[pacman-dev] [PATCH 3/5] add -dd option

[Allan McRae]

On 25/01/11 23:03, Dan McGee wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Florian Pritz
> <bluewind at server-speed.net>  wrote:
>> On 19.01.2011 19:29, Dan McGee wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Florian Pritz<bluewind at xssn.at>  wrote:
>>>> -dd ignores only the version of a dependency being checked, but not the
>>>> package itself.
>>>
>>> I don't mind this, but it just seems...backwards. Specifying more
>>> flags should make it less-restrictive, not more restrictive, but I
>>> understand the desire to keep backward compatibility. With that said,
>>> does it matter? People that use -d very often are usually screwing
>>> their system or know what they are doing- should we make -d just skip
>>> versions and -dd skip everything?
>>
>>>>>   static int parsearg_trans(int opt)
>>>>>   {
>>>>> +       static int nodeps = 0;
>>>>>         switch(opt) {
>>>>> -               case 'd': config->flags |= PM_TRANS_FLAG_NODEPS; break;
>>>>> +               case 'd':
>>>>> +                       nodeps++;
>>>>> +                       if(nodeps == 1) {
>>>>> +                               config->flags |= PM_TRANS_FLAG_NODEPS;
>>>>> +                       } else if(nodeps == 2) {
>>>>> +                               config->flags ^= PM_TRANS_FLAG_NODEPS;
>>>>> +                               config->flags |= PM_TRANS_FLAG_NODEPVERSION;
>>>>> +                       }
>>>>> +                       break;
>>> You can do this without a static local; look at "case 's'" in parsearg_remove().
>>
>> I'll wait for a decision about -d and -dd before fixing that.
>
> Anyone else want to offer an opinion on this? I'd like to reverse the
> two options to match what we do elsewhere- -d will now just ignore
> versions, -dd everything.
>

That seems reasonable.  With -d getting stricter in terms of dependency 
checks, there should not be any issues caused by this change going 
unnoticed by people who currently using -d.

Allan