[arch-general] postgresql 9.3 -> 9.4
spam at scientician.net
Thu Jan 29 13:51:56 UTC 2015
On 01/29/2015 02:24 PM, Martti Kühne wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Bardur Arantsson <spam at scientician.net> wrote:
>> On 01/29/2015 01:00 PM, Martti Kühne wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Martti Kühne <mysatyre at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> You could also write a pacman wrapper that interferes with pacman's
>>>> execution upon specific output.
>> (Doesn't scale to more than one user since nobody else is going to be
>> using that script.)
>>>> Then you could have loud warning signals, send emails that get you
>>>> fired and an automatic backup to the NSA, or NAS, as you like.
>>> To correct myself: It's silly to assume the package that breaks your
>>> setup is already on that watchlist. There's only one thing you can do:
>>> make sure you have the time to clean up after your update.
>> Uh, there's a difference between
>> a) We *know* that upgrade X will break your system and/or
>> require manual intervention.
>> b) We have no specific knowledge that upgrade X will
>> break your system and/or require manual intervention.
> So, my script doesn't scale and your notion of 'we' does?
> How comes?
I think we may have a language barrier -- I have no idea what you're
I said "doesn't scale up to more than one *user*". "We" = package/pacman
owners/developers -- this *does* scale to all the users of Arch Linux.
Was this not clear?
I'm not saying the developers/packagers have infinite reasources, I was
pointing out that it might make sense and be worth the effort to
implement something (process/pacman support/whatever) which would scale
to all the users of Arch Linux and could hopefully be specified
in-package once and for all for known cases where upgrades WILL break
More information about the arch-general