[pacman-dev] Some undocumented things

[Dan McGee]

On Jan 8, 2008 1:48 PM, Xavier <shiningxc at gmail.com> wrote:
> Nathan Jones wrote:
>
> > Looks like it doesn't work :) The problem seems to be that pkg->date is
> > never set anywhere (this is actually the only function that references
> > it). I think changing it to pkg->builddate will work.
> >
> > int _alpm_pkg_istoonew(pmpkg_t *pkg)
> > {
> >       time_t t;
> >
> >       ALPM_LOG_FUNC;
> >
> >       if (!handle->upgradedelay)
> >               return 0;
> >       time(&t);
> >       return((pkg->date + handle->upgradedelay)>  t);
> > }
> >
>
> That's a funny feature indeed. People who always complain about
> stability could get upgrades always a few days later so that other
> people test them first :)
>
> Indeed, pkg->date isn't set and used anywhere. It could probably be removed.
> builddate is set, but it isn't in the sync db, so it wouldn't work
> either. But the only way for this feature to work would be to add the
> builddate to the db, right?
>
> Hmm, now that I'm thinking about it, I'm not sure build date is the
> correct value. Shouldn't it rather be the date when the package is moved
> to the stable repos rather? (I'm thinking about packages that stay a
> period in testing first, and never the same delay).
> But more generally, just the date when the package is added to the repo
> would do.

This seems like a feature introduced to solve a problem the wrong way.
If people didn't release broken packages, this really wouldn't be
necessary.

Any reason not to just kill it completely?

-Dan