On 10/3/20 5:35 am, Anatol Pomozov wrote: > Hi > > On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 5:15 PM Allan McRae <al...@archlinux.org> wrote: >> >> On 9/3/20 6:55 am, Anatol Pomozov wrote: >>> On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 6:05 AM Allan McRae <al...@archlinux.org> wrote: >> >>>> I got to here. Seems a lot of this is duplicated from the single db >>>> path. If both are going to coexist, can we do some refactoring? >>> >>> It depends whether we want to keep the API backward-compatible. If it >>> is fine to break one in pacman 6 release then we can just remove the >>> function from ALPM API. Otherwise alpm_db_update() need to be >>> reimplemented using alpm_dbs_update() functionality. >>> >> >> I was thinking that a non-pacman frontend may want to update a single >> db. But I suppose they just pass a single db to alpm_dbs_update(). > > Yep. Passing a single element list to alpm_dbs_update() is exact equivalent of > alpm_db_update() functionality. > >> >> So, I'm OK with the temporary code duplication followed by change of API >> for 6.0. > > Ok. I will remove alpm_db_update() at the end of this patch series. >
Well... thinking about this some more, at the end of the patch the current alpm_db_update() and alpm_dbs_update() should be renamed to take its place. All our API for db operations is of the form alpm_db_... so we should keep it that way. A
