Allan McRae wrote: > 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. >
And leave it to the pacman wrapper authors to fix their programs? Sounds good. :) I also prefer the original patch, mainly because it seems 'cleaner' to me, but being able to replace pacman completely on a system is a valid reason, too.
