[pacman-dev] do we need requiredby?

[Xavier]

On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 03:35:00PM -0600, Dan McGee wrote:
> +1. I think we can trade a possible slight performance loss in a few
> cases for all the things mentioned above. I also think it will cut out
> a lot of crappy code.
> 
> Throwing the project manager speak into this here- it isn't getting
> into 3.1. This will be a great kickoff for 3.2 major changes though.
> 

I'm regretting Nagy didn't point this out earlier then.
I don't know why I never thought about this. Now that it's said, and I'm
looking back at all the issues related to requiredby, it makes a lot of
sense.
It would also eliminate the eventual problems caused by an existing broken
database, with wrong requiredby.

But I'm not the project manager, and pacman 3.1 indeed has to be released one
day :)