Pacman

Historical bug tracker for the Pacman package manager.

The pacman bug tracker has moved to gitlab:
https://gitlab.archlinux.org/pacman/pacman/-/issues

This tracker remains open for interaction with historical bugs during the transition period. Any new bugs reports will be closed without further action.
Tasklist

FS#12906 - upgrade newer package

Attached to Project: Pacman
Opened by Thomas (Thom1) - Friday, 23 January 2009, 16:16 GMT
Last edited by Xavier (shining) - Tuesday, 24 February 2009, 21:18 GMT
Task Type Feature Request
Category General
Status Closed
Assigned To No-one
Architecture All
Severity Medium
Priority Normal
Reported Version 3.2.2
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 1
Private No

Details

Summary and Info:
I have my own local repo (called tom) which is placed first in pacman.conf (before [core]) because I want it to be used first by pacman.
I have in my repo a package called "mpd-0.14.1-1-i686" who is installed, and now there is "mpd-0.14.1-3-i686" in [extra]. So this is an newer package.
The problem is that "pacman -Syu" doesn't upgrade mpd and I still have mpd-0.14.1-1-i686.

I don't know if this is a bug or not, but I think it will be better if pacman makes automatically the upgrade. What do you think ?


Steps to Reproduce:

homer ~ # pacman -Q mpd
mpd 0.14.1-1

homer ~ # pacman -Sy
:: Synchronisation des bases de données de paquets...
tom est à jour;
core est à jour;
extra est à jour;
community est à jour;

homer ~ # pacman -Ss mpd | grep extra\/mpd
extra/mpd 0.14.1-3

homer ~ # pacman -Su
:: Début de la mise à jour complète du système...
La base de données locale est à jour.
This task depends upon

Closed by  Xavier (shining)
Tuesday, 24 February 2009, 21:18 GMT
Reason for closing:  Not a bug
Comment by Xavier (shining) - Friday, 23 January 2009, 19:44 GMT
This is documented in pacman.conf :
# - repositories listed first will take precedence when packages
# have identical names, regardless of version number
Comment by Dan McGee (toofishes) - Friday, 23 January 2009, 22:37 GMT
This is intended behavior. I don't think we are going to be changing this.
Comment by Thomas (Thom1) - Saturday, 24 January 2009, 09:11 GMT
Ok, thanks

So I will put my own repo at low priority

Loading...