Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner. It is now read-only.

fixes issue https://github.com/rmarquis/pacaur/issues/681 #682

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

@steadfasterX
Copy link

steadfasterX commented Apr 22, 2017

Could you please look into this? It works for me and was an easy fix for my problem..

@rmarquis

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Owner

rmarquis commented Apr 23, 2017

This is a cheap workaround that doesn't fix the underlying issue. Not merging, but I suggest you keep it in a local branch while the main issue is being worked on.

@rmarquis rmarquis closed this Apr 23, 2017
@steadfasterX

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

steadfasterX commented Apr 24, 2017

correct this does not solve the problem regarding IgnorePkg merge but it fixes the issue that one cannot choose a custom config file.

so should I open a new issue that one cannot add a custom config file and point this PR to it?

@rmarquis

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Owner

rmarquis commented Apr 24, 2017

No, because as I pointed out, this is a workaround, not a fix. The underlying issue is tracked in #433.

@steadfasterX

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

steadfasterX commented Apr 24, 2017

No what I wanted to say is:

pacaur misses the option "--config" like pacman has.

this has nothing to do with ignorepkg and is a complete other issue.
The --config option gets not tracked by #433 .

@ChuckDaniels87

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

ChuckDaniels87 commented Apr 24, 2017

@steadfasterX In the end, it is the same topic that it is shown in #433. I think it is better to find a complete solution and not workarounds for each issue derived from the same problem.

@rmarquis

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Owner

rmarquis commented Apr 24, 2017

Yes, exactly. Moreover, --config could apply equally to pacman, makpekg or pacaur config files. This isn't straightforward to implement. I have also no idea what a clear user case for that flag would be.

@steadfasterX

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

steadfasterX commented Apr 24, 2017

@ChuckDaniels87
this is no workaround when you forget about the initial request regarding IgnorePkg.
pacaur does not support the pacman --config option
the PR adds this option.

@rmarquis
my usecase is that I want to have different output for different usage scenarios and or different options for different users.
btw: you could ask why is that implemented in pacman as well ;)

could apply equally to pacman, makpekg or pacaur config files

sorry I don't get u. the option --config is available for pacman so yes it should apply there as well.

@rmarquis

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Owner

rmarquis commented Apr 24, 2017

To do what, exactly? You're running around XY problem here.

@steadfasterX

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

steadfasterX commented Apr 24, 2017

I share the PC with several users:

me the full admin and "normal users"

When I use pacaur i need complete different (therefore not merged) options for:

HoldPkg
IgnorePkg
CleanMethod

as the normal users would have. A normal user should be able to upgrade the system but e.g. not for the kernel.

Example normal user conf (excerpt!):

[options]
IgnorePkg= linux-lts foo bar

Example admin user conf (excerpt!):

[options]
IgnorePkg = 

Each user will have an alias for pacaur pointing to pacaur --config "normal user conf".

@rmarquis

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Owner

rmarquis commented Apr 24, 2017

So partial update? Hardly a valid user case, and in any case out of scope of the intended design.

@steadfasterX

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

steadfasterX commented Apr 24, 2017

just an example. CleanMethod has nothing to do with partial upgrade

@rmarquis

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Owner

rmarquis commented Apr 24, 2017

You just convinced me that letting some user handling packages and other only a subset of them is a crazy, stupid idea. Well, actually that's what I thought already, but you perfectly illustrated that your user case is not something pacaur should support.

@steadfasterX

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

steadfasterX commented Apr 24, 2017

lol. so please remove it from pacman and yaourt as well ;)
but its your software so your choice.

@ChuckDaniels87

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

ChuckDaniels87 commented Apr 24, 2017

I think that config option can be implemented on pacaur using properly pacconf. That is the correct way in my opinion (#433).

as the normal users would have. A normal user should be able to upgrade the system but e.g. not for the kernel.

lol. so please remove it from pacman and yaourt as well ;)

In any case, the user case that you suggested is totally unsupported on ArchLinux and strongly discouraged. The existence of config option is obviously not intended to be used on the user case you suggested.

@steadfasterX

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

steadfasterX commented Apr 24, 2017

In any case, the user case that you suggested is totally unsupported on ArchLinux and strongly discouraged. The existence of config option is obviously not intended to be used on the user case you suggested.

I know that partial upgrades are not supported.

best example: Thunderbird + Lightning just a few days ago. Due to a change by mozilla to include lightning into thunderbird breaks the calendar completely on my system so I downgraded and set the package to ignore list. This is what I want to do for my "normal users".

Partial Upgrades is the only way to solve issues like these and still keeping my system up2date..

Let's say that issue gets fixed in 3 weeks. that would mean to not get any update until then. Thats maybe ok for some but not for me.

@ChuckDaniels87

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

ChuckDaniels87 commented Apr 24, 2017

best example: Thunderbird + Lightning just a few days ago. Due to a change my mozilla to include lightning into thunderbird breaks the calendar completely on my system so I downgraded and set the package to ignore list. This is what I want to do for my "normal users".

So, your users can break other users packages to workaround issues on their packages. If partial upgrade from system admin is unsupported and discouraged, letting "normal users" to upgrade, downgrade and ignore package at system level is a perfect recipe for disaster.

You should look other solutions that support install packages on a per-user basis: flatpak, snap, appimage, spack, pip, etc.

@steadfasterX

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

steadfasterX commented Apr 24, 2017

ok. then just tell me why IgnorePkg does exists?

@rmarquis

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Owner

rmarquis commented Apr 24, 2017

I think that config option can be implemented on pacaur using properly pacconf. That is the correct way in my opinion (#433).

Yes, seems in any case the better approach. Now please either work on #433 and stop wasting my time.

@ChuckDaniels87

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

ChuckDaniels87 commented Apr 24, 2017

ok. then just tell me why IgnorePkg does exists?

Just read the wiki, I've even put the link above for you.

That is why partial upgrades are not supported. Do not use pacman -Sy package or any equivalent such as pacman -Sy followed by pacman -S package. Always upgrade (with pacman -Syu) before installing a package. Be very careful when using IgnorePkg and IgnoreGroup for the same reason. If the system has locally installed packages (such as AUR packages), users will need to rebuild them when their dependencies receive a soname bump.

I suggested you other proper package managers for your user case.

Anyways, I think this is not the place to have a discussion about ArchLinux and pacman design. If you want to continue talking about this, you can create a thread on ArchLinux Forums or join official IRC channel.

Edit: sorry for polluting the thread.

@steadfasterX

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

steadfasterX commented Apr 24, 2017

Just read the wiki, I've even put the link above for you.

As said I know that article.
The wiki do not contain an answer to my question why or for what IgnorePkg does exists (if not for doing partial upgrades in a valid scenario).

But anyways. You have already made your decision - for your own reasons - to not include a valid option (--config) which exists in pacman.
That's bad for us but that's the way it goes. The discussion about the pro and contra doing partial upgrades and the risk this could have is nothing I wanted to have here.

I just wanted to add a feature available in pacman for pacaur which I believe makes totally sense (and you not).

story end.

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
Linked issues

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.