You are not logged in.
Here is what it said:
warning: oss: local (4.1_1052-1) is newer than community (4.1_1052b-1)
Strange?? right? Can someone shed some light on this issue? Thanks a lot!
root /home/kevin # pacman -Syu
:: Synchronizing package databases...
core is up to date
extra 385.2K 313.6K/s 00:00:01 [#########################] 100%
community 361.9K 316.6K/s 00:00:01 [#########################] 100%
kdemod-legacy is up to date
:: Starting full system upgrade...
warning: oss: local (4.1_1052-1) is newer than community (4.1_1052b-1)
local database is up to date
Offline
I guess it's from testing, so it's not "official" yet. Nothing to worry about, it's just the way pacman works.
Offline
The problem I see with this is that pacman thinks
4.1_1052-1 > 4.1_1052b-1
To me, a 1052b release would be a later release than 1052. If this is the case then pacman would not update it, which certainly is a problem.
Madly in love with Arch64, Openbox, DotA, and of course... penguins!
Happy to help if you're not a Help Vampire. Use your wonderful resources like ArchWiki, Google, and our wonderful search page.
Offline
Yes, I've noticed that, but I'm not sure if pacman uses a simple collation or sth else.
Offline
To me, a 1052b release would be a later release than 1052. If this is the case then pacman would not update it, which certainly is a problem.
That's what I thought! This may be a little problematic!
What shall we do, just wait for the even newer release of OSS?
Offline
Hmm.
Can you install it with:
pacman -Sy oss
Last edited by Statix (2009-05-26 05:31:45)
Madly in love with Arch64, Openbox, DotA, and of course... penguins!
Happy to help if you're not a Help Vampire. Use your wonderful resources like ArchWiki, Google, and our wonderful search page.
Offline
The oss package maintainer should have used the force option when building the package, so someone should post a bug report. In the meantime, you can workaround it by updating that package on its own i.e. pacman -Sy oss.
karol - fyi, community packages are not put through the testing repo.
yingwuzhao - I've removed all the exclamation marks from your thread title because they are unnecessary, and because they annoy me.
Offline
pacman is just a tool - you're the boss, the power user - you make the choices.
But sb may look into this issue.
karol - fyi, community packages are not put through the testing repo.
My bad, you're right; what I meant was when you build sth from ABS or take from testing you get similar errors.
Last edited by karol (2009-05-26 05:35:48)
Offline
yingwuzhao - I've removed all the exclamation marks from your thread title
I know I am over-exagerating. But is it a plocy of forum that we can't use more than one exlaimations?
Offline
It's a question of style :-) Admins are arbiters elegantiarum.
Offline
:D
Last edited by yingwuzhao (2009-05-26 06:08:30)
Offline
yingwuzhao - not a policy, just common sense. I probably wouldn't have done it if I wasn't actually posting in the thread.
Here's a good rule of thumb - exclamation marks are never necessary, not even one.
Offline
yingwuzhao - I've removed all the exclamation marks from your thread title
I know I am over-exagerating. But is it a plocy of forum that we can't use more than one exlaimations?
It is now...
Anyway. According to pacman 1.0a < 1.0alpha < 1.0b < 1.0beta < 1.0p < 1.0pre < 1.0rc < 1.0. The only way around this is to hard code in things like "alpha", "beta" and make sure when upstream releases as 1.0b they mean b and not beta.
My opinion: People using letters the version "numbers" of their software need to be taken into a dark alley and shot!
Offline
My opinion: People using letters the version "numbers" of their software need to be taken into a dark alley and shot!
+1. It's a mess.
That's how I thought the versioning worked, although I've missed 'p' & 'pre'.
Offline
Hey, this may be off-topic, but I am just wondering why do many people hate exclamation marks?
Some culture reason?
Offline
Yes, its off-topic. Start a new thread in Off-topic.
Offline
Edit - Removed abusive post - Allan
Last edited by Allan (2009-05-26 06:29:23)
Offline
troll u.u
Offline
Yes, its off-topic. Start a new thread in Off-topic.
He won't get the chance...
Offline
Allan wrote:My opinion: People using letters the version "numbers" of their software need to be taken into a dark alley and shot!
+1. It's a mess.
That's how I thought the versioning worked, although I've missed 'p' & 'pre'.
Yup, just stumbled upon it too .... the package might as well be called 4.1_1052-2 and it would work just fine I believe.
R00KIE
Tm90aGluZyB0byBzZWUgaGVyZSwgbW92ZSBhbG9uZy4K
Offline