[pacman-dev] [PATCH 0/5] RFC: epoch implementation

[Xavier Chantry]

On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Dan McGee <dan at archlinux.org> wrote:
> Hey guys,
>
> This is a quick set of patches to implement the use of epoch in our packages,
> and remove the 'force' option. It adds a lot more flexibility and should prevent
> weird upgrade/downgrade interaction between different repositories, and also
> removes the need to munge versions as often.
>
> The pacman stuff is pretty well tested via the current suite of pactests,
> although we will want to add some new tests specifically playing with the epoch
> value in the test packages.
>
> Anyway, thoughts/comments/suggestions welcome. The changes are not too invasive
> and the only real complexity comes from trying to remain backward and forward
> compatible.
>
> This addresses bugs such as FS#14887, FS#19153, FS#19639 along with many a
> conversation we've had in the past on this list.
>

I don't remember seeing any of these bugs, but I do remember
complaining several times about force and advocating use of epoch, so
that's very nice :)

>
> Dan McGee (5):
>  Add epoch support to pacman/libalpm
>  Update documentation to reflect new epoch package variable
>  Make repo-add and makepkg epoch-aware
>  Add epoch support to pactest
>  Update contrib/ for epoch
>
>  contrib/PKGBUILD.vim     |   10 ++++++++--
>  contrib/bacman           |    3 +++
>  doc/PKGBUILD.5.txt       |   22 ++++++++++++----------
>  doc/pacman.8.txt         |    3 +++
>  lib/libalpm/alpm.h       |    2 +-
>  lib/libalpm/be_files.c   |   16 +++++++++++++---
>  lib/libalpm/be_package.c |    2 ++
>  lib/libalpm/package.c    |   24 ++++++++++++++----------
>  lib/libalpm/package.h    |    2 +-
>  scripts/makepkg.sh.in    |    6 ++----
>  scripts/repo-add.sh.in   |    7 ++++++-
>  test/pacman/pmdb.py      |   18 +++++++-----------
>  test/pacman/pmpkg.py     |    5 +++--
>  test/pacman/util.py      |    4 ++++
>  14 files changed, 79 insertions(+), 45 deletions(-)
>

After a quick read through the patches, it looks good to me.