On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 4:11 AM, Allan McRae <[email protected]> wrote: >> +# Get the package name from the delta filename >> +getpkgname() { >> + local tmp >> + >> + tmp=${1##*/} >> + echo ${tmp%-*-*_to*} >> +} >> > > Rename this to getdeltapkgname to clarify it is only used for deltas? Self > document function names make my head hurt less. >
Sorry, I had exactly the same thought, I just didn't know where to add delta :) I will use your suggestion. > Otherwise, a quick read of the other changes made sense to me, but I will > need to do this in more detail. This is probably the patch that requires the most careful review (compared to the other 4), so it would be highly appreciated. > One comment that is moderately related to this. Should there be a mechanism > to inspect the deltas are remove the ones that are no longer necessary? > I.e. deltas with a broken chain, deltas who chain download will be bigger > than the package. Should that be a job of repo-add when adding a new delta > or a separate script? > I don't know, that seems neat but maybe too much complexity, I am not sure. Finding out how deltas could/should be managed has always been a big issue to me, how/when they are added, how/when they are removed. _______________________________________________ pacman-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
