hi,
i am running pacman db inside a loop (humm to speed up some pacman operation)
and when i run pacman -Sc (or -Scc); i got
...
Do you want to remove unused repositories? [Y/n] y
Do you want to remove /var/lib/pacman/lost+found? [Y/n] n
it's because i have a lost+found directory in /var/lib/pac
2008/7/20 Allan McRae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi,
>
> This is the patch from Thomas with the documentation added. I'm not
> sure whether when STRIP_DIRS is not defined in makepkg.conf that we
> should use the default path or just output a warning message saying that
> it is not defined and no strip
solsTiCe d'Hiver wrote:
> hi,
>
> i am running pacman db inside a loop (humm to speed up some pacman operation)
> and when i run pacman -Sc (or -Scc); i got
> ...
> Do you want to remove unused repositories? [Y/n] y
> Do you want to remove /var/lib/pacman/lost+found? [Y/n] n
>
> it's because i h
Allan McRae wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is the patch from Thomas with the documentation added. I'm not
> sure whether when STRIP_DIRS is not defined in makepkg.conf that we
> should use the default path or just output a warning message saying that
> it is not defined and no stripping is being done.
>
> solsTiCe d'Hiver wrote:
> > hi,
> >
> > i am running pacman db inside a loop (humm to speed up some pacman
> > operation) and when i run pacman -Sc (or -Scc); i got
> > ...
> > Do you want to remove unused repositories? [Y/n] y
> > Do you want to remove /var/lib/pacman/lost+found? [Y/n] n
> >
>
Hm. I wasn't clear again.
>
> Yes, the patch is fine, but I don't like it:
>
> This is too "specific". Tomorrow an other user will arrive that his
> foo put bar directory to /var/lib/pacman.
Alternative I. (future):
> This /var/lib/pacman "root-cleanup" was introduced because of the old
> db f
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 09:45:56AM +0200, solsTiCe d'Hiver wrote:
> may be you could just ignore lost+found (on -Sc) so that the last question
> above is not asked ? that will be be really unfortunate if a real repo uses
> that name.
> so simply do not ask the user.
[...]
> a good or bad idea ?
Hi!
I've just discovered that ldconfig runs twice, if the sync transaction
creates a remove transaction too (%REPLACES%, conflict resolving).
IMHO we should move ldconfig call to trans.c to alpm_trans_commit.
Opinions?
Bye
___
pacman-dev mailing list
Nagy Gabor wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I've just discovered that ldconfig runs twice, if the sync transaction
> creates a remove transaction too (%REPLACES%, conflict resolving).
>
> IMHO we should move ldconfig call to trans.c to alpm_trans_commit.
> Opinions?
>
I guess that's fine.
