[pacman-dev] libalpm issues (was: alpm_removedeps bug+fix && alpm_depcmp-discussion)

Xavier shiningxc at gmail.com
Tue Jun 19 01:51:27 EDT 2007

2007/6/18, Dan McGee <dpmcgee at gmail.com>:
> This isn't a bad idea, but I'm thinking of changes on a much larger
> scale. Read here for details:
> http://isis.poly.edu/kulesh/stuff/src/klist/
> I agree- and part of this is me NOT trying to enforce my 'right' way
> on everyone else. Here is how I see our operations-based thinking
> being reformed a bit. There are two baseline operations- install (add)
> and remove. upgrade is a combination of an add and remove, and sync is
> a combination of install, remove, upgrade, and a little extra sugar on
> the side. Instead of having duplicated code everywhere, we should be
> able to build up a set of functions that are used by the base
> operations, then use these base operations to build an upgrade, then
> use those to build a sync. By the time we get to a sync operation, we
> really shouldn't have much left to code at a low level, unlike the
> current code base.

Both ideas look great, but this will cause major rewrite of pacman, right ?
Maybe start a pacman 4 branch :)
Anyway, I mostly wondering one thing, is the current codebase so messy
that it isn't worth fixing until above things are done ?

>From what I've seen so far, I agree that there is a lot of duplicated
code, and it's quite annoying indeed. But maybe it's possible to fix
it without major rewrite.

More information about the pacman-dev mailing list