[pacman-dev] pacman 3.1 release ?

[Xavier]

On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 12:12:54PM +0200, Nagy Gabor wrote:
> Hi!
> And please don't forget about the PS of
> http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2007-August/009078.html
> data field of pmsyncpkg_t is used iff type == PM_SYNC_TYPE_REPLACE now, so we
> could use (and rename?) that field as replaces in all cases to avoid the problem
> above, and so pmsyncpkg_t would be a bit nicer (see alpm_sync_pkg_free);-).
> So PM_SYNC_TYPE_REPLACE is not needed IMHO (we record to the database explicit
> or depend reason only): (data != NULL) <=> (type == PM_SYNC_TYPE_REPLACE) if you
> keep my advice.

As always, a pactest and a patch would make it much easier for us to
understand.

But about this syncpkg stuff, I just noticed recently that the universal transaction
idea you're mentioning in the reply :
http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2007-August/009082.html
is the first entry in aaron TODO list :
* transaction object should contain two package list (install and remove)
  instead of a single list of syncpkgs - this should allow us to get rid of that
  type.  This also requires seperate functionality to return a list of
  "replaces" packages to the front end, so the frontend can handle the QUESTION()
  stuff in that case

But maybe you already read that before :)
Anyway, I already liked this idea, and seeing it there made me more confident :)