[arch-dev-public] Missing packages?

Aaron Griffin aaronmgriffin at gmail.com
Wed Nov 28 12:43:58 EST 2007

On Nov 28, 2007 11:33 AM, Paul Mattal <paul at mattal.com> wrote:
> Sorry to have apparently started quite a debate here.
> My point was not about what the CURRENT flag *should* mean but about
> what it does mean. Since it's possible to get the two out of sync
> (fairly easily, in fact), I don't assume that CURRENT == exactly
> what's in the repo.

It's not a debate. I'm saying this:

Whatever you may believe, here is how the db scripts work. Please
either fix them, or simply retag your PKGBUILD with the command I
There's no debate. The scripts function this way regardless of how you
*think* they work. The CURRENT and CURRENT-64 tags must match whats in
the repos, or it yells.

This is not a fatal error, but it is still an error - it doesn't break
our DB but it breaks everyone's abs checkout by giving them a PKGBUILD
that we're not even using.

> That said, I think the best outcome for right now would be to add
> some language to the failure indicating WHY the package is
> "missing".. because it hasn't yet been put in the db vs. ones that
> already have, because the second is a much more important
> issue/problem than the first to those trying to use the package.

Sure, go ahead, the scripts are in CVS right now. I can update gerolde
with the new scripts that have your feature in it - just let me know
when it's in

> One day we'll solve the problems fully, and I didn't mean to upset
> everyone over all this. I just wanted to point out that the repo
> isn't necessarily in an inconsistent state when this particular
> scenario occurs, and by throwing the *same* error when the actual
> repo is hosed vs. when it is not tends to make people ignore the
> messages altogether.

As I said, the pacman DBs are not in an inconsistent state, but now ABS is.

More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list