[pacman-dev] /etc/fstab rewritten by pacman!

[Dan McGee]

On 4/10/07, Andrew Fyfe <andrew at neptune-one.net> wrote:
> Roman Kyrylych wrote:
> > 2007/4/10, Andrew Fyfe <andrew at neptune-one.net>:
> >> Roman Kyrylych wrote:
> >>> 2007/4/10, Andrew Fyfe <andrew at neptune-one.net>:
> >>>> Roman other than repos/servers, what's in your pacman.conf?
> >>>>
> >>>> I've looked at the filesystem packages and it's got all the backup
> >>>> lines, so it's not a problem with the package itself.
> >>> I know, that's why I wonder, especially that old bug (when file was
> >>> replaced during first update after NoUpgrade removed) shouldn't work
> >>> now.
> >>> I don't have access to my server now, but can assure you that there's
> >>> nothing unusual in pacman.conf. As I said all NoUpgrade was removed
> >>> since pacman 2.9.8 out so even that old bug shouldn't cause this.
> >>> Besides .pacnew was created which is right, but WTH file was replaced
> >>> - that's the point.
> >>> I will do upgrade at home tomorrow (sure, backing up /etc previously)
> >>> and will do it with --debug=3 now.
> >>>
> >>  I did the upgrade last night and didn't have any problems, BUT I'm
> >> running with an updated copy of libalpm. I did notice that only
> >> group.pacnew was created. /etc/issue wasn't updated and there wasn't an
> >> issue.pacnew. (etc/issue was the file updated for the new release).
> >
> > Hm, could you please then diff your version with 3.0.1 in part of
> > backing up files?
> >
> Looking at the version I'm using the only change in libalpm has been the
> fix for {pre,post_remove. But it might have something to do with this
> change
> http://cvs.archlinux.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/lib/libalpm/alpm.c.diff?r1=1.127&r2=1.128&cvsroot=Pacman&only_with_tag=R_3_0_1

What do you think this would have changed? I know this was a fix for
the Turkish locale issue where I and i are not the same letter.

NoUpgrade lines should not be required anymore as far as I know and can tell.

> I need to go and do some testing but now that I think about it glibc got
> upgraded during an -Syu, that's not supposed to happen is it? HoldPkgs
> shouldn't upgrade during -Syu should they?
>
> Andrew

HoldPkg = package ...
              If  a user tries to --remove a package that's listed in HoldPkg,
              pacman will ask for confirmation before proceeding.

This is a different concept than IgnorePkg:
IgnorePkg = package ...
              Instructs pacman to ignore any upgrades for  this  package  when
              performing a --sysupgrade.

-Dan