[pacman-dev] Versioned packages

Sergey Petrenko chaoskeeper at mail.ru
Mon Sep 12 10:29:15 UTC 2016

Well, of course! I can also build kernel outside package management, or write a hook to backup kernels, but I'd like to see solution that would not require such dire and time consuming measures, and, ideally, would not require actions from me at all.

>Понедельник, 12 сентября 2016, 10:22 +03:00 от Jelle van der Waa <jelle at vdwaa.nl>:
>On 09/12/16 at 09:47am, Sergey Petrenko via pacman-dev wrote:
>> Should I spam kernel package maintainers then, or maybe someone will resolve bug as wontfix?
>Not sure why they need to be spammed, you can easily build linux47 as a
>package and install it separate from the normal linux package. But I
>guess you want to automatically retain your current installed linux pkg
>when you upgrade to a newer version?
>> >Суббота, 10 сентября 2016, 0:58 +03:00 от Allan McRae < allan at archlinux.org >:
>> >
>> >On 10/09/16 08:41, Sergey Petrenko via pacman-dev wrote:
>> >> Here is my attempt to solve seven years old infamous problem:
>> >>  https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/16702
>> >> 
>> >> Patch won't solve problem out of the box, a small changes in kernel PKGBUILD
>> >> will be required, but only concerning install part.
>> >> 
>> >> Idea behind patch is pretty simple:
>> >> 1) Configure list of packages and number of old versions pacman should try 
>> >> to preserve.
>> >> 2) When upgading to new version, keep old in place, if it has no file 
>> >> conflicts with new one, and mark it as `archived`, remove oldest `archived` 
>> >> version instead.
>> >> 
>> >> Most of time pacman treats `archived` packages as if they aren't installed.
>> >> For now it won't check package conflicts and dependencies, only file conflicts 
>> >> with newer versions. It's only an outline of full solution, proof of concept 
>> >> to illustrate the idea.
>> >> 
>> >> I'd like to hear opinion of community whether this problem should be solved 
>> >> at all, or is it more like a feature of ArchLinux, and if it should, whether
>> >> such approach suits ArchLinux's philosophy.
>> >> 
>> >
>> >How is this better than having a package file sitting in the cache?
>> >
>> >The "kernel problem" in Arch is not because it is not possible to have
>> >multiple kernel packages available.  Other distributions provide endless
>> >amounts of kernels (e.g. Manjaro).
>> >
>> >I don't see anything that needs done on the package manager end for this.
>> >
>> >Allan
>> -- 
>> With wish of constant improvement
>> and unstoppable creativity.
>> Sergey Petrenko
>Jelle van der Waa

With wish of constant improvement
and unstoppable creativity.
Sergey Petrenko

More information about the pacman-dev mailing list