[pacman-dev] [PATCH] -Qu rework
ngaba at bibl.u-szeged.hu
Sat Nov 1 09:36:54 EDT 2008
Sat, 1 Nov 2008 08:19:51 -0500 -n
"Dan McGee" <dpmcgee at gmail.com> írta:
> On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 8:16 AM, Nagy Gabor <ngaba at bibl.u-szeged.hu>
> >> Hmm, this isn't quite what I expected either. Can we clean up this
> >> garbage in any way?
> >> $ ./src/pacman/pacman -Qu
> >> warning: alsa-lib: local (1.0.17a-2) is newer than extra
> >> (1.0.17a-1) warning: gvim: local (7.2.25-1) is newer than extra
> >> (7.1.330-1) warning: namcap: local (2.1-2) is newer than extra
> >> (2.1-1) warning: openoffice-base: local (3.0.0-3) is newer than
> >> extra (3.0.0-2) warning: pacman-git: local (20081031-1) is newer
> >> than pacman-git-64 (20081028-1) warning: pycairo: local (1.6.4-2)
> >> is newer than extra (1.6.4-1) warning: pygobject: local (2.15.4-2)
> >> is newer than extra (2.15.4-1) warning: pygtk: local (2.13.0-2) is
> >> newer than extra (2.13.0-1) warning: python: local (2.6-2) is
> >> newer than extra (2.5.2-5) warning: python-numeric: local (24.2-3)
> >> is newer than extra (24.2-2) warning: sonata: local (1.5.3-2) is
> >> newer than extra (1.5.3-1) warning: vi: local (7.2.25-1) is newer
> >> than core (7.1.330-1) warning: vim: local (7.2.25-1) is newer than
> >> extra (7.1.330-1) warning: vte: local (0.17.4-2) is newer than
> >> extra (0.17.4-1)
> >> -Dan
> > 1. Since I am lazy, I first try with the easiest solution.
> > What about completely removing these messages? Are these useful with
> > -Su at all? (The old -Qu printed these messages as well, bacause it
> > was a simulation of -Su).
> I personally find these messages helpful in the -Su case- when crazy
> things like the above come up, you know something is up with your
> mirrors and whatnot.
> > 2. We could disable all warnings like with -Sp.
> Never was too fond of this either. Seems hackish as is.
> > 3. Most complicated: Give a new parameter to sync_newversion. This
> > could fix the possible duplicated "pacman is newer than extra"
> > message on -Su.
> This seems really ugly.
> Wow, I'm a negative Nancy here. What if we proceed with 1 (so remove
> these things from alpm_sync_newversion), but somehow in sysupgrade we
> still can have this relevant info? I don't know if that is even
Without 3. this seems impossible. Then we should reimplement
sync_newversion inside sync_sysupgrade (and may rename sync_newversion
to ~pkg_outdated) or add a new out param (cmp) to it... Btw,
sync_newversion is quite simple function (until we don't merge
replacement stuff into it. I referred to FS#11737 here.)
My vote is 2., even if it is hackish. In my mind "warnings" are just
"additional info" messages, they never indicate important things
(those are errors).
More information about the pacman-dev