[pacman-dev] Another idea

Dan McGee dpmcgee at gmail.com
Thu Jan 15 20:21:42 EST 2009

On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 6:46 PM, Nagy Gabor <ngaba at bibl.u-szeged.hu> wrote:
>> It sounds good, but isn't it a bit a step backward after this :
>> http://projects.archlinux.org/?p=pacman.git;a=commit;h=72c0ab5c51d5119b6f81c768b1a0f6ff499df292
>> However, we were not considering this new behavior in case of
>> unresolvable dependency back then.
> We should decide, whether we want this feature or not (before Bryan
> spend hours with programming something, that we may not want)...
> On the other hand here is the "should we move to graph structure in the
> future?" question. If yes, we may not want to make a step back.
> I don't know, I didn't plan any huge change in deps.c nowadays...

I'm sorry I've been so silent on all of this- part of it is I don't
really know where we do want to head, and adding more prompts and
complication just makes me not really want to think about it.

I'll leave it to those who have done a lot more work on this section
of the code than I to decide whether this is a good idea or not. As
long as pacman and libalpm continue to resolve deps in a sane fashion
and we don't lose functionality, I am fine.


More information about the pacman-dev mailing list