On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 03:25:28PM +0200, Xavier wrote: > First replying to these two points before looking at the rest.. > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Henning Garus > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I removed the memset for the line array, it should be fairly safe and I > > ran valgrind with several pactests and it did not shout at me (at least > > after I supressed the numerous leaks reported for bash). > > > > AFAIK, you should use the following binary when using valgrind : > src/pacman/.libs/lt-pacman > But I never tried to understand what all that libtool mess is about. >
Thanks, I am actually finding something now, though nothing of it seems to be related to line not being nulled. But I found another leak I introduced. I will sent a new patch and go do some reading on libtool. > > Btw, is there a reason why pacman uses two different file formats (line > > based in db files vs. keyword = value in .PKGINFO ? > > > > This one has bugged me since I joined, like 2 years ago :) > See http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2007-June/003179.html > Unfortunately, all mailing list links have been broken :( Here is the > correct one for the previous post : > http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2006-March/000280.html > So it is historic and there is no real reason apart from "we didn't change it with 3.0". I thought that much. > The problem is that changing the package and database is not an easy > task, we have to consider migration and conversion, backward > compatibility, etc. So we should only change the format if it provides > significant benefits. > Sure, I do not want to go ahead and change anything, I was just being curious.
