[pacman-dev] [PATCH] -Qu rework

[Nagy Gabor]

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>
> wrote:
> >> 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
> possible.
> 

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).