On 25/01/11 23:03, Dan McGee wrote:
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Florian Pritz
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 19.01.2011 19:29, Dan McGee wrote:
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Florian Pritz<[email protected]> wrote:
-dd ignores only the version of a dependency being checked, but not the
package itself.
I don't mind this, but it just seems...backwards. Specifying more
flags should make it less-restrictive, not more restrictive, but I
understand the desire to keep backward compatibility. With that said,
does it matter? People that use -d very often are usually screwing
their system or know what they are doing- should we make -d just skip
versions and -dd skip everything?
static int parsearg_trans(int opt)
{
+ static int nodeps = 0;
switch(opt) {
- case 'd': config->flags |= PM_TRANS_FLAG_NODEPS; break;
+ case 'd':
+ nodeps++;
+ if(nodeps == 1) {
+ config->flags |= PM_TRANS_FLAG_NODEPS;
+ } else if(nodeps == 2) {
+ config->flags ^= PM_TRANS_FLAG_NODEPS;
+ config->flags |= PM_TRANS_FLAG_NODEPVERSION;
+ }
+ break;
You can do this without a static local; look at "case 's'" in parsearg_remove().
I'll wait for a decision about -d and -dd before fixing that.
Anyone else want to offer an opinion on this? I'd like to reverse the
two options to match what we do elsewhere- -d will now just ignore
versions, -dd everything.
That seems reasonable. With -d getting stricter in terms of dependency
checks, there should not be any issues caused by this change going
unnoticed by people who currently using -d.
Allan
