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#9757 - no realpath in NoUpgrade (and in NoExtract ?)

Attached to Project: Pacman
Opened by Nagy Gabor (combo) - Tuesday, 04 March 2008, 08:20 GMT
Last edited by Dan McGee (toofishes) - Monday, 24 March 2008, 04:43 GMT
Task Type Feature Request
Category General
Status Closed
Assigned To Xavier (shining)
Architecture All
Severity Low
Priority Normal
Reported Version git
Due in Version 3.2.0
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 0
Private No

Details

Pacman.conf manual says:
"All files listed with a `NoUpgrade` directive will never be touched during
a package install/upgrade. Do not include the leading slash when specifying
files."
This is not true. Pacman just compares the specified string during upgrade with the content of package and filters out the matching packages. No root-path, no symbolic link checks.

Unfortunately NoUpgrade is used in many other places, but this concept seems odd. My expected behaviour: the front-end scans for files in NoUpgrade before transaction, and somehow pass don't touch _these_ files to libalpm. The problem is, that I dunno how to implement 'these': my only idea is the (not portable) i-node hack.
This task depends upon

Closed by  Dan McGee (toofishes)
Monday, 24 March 2008, 04:43 GMT
Reason for closing:  Won't fix
Additional comments about closing:  Agreeing with Xavier here. The manpage clarification should clear up any confusion, and we shouldn't complicate things more than necessary.
Comment by Xavier (shining) - Tuesday, 04 March 2008, 10:41 GMT
Why does it matter? You just put files in NoUpgrade as they appear in the packages, and you should be fine.
There might be a few weird corner cases where it might fail, but well, who cares?
Comment by Nagy Gabor (combo) - Friday, 07 March 2008, 10:49 GMT
Well, I know how pacman handles NoUpgrade. If we don't want to change this, imho the manual should be rephrased since it can easily mislead end-users (btw, NoExtract was also also unclear before reading the source).
Comment by Xavier (shining) - Friday, 07 March 2008, 11:25 GMT
Suggestions welcome for rephrasing the NoUpgrade and NoExtract descriptions.
Comment by Nagy Gabor (combo) - Friday, 07 March 2008, 23:59 GMT
Precise manual would emphasize its negligence ;-)
,,Files listed in NoUpgrade refers to files in the package archive. These files won't overwrite any local files.''
Comment by Xavier (shining) - Sunday, 09 March 2008, 19:24 GMT
Would this work?
   0002-Clarify-the-NoUpgrade-an... (1.4 KiB)
Comment by Nagy Gabor (combo) - Monday, 10 March 2008, 17:51 GMT
Well, this is better than current description.
Comment by Xavier (shining) - Wednesday, 12 March 2008, 10:26 GMT
That has been applied :
http://projects.archlinux.org/git/?p=pacman.git;a=commitdiff;h=804ab37ea62602b04ae7b65c3e7fddda12bbae5d

I still don't think that this feature request is really needed, and think that the current behavior is acceptable,
so I am more inclined in closing this as "won't fix"

Loading...