[pacman-dev] Some undocumented things

[eliott]

On 1/10/08, Jason Chu <jason at archlinux.org> wrote:
> 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 ;)

Just so long as you don't turn into Eric Raymond....
;)