Latest and greatest. This really doesn't include much. There were some x86_64 fixes I added (obviously not in this package) as well as some makepkg changes, and Dan and I improved the conflict checking significantly. This package, though, should have all the translations provided here, so test those out too. Enjoy. Hopefully this is the last before public testing begins
On 2/14/07, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
Latest and greatest. This really doesn't include much. There were some x86_64 fixes I added (obviously not in this package) as well as some makepkg changes, and Dan and I improved the conflict checking significantly.
This package, though, should have all the translations provided here, so test those out too.
Enjoy. Hopefully this is the last before public testing begins
Silly me, I forgot this: http://archlinux.org/~aaron/pacman/pacman-rc-2007.02.13-1-i686.pkg.tar.gz
Am Mittwoch, 14. Februar 2007 07:27:42 schrieb Aaron Griffin:
I uploaded an arch64-version. It was built with itself makepkg3: http://www.archlinux.de/~pierre/packages/x86_64/pacman-rc-2007.02.13-1-x86_6... -- http://www.archlinux.de
2007/2/14, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>:
On 2/14/07, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
Latest and greatest. This really doesn't include much. There were some x86_64 fixes I added (obviously not in this package) as well as some makepkg changes, and Dan and I improved the conflict checking significantly.
This package, though, should have all the translations provided here, so test those out too.
Enjoy. Hopefully this is the last before public testing begins
Is this a known bug?: -----------8<----------------8<---------------------- $> pacman3 -S mplayer resolving dependencies... done. looking for inter-conflicts... :: mplayer conflicts with mplayer-svn. Remove mplayer-svn? [Y/n] y done. error: failed to prepare transaction (could not satisfy dependencies) :: mplayer-svn is required by mplayer-skins :: mplayer-svn is required by mplayer-plugin -----------8<----------------8<---------------------- and mplayer-{skins,plugin} require "mplayer" that is also provided by "mplayer-svn" -- Alessio 'mOLOk' Bolognino Arch Linux Trusted User
2007/2/14, Alessio 'mOLOk' Bolognino <themolok.ml@gmail.com>:
Is this a known bug?:
-----------8<----------------8<---------------------- $> pacman3 -S mplayer resolving dependencies... done. looking for inter-conflicts... :: mplayer conflicts with mplayer-svn. Remove mplayer-svn? [Y/n] y done. error: failed to prepare transaction (could not satisfy dependencies) :: mplayer-svn is required by mplayer-skins :: mplayer-svn is required by mplayer-plugin
-----------8<----------------8<----------------------
and mplayer-{skins,plugin} require "mplayer" that is also provided by "mplayer-svn"
did anyone read this? -- Alessio 'mOLOk' Bolognino Arch Linux Trusted User
On 2/14/07, Alessio 'mOLOk' Bolognino <themolok.ml@gmail.com> wrote:
2007/2/14, Alessio 'mOLOk' Bolognino <themolok.ml@gmail.com>:
Is this a known bug?:
-----------8<----------------8<---------------------- $> pacman3 -S mplayer resolving dependencies... done. looking for inter-conflicts... :: mplayer conflicts with mplayer-svn. Remove mplayer-svn? [Y/n] y done. error: failed to prepare transaction (could not satisfy dependencies) :: mplayer-svn is required by mplayer-skins :: mplayer-svn is required by mplayer-plugin
-----------8<----------------8<----------------------
and mplayer-{skins,plugin} require "mplayer" that is also provided by "mplayer-svn"
did anyone read this?
Yes, of course, but it's the middle of the day here in the US and Dan and I are both at work/school and can't really get to it just yet.
2007/2/14, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>:
On 2/14/07, Alessio 'mOLOk' Bolognino <themolok.ml@gmail.com> wrote:
2007/2/14, Alessio 'mOLOk' Bolognino <themolok.ml@gmail.com>:
Is this a known bug?:
-----------8<----------------8<---------------------- $> pacman3 -S mplayer resolving dependencies... done. looking for inter-conflicts... :: mplayer conflicts with mplayer-svn. Remove mplayer-svn? [Y/n] y done. error: failed to prepare transaction (could not satisfy dependencies) :: mplayer-svn is required by mplayer-skins :: mplayer-svn is required by mplayer-plugin
-----------8<----------------8<----------------------
and mplayer-{skins,plugin} require "mplayer" that is also provided by "mplayer-svn"
did anyone read this?
Yes, of course, but it's the middle of the day here in the US and Dan and I are both at work/school and can't really get to it just yet.
Ah, ok, no problem, I was afraid that it wasn't really sent. :) -- Alessio 'mOLOk' Bolognino Arch Linux Trusted User
On 14/02/07, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
Latest and greatest. This really doesn't include much. There were some x86_64 fixes I added (obviously not in this package) as well as some makepkg changes, and Dan and I improved the conflict checking significantly.
This package, though, should have all the translations provided here, so test those out too.
Enjoy. Hopefully this is the last before public testing begins
Hello, I just upgraded and pacman3.conf and makepkg3.conf were untouch and I got no messages about the creation of .pacnew files. That's normal now then? Is someone compiling a friendly document of such significant changes? Also, it seems that makepkg -S does not work correctly and just errors out on missing deps - makepkg -s is fine though. Cheers, dtw
2007/2/14, Phil Dillon-Thiselton <dibblethewrecker@gmail.com>:
On 14/02/07, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
Latest and greatest. This really doesn't include much. There were some x86_64 fixes I added (obviously not in this package) as well as some makepkg changes, and Dan and I improved the conflict checking significantly.
This package, though, should have all the translations provided here, so test those out too.
Enjoy. Hopefully this is the last before public testing begins
Hello, I just upgraded and pacman3.conf and makepkg3.conf were untouch and I got no messages about the creation of .pacnew files. That's normal now then?
Yes, when old file was not modified no .pacnew will be created.
Is someone compiling a friendly document of such significant changes?
Also, it seems that makepkg -S does not work correctly and just errors out on missing deps - makepkg -s is fine though.
You should use -Ss now, because -S means just "with sudo", you must add some option to -S. -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)
On 14/02/07, Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych@gmail.com> wrote:
You should use -Ss now, because -S means just "with sudo", you must add some option to -S. OK. As far as I can see that is not reflected in the manpage though. Is someone working on that?
On 2/14/07, Phil Dillon-Thiselton <dibblethewrecker@gmail.com> wrote:
On 14/02/07, Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych@gmail.com> wrote:
You should use -Ss now, because -S means just "with sudo", you must add some option to -S. OK. As far as I can see that is not reflected in the manpage though. Is someone working on that?
Thanks for pointing it out. -Dan
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 00:26:10 -0600 "Aaron Griffin" <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
Latest and greatest.
Just noticed some oddness with IgnorePkg: $ pacman -Su :: Starting full system upgrade... warning: kernel26-2.6.19.2-1: ignoring package upgrade (2.6.19.2-1) warning: kernel26beyond-2.6.19.beyond2-1: ignoring package upgrade (2.6.19.beyond2-1) warning: lua-5.1.1-1: ignoring package upgrade (5.1.1-1) warning: wine-0.9.30-1: ignoring package upgrade (0.9.30-1) resolving dependencies... done. looking for inter-conflicts... done. It says "ignoring package upgrade" for every package I have in IgnorePkg, regardless of whether there's an upgrade available or not. pacman2 only showed these warnings when there was an actual upgrade available. -- Travis
On 2/14/07, Travis Willard <travisw@wmpub.ca> wrote:
It says "ignoring package upgrade" for every package I have in IgnorePkg, regardless of whether there's an upgrade available or not. pacman2 only showed these warnings when there was an actual upgrade available.
Good catch. Fixed (or should be) in CVS - I will test later.
On 2/14/07, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
Good catch. Fixed (or should be) in CVS - I will test later.
New bug, after your code changes: $ sudo pacman3 -S pacman-rc warning: pacman-rc-2007.02.14-2: ignoring package upgrade (2007.02.14-3) :: pacman-rc-2007.02.14-2: local version is up to date. Upgrade anyway? [Y/n] y resolving dependencies... done. looking for inter-conflicts... done. Targets: pacman-rc-2007.02.14-3 Total Package Size: 1.17 MB Total Installed Size: 2.91 MB Proceed with installation? [Y/n] n I don't think we should prompt that the local package is "up to date" when in fact it is not, and the user is explicitly syncing it. -Dan
On 2/14/07, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't think we should prompt that the local package is "up to date" when in fact it is not, and the user is explicitly syncing it.
Actually, yeah - the changes are a bit more than just wording, so I'll wait until I get home. Basically, on an -Su, there should be no prompting ("ignoring upgrade blah"), however on an -S, there should be no output from this (it is assumed that -S overrides IgnorePkg and UpgradeDelay, as it's an explicit target).
2007/2/14, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>:
On 2/14/07, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't think we should prompt that the local package is "up to date" when in fact it is not, and the user is explicitly syncing it.
Actually, yeah - the changes are a bit more than just wording, so I'll wait until I get home.
Basically, on an -Su, there should be no prompting ("ignoring upgrade blah"), however on an -S, there should be no output from this (it is assumed that -S overrides IgnorePkg and UpgradeDelay, as it's an explicit target).
What if I want to -S pkgA but don't want to upgrade its dependency pkgB? I think IgnorePkg should not be ignored in that case. -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)
On 2/14/07, Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych@gmail.com> wrote:
2007/2/14, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>:
On 2/14/07, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't think we should prompt that the local package is "up to date" when in fact it is not, and the user is explicitly syncing it.
Actually, yeah - the changes are a bit more than just wording, so I'll wait until I get home.
Basically, on an -Su, there should be no prompting ("ignoring upgrade blah"), however on an -S, there should be no output from this (it is assumed that -S overrides IgnorePkg and UpgradeDelay, as it's an explicit target).
What if I want to -S pkgA but don't want to upgrade its dependency pkgB? I think IgnorePkg should not be ignored in that case.
That's not what I meant. By "explicit target" I mean it is explicitly specified. (pkgA is explicit, pkgB is not, in your example).
Na Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 07:43:11PM +0200, Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych@gmail.com> pisal(a):
What if I want to -S pkgA but don't want to upgrade its dependency pkgB? I think IgnorePkg should not be ignored in that case.
ignorepkg is handled only on -Su, not -S udv / greetings, VMiklos -- Developer of Frugalware Linux, to make things frugal - http://frugalware.org
2007/2/15, VMiklos <vmiklos@frugalware.org>:
Na Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 07:43:11PM +0200, Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych@gmail.com> pisal(a):
What if I want to -S pkgA but don't want to upgrade its dependency pkgB? I think IgnorePkg should not be ignored in that case.
ignorepkg is handled only on -Su, not -S
Yes, but I would like it to be suported for -S too. :p -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)
On 2/15/07, Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych@gmail.com> wrote:
2007/2/15, VMiklos <vmiklos@frugalware.org>:
Na Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 07:43:11PM +0200, Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych@gmail.com> pisal(a):
What if I want to -S pkgA but don't want to upgrade its dependency pkgB? I think IgnorePkg should not be ignored in that case.
ignorepkg is handled only on -Su, not -S
Yes, but I would like it to be suported for -S too. :p
You mean the deps for -S operations only, right? For instance: IgnorePkg foo bar package bunk depends=(foo baz) pacman -S bunk Targets: bunk baz ?? Does that sound reasonable? If so, please throw that in an FR on the bug tracker.
2007/2/15, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>:
On 2/15/07, Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych@gmail.com> wrote:
2007/2/15, VMiklos <vmiklos@frugalware.org>:
Na Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 07:43:11PM +0200, Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych@gmail.com> pisal(a):
What if I want to -S pkgA but don't want to upgrade its dependency pkgB? I think IgnorePkg should not be ignored in that case.
ignorepkg is handled only on -Su, not -S
Yes, but I would like it to be suported for -S too. :p
You mean the deps for -S operations only, right? For instance: IgnorePkg foo bar package bunk depends=(foo baz)
pacman -S bunk Targets: bunk baz
??
Does that sound reasonable? If so, please throw that in an FR on the bug tracker.
OK, will add it (later, because I have to go now) to my other IgnorePkg FR (about --ignorepkg ignoring not only updates but new packages too). -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)
participants (8)
-
Aaron Griffin
-
Alessio 'mOLOk' Bolognino
-
Dan McGee
-
Phil Dillon-Thiselton
-
Pierre Schmitz
-
Roman Kyrylych
-
Travis Willard
-
VMiklos