[PATCH 2/3] util.c: extend --print-format with %b for builddate

[Emil Velikov]

Hi Jelle,

Thanks for the series - would love to see it land and purse expac from
my systems :-P

On Sat, 26 Mar 2022 at 15:54, Jelle van der Waa <jelle at vdwaa.nl> wrote:
>
> From: Jelle van der Waa <jelle at vdwaa.nl>
>
> Signed-off-by: Jelle van der Waa <jelle at archlinux.org>
> ---
>  doc/pacman.8.asciidoc | 10 +++++-----
>  src/pacman/util.c     | 11 +++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/doc/pacman.8.asciidoc b/doc/pacman.8.asciidoc
> index 49e392cb..8a9294fc 100644
> --- a/doc/pacman.8.asciidoc
> +++ b/doc/pacman.8.asciidoc
> @@ -235,11 +235,11 @@ Transaction Options (apply to '-S', '-R' and '-U')
>
>  *\--print-format* <format>::
>         Specify a printf-like format to control the output of the '\--print'
> -       operation. The possible attributes are: "%a" for arch, "%d" for
> -       description, "%e" for pkgbase, "%f" for filename, "%g" for base64
> -       encoded PGP signature, "%h" for sha256sum, "%n" for pkgname, "%p" for
> -       packager, "%v" for pkgver, "%l" for location, "%r" for repository, and
> -       "%s" for size.
> +       operation. The possible attributes are: "%a" for arch, "%b" for
> +       builddate, "%d" for description, "%e" for pkgbase, "%f" for filename,
> +       "%g" for base64 encoded PGP signature, "%h" for sha256sum, "%n" for
> +       pkgname, "%p" for packager, "%v" for pkgver, "%l" for location, "%r"
> +       for repository, and "%s" for size.
>         Implies '\--print'.
>
>
> diff --git a/src/pacman/util.c b/src/pacman/util.c
> index 3b92e678..519765f1 100644
> --- a/src/pacman/util.c
> +++ b/src/pacman/util.c
> @@ -1163,6 +1163,17 @@ void print_packages(const alpm_list_t *packages)
>                         free(temp);
>                         temp = string;
>                 }
> +               /* %b : build date */
> +               if(strstr(temp, "%b")) {
> +                       char bdatestr[50] = "";
> +                       time_t bdate = (time_t)alpm_pkg_get_builddate(pkg);
> +                       if(bdate) {

AFAICT alpm_pkg_get_builddate() returns -1 on error, so this seems
off. In case it's zero, a message like "00:00 hours, Jan 1, 1970 UTC"
seems appropriate doesn't it?
Grepping around - various in-tree code paths opt for the same
assumption. Don't know if it's worth fixing or staying consistent.

Either way, hope this helps o/
-Emil