[arch-dev-public] devtools problem

Ray Rashif schiv at archlinux.org
Thu Mar 17 01:51:37 EDT 2011

On 17 March 2011 05:24, Dan McGee <dpmcgee at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Pierre Schmitz <pierre at archlinux.de> wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 06:50:30 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
>>> On 17/03/11 06:39, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
>>>> You are right, I missed that. I have no idea how to fix the testing
>>>> host with extra chroot problem. Is there a way to detect when running
>>>> pacman-db-upgrade is needed?
>>> find /var/lib/pacman/local -name depends
>> Stupid me. I should have looked at the upgrade script before; it's
>> quite simple. I guess we could allways run that.
> This will either take 5 seconds or 0 seconds to run; it never hurts to
> just call it anyway.
>>>> I guess to solve the first problem we would
>>>> also need a pacman-db-downgrade script.
>>> pacman-db-downgrade would be basically impossible...  you could
>>> symlink the desc file to depends in every local package database
>>> directory.
> I'm not following the logic in this thread at all. Won't this be a
> problem for all of like 3 days here when the pacman version in
> [testing] vs. non-testing is different? And after that who cares? Or
> you could just upgrade your chroots and system to pacman 3.5 and it
> wouldn't matter either; this package depends on nothing else in
> [testing].
>> If I'd add those link pacman 3.4 would be able to read the db, right?
>> But once we update to 3.5 the upgrade script will ad all entries again.
>> Maybe I'll need to modify the upgrade script to remove the desc files if
>> they are just links.
>> Btw: Do you guys plan the same for the db files? (merging deps and desc
>> entries)
> Eventually, but there is this crazy thing called backward
> compatibility that we have to take into account...

If you have chroot perms - and most people do aside from remote users
- you can just:

~# chroot $chrootdir/root/ pacman-db-upgrade

That will save you from recreating the chroot with mkarchroot -r
(which is the "long-term" solution/fix IMO). I see no problem/issue
here at all.

More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list