On 14/03/13 12:37 AM, Allan McRae wrote: > On 14/03/13 16:37, Connor Behan wrote: >> Calling pacman -Sp and pacman -Sup are guaranteed not to install a >> package. So the user's IgnorePkg pref is respected regardless of whether >> or not we print the mirror location. Therefore we do so in the case of >> -Sp as this gives the full information requested by the user. We avoid >> doing so in the case of -Sup as this would mislead the user into >> thinking that the upgrade is bigger than it really is. This fixes an >> edge case with devtools. >> >> Signed-off-by: Connor Behan <[email protected]> >> --- >> src/pacman/conf.c | 7 +++++++ >> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/src/pacman/conf.c b/src/pacman/conf.c >> index 3f1b1c3..99e6af1 100644 >> --- a/src/pacman/conf.c >> +++ b/src/pacman/conf.c >> @@ -1010,6 +1010,13 @@ int parseconfig(const char *file) >> if((ret = _parseconfig(file, §ion, 1, 0))) { >> return ret; >> } >> + >> + /* #FS#34066 - Querying URLs for packages specified on the command line >> (even ignored ones) should succeed */ > Fine apart from the comment. I do not like referring to bug reports. > The comment should stand alone in the code and not require referring > elsewhere. > > Also, the comment is not quite right as "pacman -Sup foo" will still > exclude "foo" if that is in IgnorePkg. > > How about: > > "Print URLs for all given packages on non-upgrade operations"? > > If that is OK, I can make the adjustment when I pull it.
Yeah, that's a good replacement. I was modelling it after https://projects.archlinux.org/pacman.git/tree/src/pacman/sync.c#n644 in case you want to get rid of that too.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
