[pacman-dev] Some small issues with backup relocation: upgrade044.py; needless .pacorig

[Nagy Gabor]

Look at the following pactest file:

---upgrade044.py---
self.description = "Backup file relocation (package split)"

lp = pmpkg("foo")
lp.files = ["etc/foo.cfg*"]
lp.backup = ["etc/foo.cfg"]
self.addpkg2db("local", lp)

p1 = pmpkg("foo", "1.0-2")
self.addpkg(p1)

p2 = pmpkg("libfoo", "1.0-2")
p2.files = ["etc/foo.cfg**"]
p2.backup = ["etc/foo.cfg"]
self.addpkg(p2)

self.filesystem = ["etc/foo.cfg"]

self.args = "-U %s" % " ".join([p.filename() for p in p1, p2])

self.addrule("PKG_VERSION=foo|1.0-2")
self.addrule("PKG_VERSION=libfoo|1.0-2")
self.addrule("!FILE_PACSAVE=etc/foo.cfg")
self.addrule("FILE_PACNEW=etc/foo.cfg")
self.addrule("FILE_EXIST=etc/foo.cfg") 
----------

This pactest fails, which means that we get different behaviour, if we had
libfoo installed (see upgrade042.py and upgrade043.py).

The difference is the immediate corollary of line 501 in add.c (libalpm).

It's important to see, that if --force wasn't set we reach that line iff the
file was backed up by the transaction, so .pacorig has no meaning in this case.

So this .pacorig stuff has meaning with --force, but as I see backup handling
with --force is not well defined :-P

Bye, ngaba

PS: and this .pacorig extension is quite misleading, it suggests "original
config file" to me; using .pacsave is more suggestive here imho.


----------------------------------------------------
SZTE Egyetemi Könyvtár - http://www.bibl.u-szeged.hu
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/