[pacman-dev] Some undocumented things

[Jason Chu]

On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 02:13:53PM -0600, Dan McGee wrote:
> 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

If I recall correctly it came into being after I talked with Judd or
Aaron...

I didn't think it was really necessary, but it was a stop gap between
having a stable/better tested repo and what we had before Aaron came in
with the testing policy (which hasn't been a silver bullet).

I think it's probably too late to weigh in on whether it should stay or
not, but this is where it came from.  I'm nothing if not a living history
of Arch Linux development ;)

Jason
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/attachments/20080110/e0a7fc9d/attachment.pgp>