On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Nagy Gabor<ng...@bibl.u-szeged.hu> wrote: > Hi! > > After killing pmsyncpkg_t, there is not much difference between -S and > -U transactions. The only difference is that trans->packages come from > pkgcache (-S) or they are loaded from file (-U). And of course, with -S > we have an extra step, we have to actually download the packages. > > However, -U is much more "stupid" than -S atm. > > Now the removes field is attached to pmpkg_t, so we could implement > FS#3492 without pain, the conflict resolving part from sync.c can be > reused without any modification*. Or if we allow "mixed" trans->packages > list (pkg->origin can indicate that we have a file[-U] or repo[-S] > package), even the implementaion of FS#5798 should be also > straightforward. The only difference between PKG_FROM_CACHE and > PKG_FROM_FILE packages, that PKG_FROM_CACHE needs to be downloaded. > Then -U would become a sync transaction (internally), and add_commit > would be a helper function only. > > *: I started to work on the implementation of mixed target list, and I > realised that the most annoying "difference" is that PKG_FROM_CACHE > packages are not duplicated, so they are mustn't be freed (the new > _alpm_pkg_free_trans should be used), but PKG_FROM_FILE packages must be > freed. How much memory can we spare by not duplicating sync packages > (not calling _alpm_pkg_dup when adding them to transaction target)? The > whole base repo is <0.5 MB atm. Does this hack "worth"? With the old > behaviour, implementing this idea (and so FS#3492 and FS#5798) would be > really nice. With the new behaviour it would not. (And I don't really > like the need for _alpm_pkg_free_trans neither.)
I think it'd be neat! That's all I got :) _______________________________________________ pacman-dev mailing list pacman-dev@archlinux.org http://www.archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev