[pacman-dev] [PATCH 0/5] RFC: epoch implementation

[Allan McRae]

On 09/10/10 20:30, Xavier Chantry wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 3:47 AM, Allan McRae<allan at archlinux.org>  wrote:
>> I just took these for a spin....
>>
>>
>> allan at mugen /home/arch/code/pacman (epoch)
>>> sudo ./src/pacman/pacman -Syu
>> <snip>
>>
>> Targets (24): blas-3.2.2-2  crafty-23.3-1  db-4.8.26-2
>>               foomatic-db-4.0.5_20100816-1 foomatic-filters-4.0.5_20100816-1
>>               foomatic-db-engine-4.0.5_20100816-1  ghostscript-9.00-1
>>               gsfonts-1.0.7pre44-2  imagemagick-6.6.4.3-1  libffi-3.0.9-1
>>               libimobiledevice-1.0.3-1  libraw1394-2.0.5-1 libshout-2.2.2-3
>>               libvdpau-0.4-1  sqlite3-3.7.3-1  qt-4.7.0-3  rasqal-0.9.20-1
>>               redland-1.0.11-1  soundconverter-1.5.3-4  tdb-1.2.1-2
>>               ttf-liberation-1.06.0.20100721-1  vim-runtime-7.3.3-2
>>               vim-7.3.3-2  vte-0.26.0-4
>>
>> Total Download Size:    37.54 MB
>> Total Installed Size:   264.40 MB
>> ...
>>
>
> So these are all the packages on your system with force flag ?
> Maybe now would be a good time to review which of those really need
> force flag, drop it if it has been unnecessary for a while.
> Then if upstream mess up version again or for next need of downgrade,
> start using epoch.
>
> Btw this problem happens just once , right ? After this first
> reinstall of force package, epoch gets written to local database and
> then it's fine ?
>

Dan and I had a talk about this.  Note that at the moment "force" and 
"epoch" are not actually being written to the local database.  That is 
actually good thing given when force is set we set epoch to MAX_INT so 
writing that to the local db would prevent any further upgrade...   So 
there are things to be fixed around this.

Allan