On 23/09/14 00:02, Dan McGee wrote: > On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 7:44 AM, Allan McRae <[email protected]> wrote: > >> This is v2 of a patchset submitted long ago. It has been rebased and >> had its memory leaks fixed. >> >> With this patchset, pacman will create a local database directory if it >> is missing (but not the root of the database - i.e. /var/lib/pacman/ still >> needs to be present). When creating the database or finding an empty local >> database it will add the .alpm_db_version file and add the version. For >> existing pacman databases this file is created by the pacman-db-upgrade >> script. Finally the version of the local database is checked during >> db validation. >> > I'm fine with the idea, but on a more meta level, is there any reason this > should be a hidden file? Why not just call it something like DB-VERSION so > it is big and obvious? I find the idea of hidden files in non-user home > directories less than ideal as it makes investigation that much harder > until you remember to do a full `ls -la`. > > (For example: svn stores its version in the root of the repository in a > `format` file, > http://serverfault.com/questions/277441/difference-between-the-format-and-db-format-files-in-a-subversion-repository > ) >
I'm happy renaming this. I'll use ALPM_DB_VERSION unless someone speaks up.
