[pacman-dev] New RC up, getting close!
Ok, with Dan formally committing to the repo, we seem to be able to get rid of alot of these bugs fairly quickly. There is very little left in the bug tracker, so as long as we all feel comfortable, we should be able to officially release pacman 3 soon. The newest RC (8) is up at: http://archlinux.org/~aaron/pacman/ Please try it out and report _anything_ and _everything_ you can think of, no matter how small it may seem. Tomorrow I'll setup a semi-formal release schedule, and hopefully we can get this out the door and can move on to pumping out features (3.1). So anyway, it's time we all got excited!
2007/1/31, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>:
Ok, with Dan formally committing to the repo, we seem to be able to get rid of alot of these bugs fairly quickly. There is very little left in the bug tracker, so as long as we all feel comfortable, we should be able to officially release pacman 3 soon.
The newest RC (8) is up at: http://archlinux.org/~aaron/pacman/
Please try it out and report _anything_ and _everything_ you can think of, no matter how small it may seem.
Tomorrow I'll setup a semi-formal release schedule, and hopefully we can get this out the door and can move on to pumping out features (3.1).
So anyway, it's time we all got excited!
Good news! But please do not release final version untill bug #5775 will be fixed (note also http://bugs.archlinux.org/?getfile=884). Also, can someone confirm that #3999 is fixed? -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 12:33:10 +0200 "Roman Kyrylych" <roman.kyrylych@gmail.com> wrote:
Also, can someone confirm that #3999 is fixed?
I can confirm it. For those of you with scientific minds I'll describe my test procedure for you to poke holes in. ;) I just build a couple of dummy 'test' packages, test1 and test2, that simulated the 'file moving between packages' bug in 3999. I performed my tests both with pacman -U and with pacman -S using a local gensync'd repo. test1 pkgver1: contains the file /test1.txt, with contents "This file is owned by test1" test2 pkgver1: contains the file /test1.txt, with contents "This file is owned by test2" test1 pkgver2: contains only the file /test2.txt, and depends on test2 So, essentially, I installed test1 pkgver1, then "upgraded" to test1 pkgver2, which pulled in the test2 dependency. The file /test1.txt in this example "moved" from test1 to test2 in this upgrade - this is the behaviour I assumed in the bug report that was causing the problems. After installing test1 pkgver2, _both_ files /test1.txt and /test2.txt properly exist in the filesystem, and the contents of /test1.txt are "This file is owned by test2" - a successful upgrade! For those of you who I've confused with this description, here's some console output: $ pacman -S test1 resolving dependencies... done. looking for inter-conflicts... done. Targets: test1-1-1 Total Package Size: 0.1 MB Proceed with installation? [Y/n] checking package integrity... done. cleaning up... done. (1/1) checking for file conflicts [#################################################################################]100% $ pacman -Q test1 test1 1-1 $ pacman -Ql test1 test1 test1.txt $ cat /test1.txt This file belongs to test1! #UPDATE THE REPO TO pkver2 $ pacman -Su :: Starting full system upgrade... resolving dependencies... done. looking for inter-conflicts... done. Targets: test2-1-1 test1-1-2 Total Package Size: 0.1 MB Proceed with installation? [Y/n] checking package integrity... done. cleaning up... done. (2/2) checking for file conflicts [#################################################################################]100% $ pacman -Q test1 test2 test1 1-2 test2 1-1 $ pacman -Ql test1 test2 test1 test2.txt test2 test1.txt $ cat /test1.txt This file belongs to test2! So, looks like it's golden. Yay! (Added this to the FS report too, for completion's sake) -- Travis
On 1/31/07, Travis Willard <travisw@wmpub.ca> wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 12:33:10 +0200 "Roman Kyrylych" <roman.kyrylych@gmail.com> wrote:
Also, can someone confirm that #3999 is fixed?
I can confirm it. For those of you with scientific minds I'll describe my test procedure for you to poke holes in. ;)
I just build a couple of dummy 'test' packages, test1 and test2, that simulated the 'file moving between packages' bug in 3999.
Thanks! Closed that one out.
On 1/31/07, Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych@gmail.com> wrote:
But please do not release final version untill bug #5775 will be fixed (note also http://bugs.archlinux.org/?getfile=884).
Can we get some testing on #5775? I haven't seen this behavior myself, and I have a suspicion that your DB might be corrupted slightly from one of the old RC releases. I'll test this myself when I get home.
2007/1/31, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com>:
On 1/31/07, Roman Kyrylych <roman.kyrylych@gmail.com> wrote:
But please do not release final version untill bug #5775 will be fixed (note also http://bugs.archlinux.org/?getfile=884).
Can we get some testing on #5775? I haven't seen this behavior myself, and I have a suspicion that your DB might be corrupted slightly from one of the old RC releases.
I'll test this myself when I get home.
I will try to reproduce all tests on fresh install on vmware. -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)
On 1/31/07, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
Please try it out and report _anything_ and _everything_ you can think of, no matter how small it may seem.
Tomorrow I'll setup a semi-formal release schedule, and hopefully we can get this out the door and can move on to pumping out features (3.1).
So anyway, it's time we all got excited!
Are we going to push it to testing first? I would assume that would be a smart idea so we can get a slightly larger userbase testing it. I'm sure you already thought of this and are putting it in your release schedule. I'll let you handle the details. -Dan
participants (4)
-
Aaron Griffin
-
Dan McGee
-
Roman Kyrylych
-
Travis Willard