line wrapping issues. It is pretty simple to set up something like
msmtp to send emails through.

-Dan