From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Michael Tremer <michael.tremer@ipfire.org>
To: development@lists.ipfire.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/10] pakfire: remove dup. code + seperate ui/logic
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2022 20:43:33 +0100
Message-ID: <0CE7316B-6F21-47A1-9ACA-AFA7FC521371@ipfire.org>
In-Reply-To: <20220728112136.30218-1-robin.roevens@disroot.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0878478431330061077=="
List-Id: <development.lists.ipfire.org>

--===============0878478431330061077==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello,

Yay. *Throws confetti*

> On 28 Jul 2022, at 12:21, Robin Roevens <robin.roevens(a)disroot.org> wrote:
>=20
> Hi all
>=20
> As promised a revision of this patchset by the end of July.
> Also fixing bug #12868, both in patch 01 (installed: yes/no output) and=20
> patch 06 (don't trow error on valid '--no-color' option).
>=20
> This is quite a large patchset on delicate code which was discussed upon
> previous submission, but that was almost half a year ago. So I will try
> to link references to discussions on my previous submission where
> appropriate to refresh some memories :-).
>=20
> What was changed since last submission; implementing/fixing=20
> Michael's remarks/concerns:
> - Patch 01: Added translations as requested here:=20
>            https://lists.ipfire.org/pipermail/development/2022-March/012782=
.html
> - Patch 02: New patch translating WUI header/footer text
> - Patch 03: (previously patch 02) was not changed
> - Patch 04: (previously patch 03) replaced a forgotten fetchfile/move
>            combo by new getmetafile function
> - Previous patch 04 was removed as the function coreupdate_available turned=
 out no
>            longer used.=20
>            See: https://lists.ipfire.org/pipermail/development/2022-March/0=
12884.html
> - Patch 05: Replaced seq shell command by perl seq-method, consistent
>            use of 'Core-Update' as requested here:=20
>            https://lists.ipfire.org/pipermail/development/2022-March/012787=
.html
> - Patch 06: Added exitcode to pakfire list as requested here:=20
>            https://lists.ipfire.org/pipermail/development/2022-March/012787=
.html
> 	    Also exit with error when an unknown parameter is passed to
>            pakfire list
>            Added a small fix (in my opinion): log termination of pakfire=20
>            inside END block
> - Patch 07: Removed function coreupdate_available as it was concluded
>            that it was no longer needed (see again:=20
>            https://lists.ipfire.org/pipermail/development/2022-March/012884=
.html)
> 	    Added meaningfull status exit code as remarked here:
> 	    https://lists.ipfire.org/pipermail/development/2022-March/012788.html
>            Split previous patch 07 pakfire.cgi changes in new patch 08:
> - Patch 08: New patch, previously part of patch 07
>            Fixed localization as pointed out here:
>            https://lists.ipfire.org/pipermail/development/2022-March/012788=
.html
> - Patch 09: (previously patch 08) Split previous patch 08 into patch 09
>            adding 'getmetadata' function and 'pakfire info' and patch 10
>            implementing the new 'getmetadata' in service.cgi.
>            Show clean warning message when no packages are found
>            with requested pakfire list filter
> - Patch 10: (previously part of patch 08) Removed hardcoded exclusions
>            in services.cgi as pointed out here:
>            https://lists.ipfire.org/pipermail/development/2022-March/012789=
.html
> Previous patch 09 was dropped from this patchset as there turned out to
> be major problems with it and should be rethinked as pointed out here:
> https://lists.ipfire.org/pipermail/development/2022-March/012856.html      =
      =20
> 	   =20
>=20
> I think I have tested this all throughly but as these are quite interusive
> changes to the pakfire core workings; Please do not trust my testing and te=
st=20
> these patches yourselves during review. I would not want to carry the
> responibilities of breaking pakfire alone :-)

Indeed. We will need to test this *very* thoroughly. Not because I don=E2=80=
=99t trust you, but because we won=E2=80=99t be able to patch user=E2=80=99s =
systems if this thing properly breaks. So all give it a very good test so tha=
t we can all sleep better again.

However, I am not panicking about this, since the code looked good and clean.=
 Great job!

-Michael

> Regards
> Robin
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> --=20
> Dit bericht is gescanned op virussen en andere gevaarlijke
> inhoud door MailScanner en lijkt schoon te zijn.
>=20


--===============0878478431330061077==--