[pacman-dev] %REPLACES% doesn't appear in localdb

[Dan McGee]

On Jan 9, 2008 6:22 AM, Nagy Gabor <ngaba at bibl.u-szeged.hu> wrote:
> Idézés Dan McGee <dpmcgee at gmail.com>:
> > On Jan 8, 2008 5:30 PM, Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 2008/1/3, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com>:
> > > > On Jan 3, 2008 7:46 AM, Nagy Gabor <ngaba at bibl.u-szeged.hu> wrote:
> > > > > I know, that we don't need that field, but then we should remove
> > 'replaces'
> > > > > listing from -Qi. Since we have some other not needed but interesting
> > infos in
> > > > > local db (packager, optdepend etc.) I vote for remove that if(!local)
> > line instead.
> > > >
> > > > I wondered about the same thing for a while.
> > > >
> > > > I see no reason to keep it out of the local DB, it's rarely used anyway.
> > Dan?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Status on this? I couldn't found anything about this in git log.
> >
> > I want to wait until 3.1.1 so it can get sufficient testing. Although
> > I think the exclusion is weird, I'm not sure how our code will handle
> > it on complicated upgrades as no one has produced a pactest yet to
> > test such things.
>
> We don't want to exclude it, we want to add it to localdb instead.
Um...thats exactly what I said. I just said it *needs testing*.

> Since
> %REPLACES% is not there now, it will be just an extra unused but informative(?)
> field like %PACKAGER%.
> I wanted to exclude it from -Qi listing only, if you choose not to store the
> %REPLACES% information in localdb (because then we always get "Replaces: None"
> false report, like now).
So my point still stands. Do you know for a fact that having a
non-empty replaces list for a local package will not affect conflict
and dependency resolving? Until you have proved this, I don't feel
comfortable making the change.

-Dan