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#16844 - Pacman version comparison not working

Attached to Project: Pacman
Opened by Michael Blum (alterkacker) - Sunday, 25 October 2009, 19:16 GMT
Last edited by Xavier (shining) - Sunday, 25 October 2009, 21:03 GMT
Task Type Bug Report
Category General
Status Closed
Assigned To No-one
Architecture All
Severity Medium
Priority Normal
Reported Version 3.3.2
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 0
Private No

Details

Summary and Info:
Pacman (3.3.2-1) thinks that libxi-1.2.1 (from extra) is newer than already installed libxi-1.3-1 (from testing).

I temporarily enabled the testing repository in order to install the latest xorg stuff, which included libxi-1.3-1. Now, with testing disabled, 'pacman -Su' fails because it wants to re-install libxi-1.2.1 which breaks dependencies for other already installed packages.

I've marked this problem as 'Severity: Medium' because it's possible to work around the error by using 'IgnorePkg libxi'.

Note, FWIW, that vercmp seems to give the right answer for the comparison.

A transcript of 'pacman -Su -v --debug' is attached.

Steps to Reproduce:
This task depends upon

Closed by  Xavier (shining)
Sunday, 25 October 2009, 21:03 GMT
Reason for closing:  Duplicate
Additional comments about closing:  dup of  FS#16828 
Comment by Xavier (shining) - Sunday, 25 October 2009, 19:27 GMT
See  FS#16828 
Comment by Ionut Biru (wonder) - Sunday, 25 October 2009, 20:19 GMT
libxi-1.2.1 has force in the options and thats why is trying to downgrade automatically
Comment by Michael Blum (alterkacker) - Sunday, 25 October 2009, 20:53 GMT
Ahh - good catch! I suppose I should request closure for this entry & open a new bug against libxi?
Comment by Ionut Biru (wonder) - Sunday, 25 October 2009, 20:53 GMT
nope. in my opinion is not a bug
Comment by Michael Blum (alterkacker) - Sunday, 25 October 2009, 20:57 GMT
I just looked at  FS#16828  - don't know how I missed that before. So I'm requesting closure on this and will see if it's been opened against libxi.

Loading...