> Xavier wrote: > > Well, I already didn't like this script in the first place, I found > > the idea ugly. > > I still had a look at it to check if it worked. And I see the > > implementation is ugly as well, since it's based on -Qi output. > > If you take a few steps back, what's happening is so stupid (I'm > > not blaming any one here, or maybe only me for not being able to > > provide patches) : > > makepkg creates the .PKGINFO files > > repo-add transform the .PKGINFO to desc/depends > > pacman -Si/-Qi interprets the desc/depends file and display the info > > re-pacman looks at -Qi output and try to translate it back > > to .PKGINFO ... > > > > Just one example, the build date is stored as unix epoch, but > > pacman displays it in human readable way. > > However, we are lucky here, since date is apparently able to > > convert it back : > > 39 >-builddate=$(pacinfo ${1} 'Build Date') > > 40 >-echo "builddate = $(date -d "$builddate" +%s)" > > > > The build date could be the date of today though. > > > > Now if we try do to the same for size field, it will get uglier. > > But here again, we could compute the current size taken, which > > might have changed. > > > > Empty fields in pacman -Qi output should be dealt with too (for > > example Groups = None). > > > > Anyway, if you want an accurate re-pacman, you need to check the > > .PKGINFO creation in makepkg, and find out how to get that back > > from pacman -Q output. > > Or change re-pacman to use directly the files > > in /var/lib/pacman/local/ And maybe before that, change the local > > database to use .PKGINFO format, to ease up re-pacman task :) > > > > I have no interest in updating re-pacman though, because I don't > > use it and find it useless (even though I recognize it might be > > handy and practical in some cases, I still don't like it). > > > > I just found this : > http://foulmetal.free.fr/archlinux/repacman-0.98.tar.gz > > This one uses the depends / desc files from the local db, but I > didn't look at anything else. > So just in case anyone is interested by this repacman stuff, there is > a different version from the one in pacman/contrib/. >
Hm. I may have missed something, but where can the end-user find the original re-pacman? I've just checked, it is not part of pacman-contrib package. Bye _______________________________________________ pacman-dev mailing list pacman-dev@archlinux.org http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev