On 19.01.2011 19:29, Dan McGee wrote: > On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Florian Pritz <[email protected]> wrote: >> -dd ignores only the version of a dependency being checked, but not the >> package itself. > > I don't mind this, but it just seems...backwards. Specifying more > flags should make it less-restrictive, not more restrictive, but I > understand the desire to keep backward compatibility. With that said, > does it matter? People that use -d very often are usually screwing > their system or know what they are doing- should we make -d just skip > versions and -dd skip everything?
>> > static int parsearg_trans(int opt)
>> > {
>> > + static int nodeps = 0;
>> > switch(opt) {
>> > - case 'd': config->flags |= PM_TRANS_FLAG_NODEPS; break;
>> > + case 'd':
>> > + nodeps++;
>> > + if(nodeps == 1) {
>> > + config->flags |= PM_TRANS_FLAG_NODEPS;
>> > + } else if(nodeps == 2) {
>> > + config->flags ^= PM_TRANS_FLAG_NODEPS;
>> > + config->flags |=
>> > PM_TRANS_FLAG_NODEPVERSION;
>> > + }
>> > + break;
> You can do this without a static local; look at "case 's'" in
> parsearg_remove().
I'll wait for a decision about -d and -dd before fixing that.
--
Florian Pritz -- {flo,bluewind}@server-speed.net
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
