On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 07:58:00AM +0200, Patrik Lundin wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 06:30:41AM +0200, Jasper Lievisse Adriaanse wrote:
> > I was hoping that 18.104.22.168 would be released soon, but it seems upstream
> > enjoys
> > many a rc over a lengthy period of time. So perhaps syncing the openbsd_pkg
> > provider with master would be the way to go.
> This would be my personal preference. This also means the local addition
> of -z comes into question as the upstream changes replace "pkg_info -e"
> with "pkg_info -Iq" for looking up package state, which does not handle
> name lookups in the same way.
> I believe landry@ should be involved in this decision because from what I
> recall he is one of the people who wanted the addition (and might be depending
> on it).
For full history:
Use -z when invoking pkg_add in openbsd_pkg module, so that one can use
for example php-fpm-5.4* and ensure the correct version is installed.
Previously, one had to specify the exact version, or ansible would fail
since there were alternatives.
And the discussion with upstream in the maze of github tickets:
So the original idea was more or less to use -z to 'fake' branch
support when it wasnt existing.
As for pkg_info -e vs pkg_info -Iq, i dont know what was the intent of
the change nor if it was good or not, but here -Iq finds an installed
package by giving only its name (but not if you pass the version without
$pkg_info -Iq ansible
$pkg_info -e ansible
Invalid spec: ansible
$pkg_info -e ansible-22.214.171.124
$pkg_info -Dunsigned -Iq ansible-126.96.36.199
ftp: Error retrieving file: 404 Not Found
$pkg_info -Iq ansible-188.8.131.52p2
The only 'advantage' of -e here is that it finds it if you pass the full
version without the patchlevel.