[pacman-dev] [patch] testdb, reworked

[Xavier]

On Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 01:40:25PM +0200, Nagy Gabor wrote:
> I'm planning to rework the patch. I start to agree with VMiklos, who
> said that testdb should me merged to pacman. What's more, I'm saying
> testdb should me merged to libalpm: then almost all of the problems
> listed above would disappear.
> I would like to add one more argument:
> If you give a look at my reworked patch, you will notice that it
> directly modifies pkg->requiredby, which is an ugly thing: it should be
> done through libalpm api; however, libalpm has no
> alpm_pkg_set_requiredby or similar function <- that would be used
> rarely.
> So merging the whole testdb stuff to libalpm would eliminate the
> public/non-public argument and IMHO testdb can fit in libalpm. And
> pacman is the best front-end for testdb, IMHO (for programmers
> and users).
> 
> Any feedback appreciated, ngaba
> 
> PS: So now it is not so important to implement a more powerful
> _public_ conflict checking function to libalpm. I would still prefer it.
> 

Well, I asked back then where testdb would suit the best, and it seems like
no one had a strong opinion. Seems like Dan thought an external tool was a
good idea, so that's how I started writing it.
Later vmiklos said he had a slight preference for keeping the stuff in libalpm.
But I didn't find it enough to change it back.

Hm, now I remember that Dan didn't like how the old -Qt option was written in
libalpm, maybe because the lib shouldn't return the error/warning message as strings
or list of strings. Or something in this spirit, I don't really remember..