[pacman-dev] do we need requiredby? + bash_completion

Xavier shiningxc at gmail.com
Mon Nov 12 13:26:50 EST 2007

On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 03:41:57PM +0100, Nagy Gabor wrote:
> > commit 96f8faa6664714943201d86393099dbf7464abc2
> > Author: Chantry Xavier <shiningxc at gmail.com>
> > Date:   Sun Nov 11 10:52:51 2007 -0600
> > 
> >     Add two requiredby pactests
> >     
> >     One currently should succeed (006), and 005 fails.
> >     
> >     requiredby005.py is originally from Nagy Gabor
> > <ngaba at petra.hos.u-szeged.hu>.
> Well, I'm not sure that pacman should deal with broken localdbs. After we
> decided that _all_ satisfiers _must_ list the dependency "owner" in their
> requiredby, this is a broken db. We have a cool testdb stuff (created by you) to
> help user fix these (an automatized db fix wouldn't be so hard to implement).

I only submitted a pactest because Aaron asked for it, for testing the buggy
list implentation :
So I didn't want it to be submitted. I didn't say it clearly though.
Dan submitted it because he found it was useful, and I couldn't find any good
arguments against it.
Now you bring me one :) I didn't even pay attention to the fact that the db
was broken in this pactest. I really dislike this pactest anyway, it isn't
interesting at all, it was only meant to show a very specific bug in the list
implementation. Also, the title is misleading. I originally called it "broken
list". What I meant exactly was : "broken list implementation".
So I think this pactest should be removed, and eventually replaced later by
other better / more interesting ones.

I'm not sure pactest is the best way to test the list implementation, it's
too general. If pacman really needs an automated test for its list
implementation, then it should probably be a specific test.

More information about the pacman-dev mailing list