Hi On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 5:15 PM Allan McRae <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 9/3/20 6:55 am, Anatol Pomozov wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 6:05 AM Allan McRae <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> I got to here. Seems a lot of this is duplicated from the single db > >> path. If both are going to coexist, can we do some refactoring? > > > > It depends whether we want to keep the API backward-compatible. If it > > is fine to break one in pacman 6 release then we can just remove the > > function from ALPM API. Otherwise alpm_db_update() need to be > > reimplemented using alpm_dbs_update() functionality. > > > > I was thinking that a non-pacman frontend may want to update a single > db. But I suppose they just pass a single db to alpm_dbs_update().
Yep. Passing a single element list to alpm_dbs_update() is exact equivalent of alpm_db_update() functionality. > > So, I'm OK with the temporary code duplication followed by change of API > for 6.0. Ok. I will remove alpm_db_update() at the end of this patch series.
