[pacman-dev] [PATCH 1/2] makepkg: move pacman calls to a function
shiningxc at gmail.com
Thu Nov 12 08:48:22 EST 2009
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Cedric Staniewski <cedric at gmx.ca> wrote:
>> I have been thinking about this and its companion patch. I like the
>> refactoring of the pacman call into the function but dislike not
>> replacing the "pacman -T" call with it.
>> If there is a config option for setting the "pacman" binary, and I have
>> program that replaces pacman (e.g. the one based on the python alpm
>> wrapper should work), then I should not need pacman on my system at all.
>> So I prefer the original version where the "pacman -T" call was replaced
> And leave it to the pacman wrapper authors to fix their programs? Sounds
> good. :)
> I also prefer the original patch, mainly because it seems 'cleaner' to
> me, but being able to replace pacman completely on a system is a valid
> reason, too.
Well, I am still not convinced.
Why would any wrapper have to care about pacman -T ?
This is a hidden / undocumented / internal argument just for the usage
In the best case, a wrapper will just forward it correctly. In the
worst case, it will break it.
More information about the pacman-dev