Dan McGee wrote:
On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Cedric Staniewski <[email protected]> wrote:
Signed-off-by: Cedric Staniewski <[email protected]>
---
Seems pretty reasonable to me; Allan, is this OK?
I have been thinking about this and its companion patch. I like the
refactoring of the pacman call into the function but dislike not
replacing the "pacman -T" call with it.
If there is a config option for setting the "pacman" binary, and I have
program that replaces pacman (e.g. the one based on the python alpm
wrapper should work), then I should not need pacman on my system at all.
So I prefer the original version where the "pacman -T" call was replaced
too.
Allan
