On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 9:38 PM, Jonathan Conder <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
I think you broke something unintentionally, see this commit: 6d79ba2db0f37f46b925a509ef83724fc0f61184 You completely removed the loop in _alpm_sync_prepare that makes sure we have a filename for each participating package. Does that still need to be there in some capacity? Otherwise I like this changeset, thanks for the work. -Dan
