[pacman-dev] [PATCH v3] Treat packages to be printed as non-ignored

[Connor Behan]

On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Andrew Gregory <andrew.gregory.8 at gmail.com
> wrote:

> On 03/15/13 at 02:40am, Allan McRae wrote:
> > On 15/03/13 00:30, Dave Reisner wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 11:37:10PM -0700, Connor Behan wrote:
> > >> Calling pacman -Sp and pacman -Sup are guaranteed not to install a
> > >> package.
> > >
> > > I feel the need to point out that --ignore guarantees that a package
> > > won't even be *downloaded*. Xyne already mentioned it, but I'll parrot
> > > his concern about this effectively changing command line API.
> > >
> >
> > Where do you get that guarantee?   All the documentation says is:
> >
> > Instructs pacman to ignore any upgrades for this package when performing
> > a --sysupgrade.
> >
> > So I am not even sure Xyne's example is valid, based purely on what this
> > is documented to do...  -Sp is not an --sysupgrade operation, and this
> > patch specifically keeps --ignore for -Sup operations.
> >
> >
> > So... to understand what people think pacman _should_ do, if "foo" (in
> > group "bar") is in IgnorePkg:
> >
> > "-Sup" should not print a URL for foo  (not up for debate...)
> >
> > "-Sp foo" should print a URL for foo   (currently does not).
> >
> > What should "-Sp bar" print?  From what is currently documented, it is
> > not a --sysupgrade, so IgnorePkg should not have an effect.  From what
> > currently happens, it should not print a "foo" URL.
> >
> > Allan
> >
>
> "-Sp bar" should print a URL for foo.
>
> A sysupgrade is very different from syncing or removing a group, so
> IgnorePkg should only ignore upgrades not remove the package from
> group operations.  The fact that IgnorePkg is applied to any
> operations other than sysupgrade is a bug.  In fact, --ignore and
> IgnorePkg have no effect on removal which creates an odd disparity
> between syncing and removing groups.
>
> apg
>
>
I could modify the patch so that it limits ignorepkg to packages beside
--ignore rather than clearing it. I could also check the command line
arguments so that if any of them are groups rather than packages, we just
bail and forget about changing ignorepkg. This would make the patch less
trivial but it would change as little of the API as possible.

Now that Xyne has mentioned it, I actually like the current behaviour of
not printing ignored URLs for group operations. If this has been a bug all
along and the automation tools will have to be changed anyway then we are
once again back to an easy patch.