On 03/14/13 at 12:40pm, Connor Behan wrote: > On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Andrew Gregory <[email protected] > > wrote: > > > On 03/15/13 at 02:40am, Allan McRae wrote: > > > On 15/03/13 00:30, Dave Reisner wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 11:37:10PM -0700, Connor Behan wrote: > > > >> Calling pacman -Sp and pacman -Sup are guaranteed not to install a > > > >> package. > > > > > > > > I feel the need to point out that --ignore guarantees that a package > > > > won't even be *downloaded*. Xyne already mentioned it, but I'll parrot > > > > his concern about this effectively changing command line API. > > > > > > > > > > Where do you get that guarantee? All the documentation says is: > > > > > > Instructs pacman to ignore any upgrades for this package when performing > > > a --sysupgrade. > > > > > > So I am not even sure Xyne's example is valid, based purely on what this > > > is documented to do... -Sp is not an --sysupgrade operation, and this > > > patch specifically keeps --ignore for -Sup operations. > > > > > > > > > So... to understand what people think pacman _should_ do, if "foo" (in > > > group "bar") is in IgnorePkg: > > > > > > "-Sup" should not print a URL for foo (not up for debate...) > > > > > > "-Sp foo" should print a URL for foo (currently does not). > > > > > > What should "-Sp bar" print? From what is currently documented, it is > > > not a --sysupgrade, so IgnorePkg should not have an effect. From what > > > currently happens, it should not print a "foo" URL. > > > > > > Allan > > > > > > > "-Sp bar" should print a URL for foo. > > > > A sysupgrade is very different from syncing or removing a group, so > > IgnorePkg should only ignore upgrades not remove the package from > > group operations. The fact that IgnorePkg is applied to any > > operations other than sysupgrade is a bug. In fact, --ignore and > > IgnorePkg have no effect on removal which creates an odd disparity > > between syncing and removing groups. > > > > apg > > > > > I could modify the patch so that it limits ignorepkg to packages beside > --ignore rather than clearing it. I could also check the command line > arguments so that if any of them are groups rather than packages, we just > bail and forget about changing ignorepkg. This would make the patch less > trivial but it would change as little of the API as possible. > > Now that Xyne has mentioned it, I actually like the current behaviour of > not printing ignored URLs for group operations. If this has been a bug all > along and the automation tools will have to be changed anyway then we are > once again back to an easy patch. >
Putting the issue of how much --ignore should do, I think the root issue is that pacman uses different default responses for --noconfirm and --print. --print uses alpm's default value, whereas --noconfirm uses a pacman-specific value. So "-S --noconfirm bar" would install foo but "-Sp bar" does not print foo. This is the same reason "-Sp foo" does not print foo. I see no reason why pacman shouldn't be using the same value for both, which, if I'm not mistaken, would fix your issue with devtools. apg
