[pacman-dev] [PATCH] during -Qu add [ignored] for repos without Usage = Upgrade
Fixes FS#59854
Signed-off-by: morganamilo morganamilo@gmail.com --- src/pacman/query.c | 6 +++++- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/src/pacman/query.c b/src/pacman/query.c index 00c39638..faa06e60 100644 --- a/src/pacman/query.c +++ b/src/pacman/query.c @@ -325,10 +325,14 @@ static int display(alpm_pkg_t *pkg) colstr->version, alpm_pkg_get_version(pkg), colstr->nocolor);
if(config->op_q_upgrade) { + int usage; alpm_pkg_t *newpkg = alpm_sync_newversion(pkg, alpm_get_syncdbs(config->handle)); + alpm_db_t *db = alpm_pkg_get_db(newpkg); + alpm_db_get_usage(db, &usage); + printf(" -> %s%s%s", colstr->version, alpm_pkg_get_version(newpkg), colstr->nocolor);
- if(alpm_pkg_should_ignore(config->handle, pkg)) { + if(alpm_pkg_should_ignore(config->handle, pkg) || !(usage & ALPM_DB_USAGE_UPGRADE)) { printf(" %s", _("[ignored]")); } }
On 1/9/18 9:35 am, morganamilo wrote:
Fixes FS#59854
Signed-off-by: morganamilo morganamilo@gmail.com
Looks good.
A
src/pacman/query.c | 6 +++++- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/src/pacman/query.c b/src/pacman/query.c index 00c39638..faa06e60 100644 --- a/src/pacman/query.c +++ b/src/pacman/query.c @@ -325,10 +325,14 @@ static int display(alpm_pkg_t *pkg) colstr->version, alpm_pkg_get_version(pkg), colstr->nocolor);
if(config->op_q_upgrade) {
int usage; alpm_pkg_t *newpkg = alpm_sync_newversion(pkg, alpm_get_syncdbs(config->handle));alpm_db_t *db = alpm_pkg_get_db(newpkg);alpm_db_get_usage(db, &usage);printf(" -> %s%s%s", colstr->version, alpm_pkg_get_version(newpkg), colstr->nocolor);
if(alpm_pkg_should_ignore(config->handle, pkg)) {
if(alpm_pkg_should_ignore(config->handle, pkg) || !(usage & ALPM_DB_USAGE_UPGRADE)) { printf(" %s", _("[ignored]")); } }
On 1/9/18 9:35 am, morganamilo wrote:
Fixes FS#59854
Signed-off-by: morganamilo morganamilo@gmail.com
You patch is fine... But in testing it, I once again come to see how screwy -Qu is! We need to go back to your original issue.
-Qu ignores databases with Usage = Sync or Install when calculating the list of possible package updates, but not databases with Usage = Search.
It gets better... packages in databases with Usage = Upgrade do not show up in -Qu. That is clearly wrong!
What is special about Usage = Search? I can't see why these packages should be included in a -Qu output and not those from a database with Usage = Sync/Install/Upgrade.
Lets look at the relevant function:
/** Check for new version of pkg in sync repos * (only the first occurrence is considered in sync) */ alpm_pkg_t SYMEXPORT *alpm_sync_newversion(alpm_pkg_t *pkg, alpm_list_t *dbs_sync) {
We need to define the sync repos that are searched. We either look at all sync repos, or those with Usage = Upgrade/All. I can't see a justification for anything else.
Going to "man pacman" for -Qu
-u, --upgrades Restrict or filter output to packages that are out-of-date on the local system. Only package versions are used to find outdated packages; replacements are not checked here. This option works best if the sync database is refreshed using -Sy.
The option name implies we should only print those with Usage = Upgrade/All, but the description suggests we can print all of them. I'm inclined to go with the option name, as that is less mutable than the description.
My plan is to change alpm_sync_newversion to take an additional parameter to flag whether it should include all databases or just those available for upgrades. It could even be make more flexible and just take the bitmask as a parameter for filtering.
Allan
Yeah -Qu is still a little funky.
It gets better... packages in databases with Usage = Upgrade do not show up in -Qu. That is clearly wrong!
I left the requirement on Usage = Search after every one disagreed with my patch [1] to change it. Although I would prefer it if Search had no bearing on this.
So with this patch, Search is needed for a package to be listed and Upgrade is needed for [ignore] to not be added.
My plan is to change alpm_sync_newversion to take an additional parameter to flag whether it should include all databases or just those available for upgrades. It could even be make more flexible and just take the bitmask as a parameter for filtering.
Why not just remove the Usage check all together? You need alpm_sync_newversion to find the packages then later we do the Usage = Upgrade check to add [ignored] to the end of the line.
Unless you want the packages to not show up at all? That's exactly what the previous patch [1] did.
[1] https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2018-July/022723.html
On 20/9/18 3:18 am, Morgan Adamiec wrote:
Yeah -Qu is still a little funky.
It gets better... packages in databases with Usage = Upgrade do not show up in -Qu. That is clearly wrong!
I left the requirement on Usage = Search after every one disagreed with my patch [1] to change it. Although I would prefer it if Search had no bearing on this.
So with this patch, Search is needed for a package to be listed and Upgrade is needed for [ignore] to not be added.
My plan is to change alpm_sync_newversion to take an additional parameter to flag whether it should include all databases or just those available for upgrades. It could even be make more flexible and just take the bitmask as a parameter for filtering.
Why not just remove the Usage check all together? You need alpm_sync_newversion to find the packages then later we do the Usage = Upgrade check to add [ignored] to the end of the line.
My concern is of users of that function other than pacman (if there are any...). Adding a parameter at least flags the change in behaviour an allows other users to keep it the way it was.
Unless you want the packages to not show up at all? That's exactly what the previous patch [1] did.
[1] https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2018-July/022723.html .
On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 at 22:28, Allan McRae allan@archlinux.org wrote:
My concern is of users of that function other than pacman (if there are any...). Adding a parameter at least flags the change in behaviour an allows other users to keep it the way it was.
Ah yeah good point, forgot that other frontends are a thing. Your idea is probably best then. Thanks for all the feedback.
participants (3)
-
Allan McRae
-
Morgan Adamiec
-
morganamilo