On 20/06/15 23:29, Andrew Gregory wrote: > On 06/20/15 at 05:42pm, Allan McRae wrote: >> Reads from the .db or .files database depending on the flags in the handle. >> >> Signed-off-by: Allan McRae <[email protected]> >> --- >> lib/libalpm/be_sync.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++------ >> lib/libalpm/db.c | 10 ++++++++-- >> 2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > I don't really like hard-coding a distinction between normal db's and > file db's in alpm. We already have to teach alpm to handle multiple > db extensions, so we could just make the extension configurable and > allow the front-end to do the selection. That way alpm would simply > use whatever it's given and treat all sync db's the same.
How is that different from what is implemented here? handle->files (rename pending...) is set by the front-end and that determines what database is used. > With proper > front-end support, which could easily be added later, this would allow > a distribution to choose to provide only a files db in order to > prevent the primary and files db's from getting out of sync. This could be added in about three lines now... Add a config option and have it set handle->files as appropriate. I don't understand what you are suggesting here. A
