pacman - Archlinux32 fork of pacman

Age	Commit message (Collapse)	Author
2009-09-08	Change Y/n to y/N with REMOVE_PKGS (remove_unresolvable) callback	Nagy Gabor
	The main reason for this change is that scripts could not catch the removed targets with -S --noconfirm (the return value was 0). So the effect of a pacman command may have differed from the expected one. Moreover, for my taste the default no answer is better (I wanted to install the specified targets, not a subset of them). I had to change some pactest files as well, because now the default behavior is not to remove unresolvable targets. In fact, the only pactest file that tested this feature was ignore005.py. Signed-off-by: Nagy Gabor <ngaba@bibl.u-szeged.hu> Signed-off-by: Dan McGee <dan@archlinux.org>
2009-02-23	Enabled new interactive prompt and updated some tests	Bryan Ischo
	Enabled a new prompt to ask the user if they'd like to remove unresolvable packages from the transaction rather than failing it. Many pactest tests that used to fail now return success codes, because pacman now issues a prompt allowing the user to cancel rather than failing many transactions, and the pactest scripts always choose to cancel with no error rather than failing. The only net effect is that the return status of pacman is now 0 in cases where it used to be nonzero. Signed-off-by: Bryan Ischo <bryan@ischo.com> Signed-off-by: Dan McGee <dan@archlinux.org>
2008-03-23	Avoid duplicated target names.	Nagy Gabor
	This patch should avoid duplicated target names in the backend. 1. sync_loadtarget will return with PM_ERR_TRANS_DUP_TARGET when trying to add a duplicated target 2. sysupgrade never pulls duplicated targets 3. resolvedeps won't pull duplicated targets anymore A pulled list was introduced in sync_prepare to improve the pmsyncpkg_t<->pmpkg_t list conversion by making it more direct. Also replace sync1005 and sync1006 by the sync1008 pactest, which is similar but more interesting (the provisions are dependencies instead of explicit targets). sync1005 didn't work as expected anyway. It was expecting that pacman failed, and pacman indeed failed, but not for the good reason. It didn't fail during the preparation step because of conflicting targets, but during the commit step, because of a md5 error... And sync1006 didn't pass and was not really worth fixing. We have already enough failing pactests more important than these two. sync1008 pass with this patch. Signed-off-by: Nagy Gabor <ngaba@bibl.u-szeged.hu> Signed-off-by: Chantry Xavier <shiningxc@gmail.com>