Nagy Gabor wrote:
Bump on these. As I see, 1-2 are fixed now (mentioned in the first
mail of this thread). But the "duplicated messages/data-list" issue is
still here. After my "Print warning in _alpm_resolvedep() if a satisfier
package is ignored without QUESTION" patch this issue became even worse,
maybe that patch should be reverted, I dunno...
The most precise [but ugly source-code] solution would be the following
(imho): Maintain a dropped list for dropped (unresolvable) packages.
This would prevent duplicated work (and duplicated messages), and this
would speed-up our algorithm a bit in xav's example.
Bye
Hi, I was on vacation in Australia for 3 weeks and am in the process of
moving now, so I'm really out of the loop here. I can barely remember
the issues involved here. I believe I submitted two patches before I
left that solved some of the issues that were pointed out by Nagy. Have
these been accepted into the pacman sources? Nagy, are you running your
test with these patches?
If so, then I agree that the final problems that exist are ugly, but
fortunately just cosmetic.
I also continue to believe that the warning message you've added about
ignored packages is unnecessary. The user knows what packages they've
put in their ignore list and that these packages may be ignored at any
time as dependency satisfiers. I don't think they need to be warned
about it. At the very least, it should be an optional warning turned on
by a command-line flag. That's my opinion anyway.
If your warning is taken out, what does the new output of pacman look
like in the situation you are reporting? I imagine there are still some
duplicated messages, but what exactly?
Thanks,
Bryan
p.s. I'm moving back to the USA and starting a new job this week so I
may not be very responsive to the list for a while ... my apologies in
advance.
_______________________________________________
pacman-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
