[pacman-dev] [GIT] The official pacman repository branch, master, updated. v3.0.0-603-g2aa7e69
This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script. It was
generated because a ref change was pushed to the repository containing
the project "The official pacman repository".
The branch, master has been updated
via 2aa7e69da91c1d7a18473cf05df98c92bd1dc747 (commit)
via 65fb99133df10143e07c237f04777e01b443c037 (commit)
via 829a7b904dcb56aa17cd9279f29385dad2814793 (commit)
via 5f0c241987f31b2cbf1c6ba2146dcca065973b0d (commit)
via b118ce55bd01c7ebd42b5b6d4a0f34aa925701d8 (commit)
via 55a7455135e2d8f2e118928f634dc7976ab6c8b4 (commit)
via 8f824e70bbaf9cb2b72103fe378d93e3ded8cdee (commit)
via e174865bdc154248b8b8fcf03eaa19da78e0f67b (commit)
from e28973169d2e5eda8b64ebdda11ece0dc761d978 (commit)
Those revisions listed above that are new to this repository have
not appeared on any other notification email; so we list those
revisions in full, below.
- Log -----------------------------------------------------------------
commit 2aa7e69da91c1d7a18473cf05df98c92bd1dc747
Author: Nagy Gabor
2007/11/18, Dan McGee
This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script. It was generated because a ref change was pushed to the repository containing the project "The official pacman repository".
commit 829a7b904dcb56aa17cd9279f29385dad2814793 Author: Chantry Xavier
Date: Sat Nov 17 23:35:22 2007 +0100 Minor rephrasing of the question asked by -Sc.
Suggested by stonecrest on irc : 'I think "uninstalled" would be better, as it implies that the package was once installed and since removed. Otherwise a user might wonder why there are non-installed pkgs in cache'
Signed-off-by: Chantry Xavier
This also includes packages pulled with -Sw[u] but not [yet] installed. ;-) Though the majority of -Sc candidates will be uninstalled packages anyway.
commit 8f824e70bbaf9cb2b72103fe378d93e3ded8cdee Author: Chantry Xavier
Date: Fri Nov 16 15:34:04 2007 +0100 Remove the IgnorePkg handling from alpm_pkg_compare_version.
And check the IgnorePkg handling is done correctly in the other places. For example, -Qu and -Su will automatically skip the ignored packages (-Su will print a warning), but -S will install ignored packages anyway, because it was asked explicitly.
Signed-off-by: Chantry Xavier
The fact that -S <pkgname> ignores IgnorePkg=<pkgname> should be documented in manpage.
commit e174865bdc154248b8b8fcf03eaa19da78e0f67b Author: Dan McGee
Date: Sat Nov 17 12:56:31 2007 -0600 Don't filter package files output based on dir/file status
This caused more problems than it solved, especially with -Qlp output and files that are new to the new package.
Signed-off-by: Dan McGee
So it will be possible to find what an ugly package brought some empty dir. :-) -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)
On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 11:26:02AM +0200, Roman Kyrylych wrote:
2007/11/18, Dan McGee
: This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script. It was generated because a ref change was pushed to the repository containing the project "The official pacman repository".
commit 829a7b904dcb56aa17cd9279f29385dad2814793 Author: Chantry Xavier
Date: Sat Nov 17 23:35:22 2007 +0100 Minor rephrasing of the question asked by -Sc.
Suggested by stonecrest on irc : 'I think "uninstalled" would be better, as it implies that the package was once installed and since removed. Otherwise a user might wonder why there are non-installed pkgs in cache'
Signed-off-by: Chantry Xavier
This also includes packages pulled with -Sw[u] but not [yet] installed. ;-) Though the majority of -Sc candidates will be uninstalled packages anyway.
Eheh, I replied exactly the same with -Sw :) But it's a corner case indeed.
commit 8f824e70bbaf9cb2b72103fe378d93e3ded8cdee Author: Chantry Xavier
Date: Fri Nov 16 15:34:04 2007 +0100 Remove the IgnorePkg handling from alpm_pkg_compare_version.
And check the IgnorePkg handling is done correctly in the other places. For example, -Qu and -Su will automatically skip the ignored packages (-Su will print a warning), but -S will install ignored packages anyway, because it was asked explicitly.
Signed-off-by: Chantry Xavier
The fact that -S <pkgname> ignores IgnorePkg=<pkgname> should be documented in manpage.
Note that the previous behavior (just before my patch) was a bit strange : -S <pkgname> looked at IgnorePkg only if pkgname was already locally installed. I checked the man page, this is the doc for IgnorePkg , in pacman.conf : IgnorePkg = package ... Instructs pacman to ignore any upgrades for this package when performing a --sysupgrade. And well, I think thats the only case where IgnorePkg / --ignore usage makes sense anyway.
commit e174865bdc154248b8b8fcf03eaa19da78e0f67b Author: Dan McGee
Date: Sat Nov 17 12:56:31 2007 -0600 Don't filter package files output based on dir/file status
This caused more problems than it solved, especially with -Qlp output and files that are new to the new package.
Signed-off-by: Dan McGee
So it will be possible to find what an ugly package brought some empty dir. :-)
That's also the advantage I saw in this patch, after the perl package problem.
participants (3)
-
Dan McGee
-
Roman Kyrylych
-
Xavier