[pacman-dev] [PATCH 1/5] Fixed some innacuracies in the pactest README

Bryan Ischo bji-keyword-pacman.3644cb at www.ischo.com
Wed Jan 14 17:03:45 EST 2009

Xavier wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 8:56 PM, Bryan Ischo
> <bji-keyword-pacman.3644cb at www.ischo.com> wrote:
>> OK, I can modify my patch according to this feedback.
>> What is the best way to do this?  Should I make a new patch assuming that my
>> patch 1 was accepted and applied?  Or should I make a replacement patch 1
>> and send that out on the assumption that my other patch will not be applied?
> When we give feedbacks on patches on the ML, we always expect you to
> resubmit fixed patches. And not fix on patches.
> For example, patch 5/5 is a fix of patch 2/5 so that's not perfect.

Sorry about that, I discovered after composing my first 4 patches that I 
hadn't yet removed the logging as requested by Nagy.  After spending 
hours crafting 4 patches out of my one big patch, I didn't feel like 
repeating the process just to remove a couple of log lines.  Although, I 
am sure I could have crafted the patches much more quickly the second 
time around since I really knew what I was doing after the first time.

> Otherwise about your patchset, I am still not convinced that this is
> the smallest and best implementation possible. I would say the patches
> themselves are readable and well written, with good comments, etc. But
> I would still like to give more thinking to it and to explore other
> alternative ways.
> Last thing, Nagy seems to have given these patches a closer look, and
> he did a lot of good work on that deps.c file in my opinion, so I
> would like to know his overall feeling about this patchset now 8)

Well I'd love to hear feedback that's specific about the methods used.  
Nagy has provided detailed and specific feedback which has been very 
helpful.  I too would like to hear Nagy's overall feeling about the 
patchset.  I think I addressed all of his concerns, except for one which 
I didn't quite understand and for which I have asked for clarifying 

The only other way I could see doing it would involve a much larger 
rework of the existing codebase.  What I did was insert as little code 
as I could to track the dependencies such that I could calculate which 
set of packages needed to be removed due to unresolved dependencies.  
Probably existing data structures could be modified to contain this 
information; however, I am not sure where else it would be used, even if 
it were collapsed into other existing data structures.  And I am sure 
that this approach would require more significant rewrite of the 
existing _alpm_resolvedeps function than my approach did.

As an aside, I think part of the problem is that the code base tries to 
shoehorn everything into a single list type.  When a doubly linked list 
is your only real data structure, the algorithms have to be more 
complex, and in the case of managing dependents (instead of 
dependencies), there is no choice but to introduce new data structures.  
Well, that's not entirely true.  Probably my change could have used a 
linked list of linked lists, where each linked list was rooted at a 
package and contained all dependents of that package.  There would be 
alot of redundant information in such a data structure and it would be 
much more difficult to manage than the graph structure I have 
introduced, but it could be done, I am sure.


More information about the pacman-dev mailing list