[pacman-dev] transaction flags

Xavier shiningxc at gmail.com
Sun Mar 9 16:14:24 EDT 2008

On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 08:57:55PM +0100, Nagy Gabor wrote:
> Good. Now let's the technical discussion come;-)
> To be honest, I don't really like the way this patch works. I did this,
> because this was the easier (and I'm lazy ;-) and I followed the
> --needed option way. But in both cases the target filtering can be done
> in the front-end (and this would be nicer imho). However, this would be
> a bit duplicated work (and not notable slow-down), if we scanned for
> local version(number) in the front-end too. And it is a bit strange,
> that we pull a package with addtarget, and some targets are silently
> filtered out... In both cases only addtarget are affected.
> So the question is: shouldn't we move some options to front-end?
> Contras:
> -possible duplication in multiple front-ends
> -config->flags |= PM_TRANS_FLAG_NEEDED schema is the easiest we can
> imagine, thus put all work to the back-end
> Pros:
> -imho these stuffs fit clearly in front-end
> -we should(?) fit in 32 bits of flags ;-)
> IMHO the main reason that these hurt my taste ;-) In the two mentioned
> option (--needed and possible --nonew <- terrible name), we could also
> add a filter option (flag?!;-) to addtarget only, because these are
> not transaction level stuffs, just "addtarget filters".

You might be right, using trans flags everywhere might not be a good idea.
I am not sure how nice it will be to implement in the frontend though.

More information about the pacman-dev mailing list