Should I spam kernel package maintainers then, or maybe someone will resolve bug as wontfix?
>Суббота, 10 сентября 2016, 0:58 +03:00 от Allan McRae <[email protected]>: > >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
