[pacman-dev] [patch] alpm_removedeps bug+fix && alpm_depcmp-discussion

Xavier shiningxc at gmail.com
Tue Jun 19 13:39:02 EDT 2007

2007/6/19, ngaba at petra.hos.u-szeged.hu <ngaba at petra.hos.u-szeged.hu>:
> I have the same opinion usually (see my earlier sortbydeps complaints
> .-). But now we just search for removable dependencies, if we miss some
> pathological cases this is not a big problem, the database won't be
> corrupted, just we don't remove a dependency which we could etc.
> Let me explain: I meant in my previous mail that we say that we cannot
> remove a package bacause it is needed by an other one without checking
> that it cannot be "replaced" by an other installed one (see
> alpm_checkdeps && multiple provision). But this "fault" is _very_ rare
> and this extra check would cause _notable_ slowdown, because
> can_remove_package is (/was?) called "often".

I agree that this function is much less critical, and that multiple
provisions are pretty rare (is there any real case?).
 This is not a reason for not getting it right though.
About notable slowdown, I don't know, are you sure about this ?

More information about the pacman-dev mailing list