[pacman-dev] [PATCH] New sync1007.py pactest

[Xavier]

On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 07:48:34PM -0500, Dan McGee wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 7:44 AM, Nagy Gabor <ngaba at bibl.u-szeged.hu> wrote:
> > >From 9274e45ad97cce0749e23340cf51d8a3de0935b9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> >  From: Nagy Gabor <ngaba at bibl.u-szeged.hu>
> >  Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 13:43:08 +0100
> >  Subject: [PATCH] New sync1007.py pactest
> >
> >  This pactest shows that checkdeps can be fooled when a package exists in multiple repos.
> >
> >  Signed-off-by: Nagy Gabor <ngaba at bibl.u-szeged.hu>
> >  ---
> >   pactest/tests/sync1007.py |   18 ++++++++++++++++++
> >   1 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >   create mode 100644 pactest/tests/sync1007.py
> >
> >  diff --git a/pactest/tests/sync1007.py b/pactest/tests/sync1007.py
> >  new file mode 100644
> >  index 0000000..4245142
> >  --- /dev/null
> >  +++ b/pactest/tests/sync1007.py
> >  @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
> >  +self.description = "Conflicting package names in sync repos (checkdeps is fooled)"
> >  +
> >  +sp1 = pmpkg("pkg1")
> >  +sp1.depends = [ "pkg2=1.0" ]
> >  +self.addpkg2db("community", sp1)
> >  +
> >  +sp2 = pmpkg("pkg2", "1.1-1")
> >  +self.addpkg2db("testing", sp2)
> >  +
> >  +sp3 = pmpkg("pkg2", "1.0-1")
> >  +self.addpkg2db("extra", sp3)
> >  +
> >  +self.args = "-S pkg1 pkg2"
> >  +
> >  +self.addrule("PACMAN_RETCODE=0")
> >  +self.addrule("PKG_EXIST=pkg1")
> >  +self.addrule("PKG_EXIST=pkg2")
> >  +self.addrule("PKG_VERSION=pkg2|1.0-1")
> >  --
> >  1.5.3.8
> 
> Did we ever resolve the disparity with this pactest and sync134.py?
> 
> I think I agree that we should handle 1 replacer as our normal case.
> However, I think sync134 was meant to test something different,
> although it may be invalid. Was it intended to test a package being
> split into two? If so, more than likely one of them would depend on
> the other and they would both get pulled anyway, so I am not sure we
> need to keep it around.
> 
> Let me know, and then we can work on getting this merged.
> 

lol, it's rather funny what happened. Nagy submitted two totally different
sync1007 pactests the same month. (he already noticed it a while ago, after
it happened).
The one you are referring to (which isn't the one you quoted) is the multiple
replacer one, first submitted here :
http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2008-January/010819.html
then a patch for fixing it (which took care of sync134 too) :
http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2008-January/010877.html
and the last comment about it :
http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2008-February/011289.html

So as I said, I find the current behavior alright. But I don't think the
patch is wrong either, so I won't oppose to merging it :)

Now, about the second sync1007 pactest above, I don't think it has been
discussed anywhere. It might be worth merging too.