[pacman-dev] [PATCH] cachemoney: add new contrib script

[Allan McRae]

On 29/07/11 00:36, Dave Reisner wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 05:39:46PM -0400, Eric Bélanger wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Dave Reisner<d at falconindy.com>  wrote:
>>> cachemoney is a robust and flexible package cache cleaner with a variety
>>> of options. Much credit goes to DJ Mills and Pat Brisbin for the ideas
>>> behind this script.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Dave Reisner<dreisner at archlinux.org>
>>> ---
>>> This sort of functionality has been in a few feature requests, and there exist
>>> a number of tools that already provide this, but none flexible enough (or
>>> portable enough) to be to my liking. This is all bash3 compat with awk, tested
>>> on gawk 3.1.8, gawk 4.0.0, bwk (the one true), mawk, and busybox awk (which
>>> fscking _sucks_) to do the heavy lifting (rather than bash4). It ends up being
>>> insanely fast, with the drawback being that its dependent on the format of the
>>> filename to find and consider packages for deletion. In other words, a valid
>>> package tarball that isn't compliant with the extglob *.pkg.tar?(.+([^.]))
>>> isn't going to be considered.
>>>
>>> I'm a fan of the name, but I'm also happy to hear alternatives.
>>>
>>
>> Without having tested it, that script might be something I will use
>> but I don't like the current name. I just don't understand the 'money'
>> part in it. A name like cachecleaner would be more intuitive.
>>
>
> It's mostly just a bad joke[1]. I'll throw out the following
> alternatives:

I'll add a -1 for the current name too...   Bad jokes are usually a bit 
funny! :P

> * slimcache
> * paccache-clean (more "standard", but too long imo)
> * cachetrim
> * pacuum

How about just paccache?  A description line about the usage output 
would be helpful in figuring out what this does too...

> NB: We've already got the following packages in the AUR, which I'd like
> to try and avoid stepping on:
>
> * cacheclean
> * pacleaner
> * pkgcacheclean
> * clearcache
>
> (there may be some that i missed)

Do this script cover all or most of the features of these scripts?  I'm 
sure the maintainers would be "happy" if there is a name conflict if the 
script we supply covers their functionality.

> Any feedback on functionality? Anyone manage to break it?

I can not really test well as I have a somewhat unique cache set-up and 
my own cache cleaning script  (which has the additional feature of 
always keeping packages that have versions newer than what is in the repos).

Allan