Xavier wrote: > On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Cedric Staniewski <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi, >> while implementing pacman's downgrade operation in bash, I noticed that >> pacman also includes upgradeable package in the list of downgradeable ones. >> I did not complete the downgrade, but I would assume that it would have >> actually updated some of the packages. >> In my bash function I filter the upgradeable packages out of the installed >> ones and this is what I expected pacman would do, too. Apparently, this is >> not the case and I wonder, if this is the intended behavior or if it should >> be considered as a bug. >> >> According to the documentation, I would say this is intended, so the term >> "downgrade" is a little bit misleading in my opinion. >> >>> Pass this option twice to enable package downgrade; in this case pacman >>> will select sync packages whose version does not match with >>> the local version. This can be useful when the user switches from a testing >>> repo to a stable one. > > Yes it is the intended behavior. > Note the second sentence : "in this case pacman will select sync > packages whose version does not match with the local version." > This means both upgrade and downgrade. > Suggestions for improving the docs are welcome :)
Thanks, so it's more a kind of 'local-to-remote-state-adjustment' than a downgrade (but in most of the cases, downgrade would fit). Unfortunately, however, no good replacement for that term came to my mind so far.
