On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 6:26 PM, Nagy Gabor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 2. you have to build/free a new list > 3. you can call on "spkg->pkg" for each sync package > This is not much difference, indeed. > > Btw, almost all alpm functions require pmpkg_t*, resolvedeps, > checkdeps, checkconflicts... So "build/free a new list" is already done > in many places. >
So that is what I thought. Using a list is fine too. > > I assume that filecache is modified via alpm. (This is partly true, > because -Sc is implemented in the front-end!) This is closer to reality > than the current hardwired stuff. > Agreed. > > Yes I thought that download function should handle that. I thought > about a very primitive delta_path handling as a starting point. (If all > delta downloads were successful, clear delta_path, if one of them was > unsuccessful, set delta_path (and download_size) to "not computed") > Hmm... If one of them was unsuccessful, maybe it should just revert to the normal non-delta case? >> > I may mixed many things here, and I may misunderstand something >> > (this delta stuff made things quite complicated in sync.c) >> > >> I agree, this complicates things quite a lot for no benefit (at least >> for now). > > And it is difficult to test them... > True. What Nathan did might help : http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2007-December/010476.html > I still don't know what to do;-) > I even don't know whether you support the primary "goal": cleaner > trans_commit. > Of course, I always support cleaner anything. _______________________________________________ pacman-dev mailing list [email protected] http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
