On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 11:46:16AM +1000, Allan McRae wrote: > On 30/05/13 11:32, William Giokas wrote: > > Honestly, this is when I would say to call paccache in your repo-add > > function. As there is no separation between pacman and pacman-contrib > > anymore, it doesn't need any extra deps. Then things could still be done > > in one step while not duplicating code and introducing possible bugs. > > I'm actually leaning towards liking this patch (but have a fix that is > needed...). Currently repo management is a very tedious process. This > alleviates some of the strain.
Makes sense. I have no problems with it, I just think that if we already have a tool to do this and more, why not use that, but something simple works. > > If you look at it, there is no code duplication. All it does is delete > the current version from the repo directory before it updates to the new > package. It won't clean up older packages than that. Yes, but if this is going to expand, then it may become more and more similar to paccache. > > paccache is a very much more generic cache cleaner. This is purely repo > management and I think belongs in repo-add. > > Does that make sense? Makes complete sense. Just think that it's good to look at alternatives that we already have. > > Allan > > One more thing. I don't want repo-add depending on stuff in contrib. > repo-add gets installed with "make install" but contrib does not. Okay. I understand. > > Allan -- William Giokas | KaiSforza GnuPG Key: 0x73CD09CF Fingerprint: F73F 50EF BBE2 9846 8306 E6B8 6902 06D8 73CD 09CF
pgpRqQsPwuIuc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
