Hi again > I like this patch. Sometimes (-Sp, for example) it is needless to > compute this info, so this little speed-up is one more minor argument > for on-demand download-size computing.
Glad to hear it. > I also came up with these two possible solutions earlier, see 5. here: > http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2008-August/007512.html > Now I also think that infolevel is better. Yeah, well, I did read your link before doing this patch :). > Clearly we should somehow restructure our download code to handle > pmpkg_t's. I would like to see something like this too. At least, my life would be easier if a pmpkg_t gets passed to the download callback, with perhaps the download_size for that package along with the current file, size of that file, etc. Maybe I will look into it when I have more time. Thanks again, Jonathan
