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.
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.
FS#48645 - Downgrade via -U of cached packages and LocalFileSigLevel inconsistent?
Attached to Project:
Pacman
Opened by Lex Black (TrialnError) - Sunday, 20 March 2016, 16:09 GMT
Last edited by Allan McRae (Allan) - Monday, 21 March 2016, 03:50 GMT
Opened by Lex Black (TrialnError) - Sunday, 20 March 2016, 16:09 GMT
Last edited by Allan McRae (Allan) - Monday, 21 March 2016, 03:50 GMT
|
DetailsI noticed the following behaviour when I downgraded a repo package with -U from the local pacman cache (/var/cache/pacman/pkg) and LocalFileSigLevel set to Required.
When downgrading a package it will fail because of the missing signature file. Technically this is right, but as this was a package from the repo (signed with a packager key) shouldn't it work like it works with -S? And it kinda looks like, after setting LocalFileSigLevel to optional, that the package and the key is checked, but dunno how to check what happens if the key isn't valid. So I'm wondering if I'm overlooking some aspects which requires this strict behaviour against outdated repo packages, or if the -U behaviour could be adjusted. |
This task depends upon
And if it's possible to get the repo signature files I will probably do that. Shouldn't be that complicated.
Thanks for the intel and I suppose this can be closed
FS#33091