[pacman-dev] pacman 3.1 release ?

[Nagy Gabor]

> On Tue, Sep 04, 2007 at 11:41:50AM +0200, Nagy Gabor wrote:
> > 
> > > There are several bugs fixed in 3.1 (mostly fix from Nagy), ...
> > 
> > Well, I suggest rewriting _alpm_sync_prepare as soon as possible. You
> needn't
> > apply my patch, but the current version is buggy and messy.
> > Without going into details:
> > -sync1003.py: you need a more clever checkdeps.
> > -alpm_checkdeps is called in the beginning of the function, THEN some
> > hard-to-understand manipulations are done in the target list to resolve
> > conflicts, and (upgrade) dependencies are not checked again!
> 
> But the manipulations done there mostly cause the removal of packages.
> There may be a particular case where it fails, but I don't really know.

This is similar to sync1003. It's very dangerous to check deps in the beginning
of the function. If you later remove a package (during conflict resolution for
example) from the target list, you _mustn't_ trust on the first checkdeps result
(the removed package may be needed for an other package in the target list; the
first checkdeps assumed that a local package will be overwritten with the
removed-from-target package...; checkdeps with TRANS_TYPE_REMOVE won't detect
these!). I don't want to waste more word for this; the _concept_ is buggy.

> > -removing a package from target list may induce a new conflict (for
> example: the
> > old version conflicted, but we assumed that it will be upgraded to a
> > non-conflicting one; but after we removed the upgrade-package, we got the
> > conflict again)
> 
> That case looks a bit odd, but well, I tried to write a pactest for it,
> but couldn't reproduce this exact situation?
Semi-pactest file:
local:
foo-1.0-1
bar-1.0-1
sync: 
foo-2.0-1 conflicts with bar-2.0-1
bar-2.0-1 conflicts with foo-2.0-1
pkg-1.0-1 conflicts with foo-1.0-1 and bar-1.0-1
User does a pacman -S "foo bar pkg".
I know, that this is rare, but if pacman will be able to resolve a
pkglist<->local conflict with remove the package from the target list instead of
removing the local one (why don't we let user decide?), this can happen more often.

> > You can create pactest files to test these.
> > (IIRC, my patches solve all the problems above.) 
> > 
> 
> But who can? Apparently not me, at least :)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pacman-dev mailing list
> pacman-dev at archlinux.org
> http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
> 
> 




----------------------------------------------------
SZTE Egyetemi Könyvtár - http://www.bibl.u-szeged.hu
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/