On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Cedric Staniewski <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I have been thinking about this and its companion patch. I like the >> refactoring of the pacman call into the function but dislike not >> replacing the "pacman -T" call with it. >> >> If there is a config option for setting the "pacman" binary, and I have >> program that replaces pacman (e.g. the one based on the python alpm >> wrapper should work), then I should not need pacman on my system at all. >> >> So I prefer the original version where the "pacman -T" call was replaced >> too. >> > > And leave it to the pacman wrapper authors to fix their programs? Sounds > good. :) > I also prefer the original patch, mainly because it seems 'cleaner' to > me, but being able to replace pacman completely on a system is a valid > reason, too. > >
Well, I am still not convinced. Why would any wrapper have to care about pacman -T ? This is a hidden / undocumented / internal argument just for the usage of makepkg. In the best case, a wrapper will just forward it correctly. In the worst case, it will break it.
