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#8394 - pacman should say why a package is being replaced

Attached to Project: Pacman
Opened by Mike (mmiikkee12) - Tuesday, 23 October 2007, 20:30 GMT
Last edited by Dan McGee (toofishes) - Friday, 29 February 2008, 13:14 GMT
Task Type Feature Request
Category Output
Status Closed
Assigned To Aaron Griffin (phrakture)
Dan McGee (toofishes)
Architecture All
Severity Low
Priority Low
Reported Version 3.0.6
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 1
Private No

Details

I just got this from pacman:

[mike in ~]> sudo pacman -Syu
:: Synchronizing package databases...
current 22.4K 54.8K/s 00:00:00 [################################################################] 100%
extra 323.6K 145.4K/s 00:00:02 [################################################################] 100%
community 314.9K 159.4K/s 00:00:02 [################################################################] 100%
:: Starting full system upgrade...
:: Replace util-linux with current/util-linux-ng? [Y/n]

I have no way of knowing, without going off to google, the differences between util-linux and util-linux-ng. Pacman should print a short description of these differences to tell me what's going on.
This task depends upon

Closed by  Dan McGee (toofishes)
Friday, 29 February 2008, 13:14 GMT
Reason for closing:  Won't implement
Additional comments about closing:  We tell the user which package is replacing what, which I think is sufficient. See comments for more reasons.
Comment by Mike (mmiikkee12) - Tuesday, 23 October 2007, 20:32 GMT
Just a clarification - I have no problem with pacman replacing older and/or unmaintained packages with newer ones. (Isn't that what an upgrade is for?) I'd just like to know *why* they're being replaced.
Comment by Aaron Griffin (phrakture) - Tuesday, 23 October 2007, 20:35 GMT
Hrm, I dunno how I feel about this. It'd be a significant change to add this, and it's not much more than an excuse to not RTFM for most people. I actually believe you *should* go to google for this information.

I'm on the fence about it. I'm switching to lower priority, unless someone else wants to pick up the work. As always, patches will get incorporated faster 8)
Comment by Nagy Gabor (combo) - Friday, 26 October 2007, 20:01 GMT
Well it would be really easy to implement.
This is just a new db entry (it's unimportant here, how it is implemented: %REPLACEREASON% in desc file, for example).
But I also think, that this is not needed. Or at least in a more general way (%NOTE% for example).
Comment by Aaron Griffin (phrakture) - Monday, 29 October 2007, 17:40 GMT
Yeah, I just think that "just another DB entry" is a big deal. How many times do we say "use another DB entry" before it gets to be too much?
Comment by Nagy Gabor (combo) - Friday, 29 February 2008, 08:21 GMT
I think we can close this task as "won't implement". Aaron, Dan?

Loading...