[pacman-dev] do we need requiredby?

Aaron Griffin aaronmgriffin at gmail.com
Thu Nov 15 12:06:07 EST 2007

On Nov 15, 2007 11:01 AM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 15, 2007 10:42 AM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > This is totally different from a design perspective. Dan mentioned a
> > generic mechanism to write, where as you're suggesting a unique
> > operation. A generic, public interface to modify and write to the DB
> > is, in my opinion, a bad idea, but operations which do things (and
> > write) within libalpm's control is fine
> I actually wasn't referring to mutators to make that clear. I was
> thinking along the lines of a public alpm_pkg_force_write(pmpkg_t
> *pkg) or something. However, that still doesn't seem that clean, but I
> don't know.

Right, I was using that as an example... let me spit out more.

This here:

is superior to:
   alpm_pkg_set_reason(pkg, 1);

because it puts the _operation_ in our control. It's about "use cases"
and all that fun crap 8)

I don't think we want to expose the ability to modify the database
with public functions in libalpm, but an operation that just happens
to modify it is different.

More information about the pacman-dev mailing list