Historical bug tracker for the Pacman package manager.
The pacman bug tracker has moved to gitlab:
https://gitlab.archlinux.org/pacman/pacman/-/issues
This tracker remains open for interaction with historical bugs during the transition period. Any new bugs reports will be closed without further action.
The pacman bug tracker has moved to gitlab:
https://gitlab.archlinux.org/pacman/pacman/-/issues
This tracker remains open for interaction with historical bugs during the transition period. Any new bugs reports will be closed without further action.
FS#13877 - Verify option for local packages (aka system check)
Attached to Project:
Pacman
Opened by changaco (changaco) - Thursday, 19 March 2009, 16:23 GMT
Last edited by Dan McGee (toofishes) - Thursday, 23 July 2009, 02:39 GMT
Opened by changaco (changaco) - Thursday, 19 March 2009, 16:23 GMT
Last edited by Dan McGee (toofishes) - Thursday, 23 July 2009, 02:39 GMT
|
DetailsSome time ago I accidentally deleted some important files of my system and I wanted to know which packages they were from in order to re-install only those packages. This is not currently possible in pacman so I first wrote a bash script to do so and now I've implemented the feature in pacman so I send you the code I wrote for that.
It's not really pretty and it doesn't work if you specify which packages to check (get a segmentation error I can't figure out). As I'm not really an expert in C/C++ I just give you the code and if you're interested I'm sure you'll debug it in some minutes. |
This task depends upon
Closed by Dan McGee (toofishes)
Thursday, 23 July 2009, 02:39 GMT
Reason for closing: Implemented
Additional comments about closing: Added in commit ca6ef852f9944ad31e8a136f7faf71da2c5fb57f
Thursday, 23 July 2009, 02:39 GMT
Reason for closing: Implemented
Additional comments about closing: Added in commit ca6ef852f9944ad31e8a136f7faf71da2c5fb57f
pacman.c.diff
http://showmecode.com/code/480/
FS#11091andFS#13877dupes?FS#11091is much more complex, the poster wants a check on "the size, MD5 sum, permissions, type, owner and group of each file". If I am not mistaken, libalpm does not store all of this, so it is harder to implement and I guess it would have consequences on libalpm's performance. My patch just checks if the file is on the file system (ie not deleted by mistake or failure).