On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Florian Pritz
<bluewind at server-speed.net> wrote:
> On 28.01.2011 20:48, Dan McGee wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 2:11 AM, Florian Pritz
>> <bluewind at server-speed.net> wrote:
>>> From: Florian Pritz <bluewind at xssn.at>
>>>
>>> -d skips checking the version of a dependency.
>>>
>>> -dd skips the whole dependency check
>> Periods are awesome, please use one. :)
>
> Fixed.
>
>> I assume this follows the actual implementation of this in the
>> backend, even though it has a patch 1/2 subject? Maybe resubmitting
>> just the two -d/-dd patches as a single set would be good to make sure
>> I know what to apply here.
>
> Oh sorry I broke that when using format-patch. :(
>
> I didn't want to resubmit all 5 patches so I just exported 3 and 4 (old
> numbers). This one is the fixed 3 and "[PATCH 2/2] makepkg: add
> soprovides support" is the fixed 4.
>
>>> - Skips all dependency checks. Normally, pacman will always check a
>>> - package's dependency fields to ensure that all dependencies are
>>> - installed and there are no package conflicts in the system.
>>> + Skips dependency version checks. Package names are still checked Normally,
>> Missing period.
>>
>>> + pacman will always check a package's dependency fields to ensure that all
>>> + dependencies are installed and there are no package conflicts in the
>>> + system. Specify this option twice to skip all dependency checks.
>> No double-space.
>
> Both fixed
>
>>> *-k, \--dbonly*::
>>> Adds/Removes the database entry only, leaves all files in place.
>>> diff --git a/src/pacman/pacman.c b/src/pacman/pacman.c
>>> index c267060..363b167 100644
>>> --- a/src/pacman/pacman.c
>>> +++ b/src/pacman/pacman.c
>>> @@ -553,7 +553,14 @@ static int parsearg_query(int opt)
>>> static int parsearg_trans(int opt)
>>> {
>>> switch(opt) {
>>> - case 'd': config->flags |= PM_TRANS_FLAG_NODEPS; break;
>>> + case 'd':
>>> + if(config->flags & PM_TRANS_FLAG_NODEPVERSION) {
>>> + config->flags ^= PM_TRANS_FLAG_NODEPVERSION;
>>> + config->flags |= PM_TRANS_FLAG_NODEPS;
>> Why do we need to back the depversion flag out at all? Given that
>> nodepversion is less strong than nodeps, it doesn't make intuitive
>> sense to have to do this.
>
> I haven't checked that yet, but if it's not needed I'll take it out.
Test this yet?
-Dan