Re: [pacman-dev] Versioned packages

[Sergey Petrenko via pacman-dev]

Well, of course! I can also build kernel outside package management, or write a 
hook to backup kernels, but I'd like to see solution that would not require 
such dire and time consuming measures, and, ideally, would not require actions 
from me at all.


>Понедельник, 12 сентября 2016, 10:22 +03:00 от Jelle van der Waa 
>:
>
>On 09/12/16 at 09:47am, Sergey Petrenko via pacman-dev wrote:
>> Should I spam kernel package maintainers then, or maybe someone will resolve 
>> bug as wontfix?
>
>Not sure why they need to be spammed, you can easily build linux47 as a
>package and install it separate from the normal linux package. But I
>guess you want to automatically retain your current installed linux pkg
>when you upgrade to a newer version?
>
>> 
>> 
>> >Суббота, 10 сентября 2016, 0:58 +03:00 от Allan McRae < al...@archlinux.org 
>> >>:
>> >
>> >On 10/09/16 08:41, Sergey Petrenko via pacman-dev wrote:
>> >> Here is my attempt to solve seven years old infamous problem:
>> >>  https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/16702
>> >> 
>> >> Patch won't solve problem out of the box, a small changes in kernel 
>> >> PKGBUILD
>> >> will be required, but only concerning install part.
>> >> 
>> >> Idea behind patch is pretty simple:
>> >> 1) Configure list of packages and number of old versions pacman should 
>> >> try 
>> >> to preserve.
>> >> 2) When upgading to new version, keep old in place, if it has no file 
>> >> conflicts with new one, and mark it as `archived`, remove oldest 
>> >> `archived` 
>> >> version instead.
>> >> 
>> >> Most of time pacman treats `archived` packages as if they aren't 
>> >> installed.
>> >> For now it won't check package conflicts and dependencies, only file 
>> >> conflicts 
>> >> with newer versions. It's only an outline of full solution, proof of 
>> >> concept 
>> >> to illustrate the idea.
>> >> 
>> >> I'd like to hear opinion of community whether this problem should be 
>> >> solved 
>> >> at all, or is it more like a feature of ArchLinux, and if it should, 
>> >> whether
>> >> such approach suits ArchLinux's philosophy.
>> >> 
>> >
>> >How is this better than having a package file sitting in the cache?
>> >
>> >The "kernel problem" in Arch is not because it is not possible to have
>> >multiple kernel packages available.  Other distributions provide endless
>> >amounts of kernels (e.g. Manjaro).
>> >
>> >I don't see anything that needs done on the package manager end for this.
>> >
>> >Allan
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> With wish of constant improvement
>> and unstoppable creativity.
>> Sergey Petrenko
>
>-- 
>Jelle van der Waa


-- 
With wish of constant improvement
and unstoppable creativity.
Sergey Petrenko

Re: [pacman-dev] Versioned packages

[Sergey Petrenko via pacman-dev]

Should I spam kernel package maintainers then, or maybe someone will resolve 
bug as wontfix?


>Суббота, 10 сентября 2016, 0:58 +03:00 от Allan McRae :
>
>On 10/09/16 08:41, Sergey Petrenko via pacman-dev wrote:
>> Here is my attempt to solve seven years old infamous problem:
>>  https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/16702
>> 
>> Patch won't solve problem out of the box, a small changes in kernel PKGBUILD
>> will be required, but only concerning install part.
>> 
>> Idea behind patch is pretty simple:
>> 1) Configure list of packages and number of old versions pacman should try 
>> to preserve.
>> 2) When upgading to new version, keep old in place, if it has no file 
>> conflicts with new one, and mark it as `archived`, remove oldest `archived` 
>> version instead.
>> 
>> Most of time pacman treats `archived` packages as if they aren't installed.
>> For now it won't check package conflicts and dependencies, only file 
>> conflicts 
>> with newer versions. It's only an outline of full solution, proof of concept 
>> to illustrate the idea.
>> 
>> I'd like to hear opinion of community whether this problem should be solved 
>> at all, or is it more like a feature of ArchLinux, and if it should, whether
>> such approach suits ArchLinux's philosophy.
>> 
>
>How is this better than having a package file sitting in the cache?
>
>The "kernel problem" in Arch is not because it is not possible to have
>multiple kernel packages available.  Other distributions provide endless
>amounts of kernels (e.g. Manjaro).
>
>I don't see anything that needs done on the package manager end for this.
>
>Allan


-- 
With wish of constant improvement
and unstoppable creativity.
Sergey Petrenko

Re: [pacman-dev] Versioned packages

[Jelle van der Waa]

On 09/12/16 at 09:47am, Sergey Petrenko via pacman-dev wrote:
> Should I spam kernel package maintainers then, or maybe someone will resolve 
> bug as wontfix?

Not sure why they need to be spammed, you can easily build linux47 as a
package and install it separate from the normal linux package. But I
guess you want to automatically retain your current installed linux pkg
when you upgrade to a newer version?

> 
> 
> >Суббота, 10 сентября 2016, 0:58 +03:00 от Allan McRae :
> >
> >On 10/09/16 08:41, Sergey Petrenko via pacman-dev wrote:
> >> Here is my attempt to solve seven years old infamous problem:
> >>  https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/16702
> >> 
> >> Patch won't solve problem out of the box, a small changes in kernel 
> >> PKGBUILD
> >> will be required, but only concerning install part.
> >> 
> >> Idea behind patch is pretty simple:
> >> 1) Configure list of packages and number of old versions pacman should try 
> >> to preserve.
> >> 2) When upgading to new version, keep old in place, if it has no file 
> >> conflicts with new one, and mark it as `archived`, remove oldest 
> >> `archived` 
> >> version instead.
> >> 
> >> Most of time pacman treats `archived` packages as if they aren't installed.
> >> For now it won't check package conflicts and dependencies, only file 
> >> conflicts 
> >> with newer versions. It's only an outline of full solution, proof of 
> >> concept 
> >> to illustrate the idea.
> >> 
> >> I'd like to hear opinion of community whether this problem should be 
> >> solved 
> >> at all, or is it more like a feature of ArchLinux, and if it should, 
> >> whether
> >> such approach suits ArchLinux's philosophy.
> >> 
> >
> >How is this better than having a package file sitting in the cache?
> >
> >The "kernel problem" in Arch is not because it is not possible to have
> >multiple kernel packages available.  Other distributions provide endless
> >amounts of kernels (e.g. Manjaro).
> >
> >I don't see anything that needs done on the package manager end for this.
> >
> >Allan
> 
> 
> -- 
> With wish of constant improvement
> and unstoppable creativity.
> Sergey Petrenko

-- 
Jelle van der Waa


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [pacman-dev] Versioned packages

[Johannes Löthberg]

On 12/09, Sergey Petrenko via pacman-dev wrote:

Well, of course! I can also build kernel outside package management, or write a 
hook to backup kernels, but I'd like to see solution that would not require 
such dire and time consuming measures, and, ideally, would not require actions 
from me at all.



Then maybe Arch is not for you.

--
Sincerely,
 Johannes Löthberg
 PGP Key ID: 0x50FB9B273A9D0BB5
 https://theos.kyriasis.com/~kyrias/


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [pacman-dev] Versioned packages

[Eli Schwartz]

On 09/12/2016 06:51 PM, Allan McRae wrote:
> This discussion has nothing to do with Arch.  It is about whether this
> feature needs implemented in pacman.

Which of course it doesn't. All we need is for the kernel maintainer to
start packaging a dummy linux package that depends on linux-$pkgver
packages.

As originally recommended by the bugtracker item which spawned this odd
thread.

...

I am not quite sure what is currently blocking such a resolution, but
that is already supposedly being discussed on the bugtracker.

Meanwhile let us listen to people proposing convoluted workarounds that
evade the issue entirely and are far less likely to actually be accepted...

-- 
Eli Schwartz

Re: [pacman-dev] Versioned packages

[Allan McRae]

On 12/09/16 22:59, Johannes Löthberg wrote:
> On 12/09, Sergey Petrenko via pacman-dev wrote:
>> Well, of course! I can also build kernel outside package management,
>> or write a hook to backup kernels, but I'd like to see solution that
>> would not require such dire and time consuming measures, and, ideally,
>> would not require actions from me at all.
>>
> 
> Then maybe Arch is not for you.
> 

This discussion has nothing to do with Arch.  It is about whether this
feature needs implemented in pacman.

Allan