On 4/28/20 8:40 PM, Allan McRae wrote: > On 28/4/20 9:43 am, Pedro wrote: >> EDIT: Rewrote the prompt message and added a check for the --noconfirm flag >> >> >From what I could see, the function trans_init that comes right before the >> >prompt has already specific messages >> for each operation, so I consider that this new implementation fits the >> purpose. >> My motivation to submit this patch is that it's pretty common for >> AUR-helpers to automatically invoke pacman after a build, >> but correct transaction error handling is quite rare. So I thought that to >> implement a handling mechanism in the user side >> would solve the problem not only in that case, but also for other scripts >> that invoke pacman. >> >> Signed-off-by: Pedro <pedroc...@gmail.com> >> --- > > I don't see how retrying the same operation with the same input is going > to help anyone. If pacman fails in these ways, it is not going to > succeed the next attempt. > > Allan Just like I said the first time this patch was submitted -- and now it just has a slightly longer "retry" message, but it still doesn't answer my question "what is the user supposed to do about it"?
Pedro, a AUR helper is most likely going to fail because of dependency checks, which happen later. Do you have examples of a situation where pacman cannot even create the transaction, let alone populate it with packages? If so, why is it happening? These are questions that should be answered before adding a prompt with no clear purpose. -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
