On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Florian Pritz <[email protected]> wrote: > On 28.01.2011 20:48, Dan McGee wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 2:11 AM, Florian Pritz >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> From: Florian Pritz <[email protected]> >>> >>> -d skips checking the version of a dependency. >>> >>> -dd skips the whole dependency check >> Periods are awesome, please use one. :) > > Fixed. > >> I assume this follows the actual implementation of this in the >> backend, even though it has a patch 1/2 subject? Maybe resubmitting >> just the two -d/-dd patches as a single set would be good to make sure >> I know what to apply here. > > Oh sorry I broke that when using format-patch. :( > > I didn't want to resubmit all 5 patches so I just exported 3 and 4 (old > numbers). This one is the fixed 3 and "[PATCH 2/2] makepkg: add > soprovides support" is the fixed 4. > >>> - Skips all dependency checks. Normally, pacman will always check a >>> - package's dependency fields to ensure that all dependencies are >>> - installed and there are no package conflicts in the system. >>> + Skips dependency version checks. Package names are still checked >>> Normally, >> Missing period. >> >>> + pacman will always check a package's dependency fields to ensure >>> that all >>> + dependencies are installed and there are no package conflicts in the >>> + system. Specify this option twice to skip all dependency checks. >> No double-space. > > Both fixed > >>> *-k, \--dbonly*:: >>> Adds/Removes the database entry only, leaves all files in place. >>> diff --git a/src/pacman/pacman.c b/src/pacman/pacman.c >>> index c267060..363b167 100644 >>> --- a/src/pacman/pacman.c >>> +++ b/src/pacman/pacman.c >>> @@ -553,7 +553,14 @@ static int parsearg_query(int opt) >>> static int parsearg_trans(int opt) >>> { >>> switch(opt) { >>> - case 'd': config->flags |= PM_TRANS_FLAG_NODEPS; break; >>> + case 'd': >>> + if(config->flags & PM_TRANS_FLAG_NODEPVERSION) { >>> + config->flags ^= PM_TRANS_FLAG_NODEPVERSION; >>> + config->flags |= PM_TRANS_FLAG_NODEPS; >> Why do we need to back the depversion flag out at all? Given that >> nodepversion is less strong than nodeps, it doesn't make intuitive >> sense to have to do this. > > I haven't checked that yet, but if it's not needed I'll take it out.
Test this yet? -Dan
