[pacman-dev] re-pacman

[Nagy Gabor]

> Xavier wrote:
> > Well, I already didn't like this script in the first place, I found
> > the idea ugly.
> > I still had a look at it to check if it worked. And I see the 
> > implementation is ugly as well, since it's based on -Qi output.
> > If you take a few steps back, what's happening is so stupid (I'm
> > not blaming any one here, or maybe only me for not being able to
> > provide patches) :
> > makepkg creates the .PKGINFO files
> > repo-add transform the .PKGINFO to desc/depends
> > pacman -Si/-Qi interprets the desc/depends file and display the info
> > re-pacman looks at -Qi output and try to translate it back
> > to .PKGINFO ...
> > 
> > Just one example, the build date is stored as unix epoch, but
> > pacman displays it in human readable way.
> > However, we are lucky here, since date is apparently able to
> > convert it back :
> > 39 >-builddate=$(pacinfo ${1} 'Build Date')
> > 40 >-echo "builddate = $(date -d "$builddate" +%s)"
> > 
> > The build date could be the date of today though.
> > 
> > Now if we try do to the same for size field, it will get uglier.
> > But here again, we could compute the current size taken, which
> > might have changed.
> > 
> > Empty fields in pacman -Qi output should be dealt with too (for
> > example Groups = None).
> > 
> > Anyway, if you want an accurate re-pacman, you need to check the 
> > .PKGINFO creation in makepkg, and find out how to get that back
> > from pacman -Q output.
> > Or change re-pacman to use directly the files
> > in /var/lib/pacman/local/ And maybe before that, change the local
> > database to use .PKGINFO format, to ease up re-pacman task :)
> > 
> > I have no interest in updating re-pacman though, because I don't
> > use it and find it useless (even though I recognize it might be
> > handy and practical in some cases, I still don't like it).
> > 
> 
> I just found this :
> http://foulmetal.free.fr/archlinux/repacman-0.98.tar.gz
> 
> This one uses the depends / desc files from the local db, but I
> didn't look at anything else.
> So just in case anyone is interested by this repacman stuff, there is
> a different version from the one in pacman/contrib/.
> 

Hm. I may have missed something, but where can the end-user find the
original re-pacman? I've just checked, it is not part of pacman-contrib
package.

Bye