Sat, 1 Nov 2008 08:19:51 -0500 -n "Dan McGee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> írta:
> On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 8:16 AM, Nagy Gabor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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). _______________________________________________ pacman-dev mailing list pacman-dev@archlinux.org http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
