[pacman-dev] Why not using the bash getopts buildin? Was: Removing deltas from repos

[Aaron Griffin]

On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Marc - A. Dahlhaus [ Administration
| Westermann GmbH ] <mad at wol.de> wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 16.09.2009, 18:05 +0200 schrieb Marc - A. Dahlhaus
> [ Administration | Westermann GmbH ]:
>> Am Donnerstag, den 17.09.2009, 01:45 +1000 schrieb Allan McRae:
>> > Marc - A. Dahlhaus [ Administration | Westermann GmbH ] wrote:
>> > > Am Mittwoch, den 16.09.2009, 16:18 +1000 schrieb Allan McRae:
>> > >
>> > >> Marc - A. Dahlhaus [ Administration | Westermann GmbH ] wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>> Am Dienstag, den 15.09.2009, 23:14 +1000 schrieb Allan McRae:
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>> repo-remove... but I am assuming you mean some automated tool to remove
>> > >>>> "useless" deltas?  Not yet, and I doubt there will be until someone
>> > >>>> starts using deltas in a repo and finds the need to code one.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>> Well, i rise my hand then and look into it as we use deltas quite
>> > >>> heavily lately here.
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >> That would be great.  From memory, pacman does not use a chain of deltas
>> > >> if the total download is greater than 90% of just downloading the full
>> > >> package.  That is probably a good criteria to use to in order to decide
>> > >> which deltas to remove.
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > > Actually first i got confused as repo-remove is documented to take a
>> > > pkgname as param to remove the whole package (including deltas) from the
>> > > repo. To use the deltapackage-filename as option to remove only that
>> > > delta doesn't fitted well into that documentation. I'll try to add this
>> > > to the man page and usage outputs during my work on this topic...
>> > >
>> > > I'd like to add a -d|--delta option to repo-add to create the delta
>> > > between the current package and the one to be added.
>> > >
>> > > For option parsing i plan to make usage of getopt (it is already used by
>> > > makepkg so it shouldn't be a problem).
>> >
>> > I will fully read your proposal later, but I want to flag that makepkg
>> > does not use getopt anymore but its own bash parser.  This was because
>> > of portability issues.   I also notice that the reference to getopt at
>> > the top of makepkg has not been removed...
>>
>> Thanks for pointing that out.
>> I only did a quick look at the outputs of a recursive grep for getopt but
>> missed that it only found it in some comments...
>
> As makepkg shebangs for /bin/bash, why don't we use the getopts buildin
> of bash in the first place, was there a reason to not use it?
>
> To make usage of it could be a reduction in code size (will look into it
> if it's desired) and also would not be a portability issue IMO.

It's not portable