[pacman-dev] Remaining issues

[Xavier]

Dan McGee wrote:
> On Dec 21, 2007 5:12 AM, Xavier <shiningxc at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>>
>> 1) not important, easy to fix:
>>
>> * -Ru patch from Nagy is ready for quite a while, and it doesn't change any
>> existing behavior, it just adds a new feature (however, it adds a new message
>> to be translated) -> my unneeded branch
>>     
>
> I'll try to look at this the next few days, and plan accordingly.
> Maybe this would be better in a 3.1.1 release?
>
>   
Well, I guess it's alright if 3.1.1 is not too far away, and this patch 
is merged soon after 3.1 is released.
>> 2) more important, easy to fix:
>>
>> * testdb is broken
>> I fixed this on my testdb branch, and also added conflicts checking. nothing
>> intrusive.
>>     
>
> I pulled the bugfix patch, and I'll consider the other stuff sometime as well.
>
>   
Ok good. Well, the other stuff is not important, but it's a really 
simple patch, so I thought it could go in.
>> * one memleak from Nathan was apparently ignored :
>> http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2007-December/0104
>> and also, a little and good patch for ignorepkg :
>> http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2007-December/0104
>>
>> both pushed to my working branch
>>     
>
> Both pulled to my working branch now (your links got cut off too btw).
>
>   
Thanks, and sorry for the links. Just in case, here they are again :
http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2007-December/010475.html
http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2007-December/010518.html
>> 3) important, hard to fix:
>>
>> * the backup handling is in a poor situation :
>> http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2007-December/010439.html
>>
>> http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2007-December/003868.html
>> (with 3.1 , reinstalling filesystem makes the .pacnew appear though)
>>
>> * another weird issue with directory symlinks
>> http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2007-December/010451.html
>>
>> these two areas are my favorites (read: this really pisses me off).
>>     
>
> I know we have problems here, but as far as I can tell, we don't have
> regressions. Correct me if I'm wrong. Regressions are show-stoppers,
> but problems are not (if they were, we would never be able to
> release).
>
> -Dan
>   
What really bothers me is that there is a real bug in the code, which 
causes dead code, and this is  not totally obvious.
So maybe this dead code could just be removed. That is, revert the add.c 
patch from commit 843d368ef60 .