[pacman-dev] do we need requiredby?

Dan McGee dpmcgee at gmail.com
Wed Nov 14 19:08:21 EST 2007

On Nov 14, 2007 5:01 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 12, 2007 3:35 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.
> You sure you still want to stand by this? I think this change might
> actually close out like 3 or 4 bugs on the 3.1 tracker... I say push
> it, but I'll let you be the judge.

The project manager didn't realize how easy this change actually would be. :)

If no one else has any objections, then I'd like to merge my changes tonight.

We (anyone want to volunteer) also need to make a tool to remove
requiredby entries. I took an initial stab at it using libalpm, then I
realized we have no explicit mechanism to tell the backend to write to
the DB. Does this sound like something we should expose, or is it too
low level?

BTW, the reason for the tool is simple (responding to earlier emails
in the thread)- keeping stale entries around is confusing for users
AND any scripts that may have used it.


More information about the pacman-dev mailing list