A 2017-04-02T02:02:30 -0400, Eli Schwartz via arch-general escreveu:
On 04/01/2017 11:14 AM, João Miguel via arch-general wrote:
First of all, why is this a warning? What is the problem of me having a newer version of a package than the repository? --quiet does not help. I could do
Why would a mismatch between what is expected and what is actually there, *not* be something to warn the user about? I mean, why is it unexpected? Is it at all unexpected that a package I ignored is being ignored? (see below for newer versions)
(...) warnings like this. Could they at least be less verbose? Say, in one line:
warning: ignoring (42) package updates (for nvidia, nvidia-dkms, haskell-src-exts, ...)
This would result in some extremely long lines, but I am not really sure why you have 42 packages ignored anyway. So I am not entirely sure how much this would help your case. 42 was an example, I don't have anywhere near that number of packages ignored. The actual number in my case varies between 0 and 15 (currently 3).
I found this old bug report (https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/31594) regarding this, but there's no decision about it. Note: if this is really not worth anyone's time, this should be closed as WONTFIX.
I'd like there to be an option to quiet these, possibly in pacman.conf:
QuietWarning = NewerThanRepo | IgnoredUpdate | ... (...)
If pacman is going to output such messages in the first place, offering to ignore them strikes me as unwise.
The whole reason for outputting such messages to begin with, IMHO, is to alert the user that something unexpected (packages from the future) is But when would there be packages from the future!? I think if pacman finds I have a more recent version than the repos do, the obvious reason is that I got it from somewhere else. When would I have a higher version except for that reason? going on, or they are performing a risky action (ignoring packages). I know it is unsupported, but I don't need to be told that it is risky every time in such a verbose manner.
It is hardly a huge burden to see them, since after all you are looking at the output of an interactive program which already emits lots of other information you are expected to read, some of which is interspersed with stuff you don't really have to pay attention to (progress bars). In short, important information is important, and should be seen... What I'm disputing here is precisely that information being important. Progress bars are important sometimes, and can be disabled with --noprogressbar. I'd say that option is less important (and is already implicit with, say, piping).
...
Though, personally, if I fork a repo package I add it to my [custom] repo which has priority. So I never see the state of the official repos. Thank you, that does sound like a nice idea! (to anyone interested, found some information here: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Pacman/Tips_and_tricks#Custom_local_rep...) João Miguel