[arch-general] Suppressing specific pacman warnings
Hello, I have some unofficial repos added in pacman.conf, and at times use ABS and the AUR, so I often get messages like this: # LANG=C pacman -Syu ... :: Starting full system upgrade... warning: udevil: local (0.4.4-2) is newer than community (0.4.4-1) ...(10 messages from unofficial repos)... 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 # pacman -Syu 2>/dev/null but this supresses *all* warnings. Also if I need to hold ignore a few packages, I get this (which actually makes more sense as a warning): warning: haskell-src-exts: ignoring package upgrade (1.17.1-8 => 1.18.2-4) which I know already, since I'm the one who put it IgnorePkg. I looked in the manpage for pacman.conf and also found nothing to quiet specific 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, ...) I found this old bug report (https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/31594) regarding this, but there's no decision about it. I'd like there to be an option to quiet these, possibly in pacman.conf: QuietWarning = NewerThanRepo | IgnoredUpdate | ... What do you think? Thanks in advance for any suggestions. João Miguel
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?
# pacman -Syu 2>/dev/null
but this supresses *all* warnings. Also if I need to hold ignore a few packages, I get this (which actually makes more sense as a warning):
warning: haskell-src-exts: ignoring package upgrade (1.17.1-8 => 1.18.2-4)
which I know already, since I'm the one who put it IgnorePkg. I looked in the manpage for pacman.conf and also found nothing to quiet specific 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.
I found this old bug report (https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/31594) regarding this, but there's no decision about it.
I'd like there to be an option to quiet these, possibly in pacman.conf:
QuietWarning = NewerThanRepo | IgnoredUpdate | ...
What do you think? Thanks in advance for any suggestions. João Miguel
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 going on, or they are performing a risky action (ignoring packages). 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... ... 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. -- Eli Schwartz
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
On 03/04/17 08:17, João Miguel via arch-general wrote:
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.
That bug is about a completely different issue... Your issue is a WONTFIX. A
A 2017-04-03T08:25:16 +1000, Allan McRae escreveu:
On 03/04/17 08:17, João Miguel via arch-general wrote:
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. That bug is about a completely different issue... Ah, you're right, mine is before dependency resolution.
Your issue is a WONTFIX. Well, at least now I know.
João Miguel
Op 3 apr. 2017 15:55 schreef "João Miguel via arch-general" < arch-general@archlinux.org>: A 2017-04-03T08:25:16 +1000, Allan McRae escreveu:
On 03/04/17 08:17, João Miguel via arch-general wrote:
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. That bug is about a completely different issue... Ah, you're right, mine is before dependency resolution.
Your issue is a WONTFIX. Well, at least now I know.
I think Ely Swartz gave the best option; Use a custom repo for the non-standard pkg's and give it priority. Mvg, Guus Snijders
A 2017-04-04T10:08:42 +0200, Guus Snijders via arch-general escreveu:
(...)
I think Ely Swartz gave the best option; Use a custom repo for the non-standard pkg's and give it priority.
Mvg, Guus Snijders I agree, and the best part is that one can make it public so that the everyone else can enjoy the pre-compiled packages (because this isn't Gentoo). I'll add mine to the unofficial repos soon.
Thank you for your time. Have a /bin/repo-elephant: __ '. \ '- \ / /_ .---. / | \\,.\/--.// ) | \// )/ / \ ' ^ ^ / )____.----.. 6 '.____. .___/ \._) .\/. ) '\ / _/ \/ ). ) ( /# .! | /\ / \ C// # /'-----''/ # / . 'C/ | | | | |mrf , \), .. .'OOO-'. ..'OOO'OOO-'. ..\(, All the best, João Miguel
On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 12:02 AM, João Miguel via arch-general < arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
A 2017-04-04T10:08:42 +0200, Guus Snijders via arch-general escreveu:
(...)
I think Ely Swartz gave the best option; Use a custom repo for the non-standard pkg's and give it priority.
Mvg, Guus Snijders I agree, and the best part is that one can make it public so that the everyone else can enjoy the pre-compiled packages (because this isn't Gentoo). I'll add mine to the unofficial repos soon.
I would like to maintain a custom repo too. However I don't have a public server and couldn't find suitable free storage. I tried Sourceforge but when I want to register a new project, it asks for my phone number. Do you guys know of any good public storage where I could store my custom repo for the public?
On 2017-04-05 10:44, SanskritFritz via arch-general wrote:
On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 12:02 AM, João Miguel via arch-general < arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
A 2017-04-04T10:08:42 +0200, Guus Snijders via arch-general escreveu:
(...)
I think Ely Swartz gave the best option; Use a custom repo for the non-standard pkg's and give it priority.
Mvg, Guus Snijders I agree, and the best part is that one can make it public so that the everyone else can enjoy the pre-compiled packages (because this isn't Gentoo). I'll add mine to the unofficial repos soon.
I would like to maintain a custom repo too. However I don't have a public server and couldn't find suitable free storage. I tried Sourceforge but when I want to register a new project, it asks for my phone number. Do you guys know of any good public storage where I could store my custom repo for the public?
Vultr offers a VPS for 2.50$/month. I doubt there is anything cheaper. Bartłomiej
A 2017-04-05T10:44:05 +0200, SanskritFritz escreveu:
On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 12:02 AM, João Miguel via arch-general < arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
A 2017-04-04T10:08:42 +0200, Guus Snijders via arch-general escreveu:
(...)
I think Ely Swartz gave the best option; Use a custom repo for the non-standard pkg's and give it priority.
Mvg, Guus Snijders I agree, and the best part is that one can make it public so that the everyone else can enjoy the pre-compiled packages (because this isn't Gentoo). I'll add mine to the unofficial repos soon.
I would like to maintain a custom repo too. However I don't have a public server (...) Since you probably won't get much traffic and most ISPs have high limits for bandwidth anyway, you can do port forwarding on you router to an old PC or low-powered computer to work as a server and use something like https://freedns.afraid.org/ to create a DNS A record to your IP. Total cost if you already have an old computer: 0. And you get to learn how to set up server-y things!
Hope this helps, João Miguel
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?
Why is that 'the obvious reason'? Another (arguably more common) reason is
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 6:17 AM, João Miguel via arch-general < arch-general@archlinux.org> wrote: partial repo syncs, or some problem with a repo (as pacman does automatic fall-back when a repo cannot be contacted). In that situation a user really does need to know that some packages on this system appear to be from the future (relative to the currently synced repo information) as this could have a fairly large impact on the system running at all. And if you're installing newer versions yourself, it's not really hard to read past it.... way too many users do that anyway,
participants (8)
-
Allan McRae
-
Bartłomiej Piotrowski
-
Ben Oliver
-
Eli Schwartz
-
Guus Snijders
-
João Miguel
-
Oon-Ee Ng
-
SanskritFritz