[pacman-dev] A starting point
Hello guys, I just installed the public test and my first update went smoothly. Phrak, might be worth advising people directly to copy their old pacman.conf over pacman3.conf - would hate to see their protected files get chewed on first update. I had a quick wizz through makepkg3.conf and I saw what I thought _might_ be a wording error so I have attached the patch. My software testing skills may not be too rigorous but my proof-reading's not bad ;) Cheers, dtw
On 2/13/07, Phil Dillon-Thiselton <dibblethewrecker@gmail.com> wrote:
I had a quick wizz through makepkg3.conf and I saw what I thought _might_ be a wording error so I have attached the patch. My software testing skills may not be too rigorous but my proof-reading's not bad ;)
Fixed in CVS. Thanks.
On 2/13/07, Phil Dillon-Thiselton <dibblethewrecker@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello guys,
I just installed the public test and my first update went smoothly. Phrak, might be worth advising people directly to copy their old pacman.conf over pacman3.conf - would hate to see their protected files get chewed on first update.
Keep in mind this is an RC- in a few days we will push it as an actual pacman testing release, so it will use the normal pacman.conf and makepkg.conf. We also will need to inform users that the makepkg.conf syntax has changed a good amount, so be on the watch for that. -Dan
On 13/02/07, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
Keep in mind this is an RC- in a few days we will push it as an actual pacman testing release, so it will use the normal pacman.conf and makepkg.conf. I'm aware of that but given the potential hose risk if you should, for example, grab an ssh pkg or something...just thought it wouldn't hurt to emphasis the fact to potential RC testers. No biggy though.
On 2/13/07, Phil Dillon-Thiselton <dibblethewrecker@gmail.com> wrote:
On 13/02/07, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
Keep in mind this is an RC- in a few days we will push it as an actual pacman testing release, so it will use the normal pacman.conf and makepkg.conf. I'm aware of that but given the potential hose risk if you should, for example, grab an ssh pkg or something...just thought it wouldn't hurt to emphasis the fact to potential RC testers. No biggy though.
What is going to be hosed that better already be protected in the package's backup=() array? If it is really something crucial, a bug should be filed against the package and have that file included in the array by default. -Dan
On 2/13/07, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
What is going to be hosed that better already be protected in the package's backup=() array? If it is really something crucial, a bug should be filed against the package and have that file included in the array by default.
Speaking of which, shouldn't a package's PKGBUILD be able to define a file as such? If so, maybe keep the backup=() array in pacman.conf for backwards compatibility and/or to overwrite the PKGBUILDs preference. But having hard-coded information relevant to packages (many of which a user might not even have installed) living outside of the package itself and in the package manager's config is a bit illogical to me. Scott
On 2/13/07, Scott Horowitz <stonecrest@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/13/07, Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> wrote:
What is going to be hosed that better already be protected in the package's backup=() array? If it is really something crucial, a bug should be filed against the package and have that file included in the array by default.
Speaking of which, shouldn't a package's PKGBUILD be able to define a file as such? If so, maybe keep the backup=() array in pacman.conf for backwards compatibility and/or to overwrite the PKGBUILDs preference. But having hard-coded information relevant to packages (many of which a user might not even have installed) living outside of the package itself and in the package manager's config is a bit illogical to me.
This is the way it works now. http://cvs.archlinux.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/base/glibc/PKGBUILD?rev=HEAD&content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup backup=(etc/locale.gen) Or do you mean something else? I'm pretty sure dtw was talking about *packages* marked as NoUpgrade in pacman.conf, not individual files.
On 13/02/07, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm pretty sure dtw was talking about *packages* marked as NoUpgrade in pacman.conf, not individual files. I was but it was a bit of a throw-away comment, I didn't mean to open such a can of worms!
participants (4)
-
Aaron Griffin
-
Dan McGee
-
Phil Dillon-Thiselton
-
Scott Horowitz