arch upgrade with pacman -Su

Trilby · 2013-02-01 01:03:43

Archbishop, if you want help with that issue you'd be best served by starting a new thread. As a preview, I'd recommended getting reflector to generate a mirror list.

But to stay on point, I'd still strongly advise against `pacman -Sy pacakge`. If you need to, you can do `pacman -Syyu package` until the underlying problem is solved.

cfr · 2013-02-01 01:58:33

doru001 wrote:

What happens if a file is moved from one package to another and you `pacman -Syu`? If the former file owner is updated first, it should be ok.

pacman will generally handle this fine as with the recent case involving filesystem, if I remember correctly.

Two packages which did not conflict with each other before `pacman -Syu` may conflict with each other after `pacman -Syu`, such that one of them will no longer be updated and the system will no longer be fully functional after update?

No. But the original query asked what pacman was checking for when it says it is checking for conflicts. Two packages may conflict i.e. they cannot be installed at the same time. If all is well, pacman doesn't need to check the filesystem to know this. However, if there's an oversight, checking the filesystem would catch the issue and prevent pacman from trying to update despite the conflict. Instead, pacman would tell you about the conflict and refuse to continue.

It is really not that complicated.

cirrus · 2013-02-01 03:40:09

I enjoyed reading this thread and i applaud all the forum regs who took the time to reply and excersised patience to help enlighten this new user, I should show this thread to the next nomark who tells me the arch forums/community are unfriendly and are aloof where new users are concerned.
Welcome to arch doru001 im sure yourself and pacman will become firm friends. nothing compares.

doru001 · 2013-02-01 09:12:55

cfr wrote:

No. But the original query asked what pacman was checking for when it says it is checking for conflicts. Two packages may conflict i.e. they cannot be installed at the same time. If all is well, pacman doesn't need to check the filesystem to know this. However, if there's an oversight, checking the filesystem would catch the issue and prevent pacman from trying to update despite the conflict. Instead, pacman would tell you about the conflict and refuse to continue.
It is really not that complicated.

Indeed, if there are no conflicts that does not mean that dependencies are met. pacman checks for conflicts, not for dependencies of all installed packages.

doru001 · 2013-02-01 09:17:09

cirrus wrote:

I enjoyed reading this thread and i applaud all the forum regs who took the time to reply and excersised patience to help enlighten this new user, I should show this thread to the next nomark who tells me the arch forums/community are unfriendly and are aloof where new users are concerned.
Welcome to arch doru001 im sure yourself and pacman will become firm friends. nothing compares.

The fact that pacman can leave the system in an unfunctional state after trivial commands like `pacman -R package` or `pacman -Sy; pacman -S package` comes as a huge shock to a user accustomed to yum and apt. In fact, I refused to believe this for some time. Of course the manual does not warn, in fact it is quite elusive. It says that -R removes, but it does not mention dependencies at all. Then it says that there are further options dealing with those dependencies, only that it still omits to specify what is the default behaviour. I respect the arch linux philosophy of minimalism but such behaviour should be clearly advertised, in the man and wiki beginner's guide and pacman pages.

In yum and apt it is physically impossible, unless you use long options containing threatening words like "force", "override", "ignore dependencies" and so on, to let the system in an unfunctional state. After you read the manual, which says "don't use it unless you really really know what you're doing, and you don't know what you're doing", you just forget those options.

Last edited by doru001 (2013-02-01 09:21:57)

derhamster · 2013-02-01 10:17:09

I don't see how 'pacman -R something' can lead to a non-functional system. Without any further options to 'pacman', it won't remove packages, which are required by other packages. When I run 'sudo pacman -R linux' this happens:

checking dependencies...
error: failed to prepare transaction (could not satisfy dependencies)
:: nvidia: requires linux>=3.7
:: nvidia: requires linux<3.8
:: vhba-module: requires linux>=3.7
:: vhba-module: requires linux<3.8
:: virtualbox-host-modules: requires linux>=3.7
:: virtualbox-host-modules: requires linux<3.8

You say, that defaults should be mentioned explicitly somewhere. Admittedly, pacmans man page does not say, that '-R' removes only the specified packages, nothing more and nothing less. But isn't that what you would expect as sane default behavior? In fact I would be very concerned, if pacman would remove packages other than the specified ones, with the given command.

'pacman -Sy' followed by 'pacman -S' is different case. This can lead to problems, because many packages do not list versioned dependencies. But again, Arch does not support partial updates and your system is always expected to be fully updated, when you install something new.

I just read through the whole thread, and TBH I don't see actual problems. Your curiosity about how things work is great. My advice is to just use Arch and specifically pacman (and of course the usual: read the docs, frontpage, pacman output...). If you are really concerned, that pacman might fry you system, set up a VM for testing.

doru001 · 2013-02-01 10:34:33

derhamster wrote:

I don't see how 'pacman -R something' can lead to a non-functional system. Without any further options to 'pacman', it won't remove packages, which are required by other packages. When I run 'sudo pacman -R linux' this happens:
checking dependencies...
error: failed to prepare transaction (could not satisfy dependencies)
:: nvidia: requires linux>=3.7
:: nvidia: requires linux<3.8
:: vhba-module: requires linux>=3.7
:: vhba-module: requires linux<3.8
:: virtualbox-host-modules: requires linux>=3.7
:: virtualbox-host-modules: requires linux<3.8

Indeed, after all this fuss I still didn't get it right. Thank you for this.

derhamster wrote:

You say, that defaults should be mentioned explicitly somewhere. Admittedly, pacmans man page does not say, that '-R' removes only the specified packages, nothing more and nothing less. But isn't that what you would expect as sane default behavior?

No. I just said that yum and apt users are accustomed with a different, higher level philosophy.

derhamster wrote:

In fact I would be very concerned, if pacman would remove packages other than the specified ones, with the given command.

You should not, if you read the list of packages to be removed before you hit "yes". Also, the manuals for yum and apt are clear.

derhamster wrote:

'pacman -Sy' followed by 'pacman -S' is different case. This can lead to problems, because many packages do not list versioned dependencies. But again, Arch does not support partial updates and your system is always expected to be fully updated, when you install something new.

Again, this is not in the manual or wiki beginner's guide and pacman.

derhamster wrote:

I just read through the whole thread, and TBH I don't see actual problems.

This is amazing, because the thread is full of links to horrible stories about people who did not know that Arch does not support partial updates and who lost their systems.

derhamster wrote:

Your curiosity about how things work is great. My advice is to just use Arch and specifically pacman (and of course the usual: read the docs, frontpage, pacman output...). If you are really concerned, that pacman might fry you system, set up a VM for testing.

Of course I'm using pacman. I like arch linux's philosophy and I'm using it on a very small system. The idea of VM does not apply.

Thanks for the post.

Last edited by doru001 (2013-02-01 10:36:52)

Trilby · 2013-02-01 13:27:34

doru001 wrote:

Again, this is not in the manual or wiki beginner's guide and pacman.

It has it's own section in the table of contents of the pacman wiki. It is in a big red warning box under installing packages which links to the section dedicated to the topic of partial upgrades. It has it's own section with a big bold header. And it is mentioned yet again in the troubleshooting section in the context of "if you f**( up your system by doing a partial upgrade...".

I find it quite hard to believe that you even looked at that wiki page and didn't see it.

But you have already admitted that it is against your religion to actually read documentation - so I guess it should not be so much of a surprise.

cirrus · 2013-02-01 14:12:47

doru001 wrote:

The fact that pacman can leave the system in an unfunctional state after trivial commands like `pacman -R package` or `pacman -Sy; pacman -S package` comes as a huge shock to a user accustomed to yum and apt.

Personally iv'e never had *pacman* leave my system in an unrecoverable state. Any time i have bjorked my install it has been of my own doing , its been nothing that a quick chroot would'nt fix. You are obviously new to arch, may i suggest you actually use pacman/arch for a month or two instead of merely guessing that pacman will kill your system. (any system will fall over if you go around blindly typing commands as sudo/root) all arch users do have to read occasionally it would be a shame if you left arch for the reason that reading is "against you're religion".
Good Luck

doru001 · 2013-02-01 14:44:29

Trilby wrote:

doru001 wrote:
Again, this is not in the manual or wiki beginner's guide and pacman.
It has it's own section in the table of contents of the pacman wiki. It is in a big red warning box under installing packages which links to the section dedicated to the topic of partial upgrades. It has it's own section with a big bold header. And it is mentioned yet again in the troubleshooting section in the context of "if you f**( up your system by doing a partial upgrade...".
I find it quite hard to believe that you even looked at that wiki page and didn't see it.
But you have already admitted that it is against your religion to actually read documentation - so I guess it should not be so much of a surprise.

Yes, you are right. I apologize. I will try to propose an improvement. At the time when I was browsing the pacman wiki page I did not understand the pacman limitations and how these can interract with the rolling nature of the arch archive. As a result those statements did not have a meaning for me. It is a vicious circle. Things are simple and I will try to propose a formulation that is easy to understand for a beginner in a short while. Probably they will never accept to complete the manual, but at least the wiki can be improved.

Last edited by doru001 (2013-02-01 14:50:13)

doru001 · 2013-02-01 14:47:18

cirrus wrote:

doru001 wrote:
The fact that pacman can leave the system in an unfunctional state after trivial commands like `pacman -R package` or `pacman -Sy; pacman -S package` comes as a huge shock to a user accustomed to yum and apt.
Personally iv'e never had *pacman* leave my system in an unrecoverable state. Any time i have bjorked my install it has been of my own doing , its been nothing that a quick chroot would'nt fix. You are obviously new to arch, may i suggest you actually use pacman/arch for a month or two instead of merely guessing that pacman will kill your system. (any system will fall over if you go around blindly typing commands as sudo/root) all arch users do have to read occasionally it would be a shame if you left arch for the reason that reading is "against you're religion".
Good Luck

Of course.

Oh, no, that was a joke. (And I was referring to manuals.) Arch saved my life.

browntown · 2013-02-01 15:52:14

Trilby wrote:

... I'd still strongly advise against `pacman -Sy pacakge`. If you need to, you can do `pacman -Syyu package` until the underlying problem is solved.

I do -Syyu everytime, doesn't seem to add any extra time, and seems more thorough. Once upon a time I had -Syu not work for me and -Syyu would work. Don't remember why things got out of whack, but just got me using the yy which according to the man page:

 Passing two --refresh or -y flags will force a refresh of all package lists even if
           they appear to be up to date.

cfr · 2013-02-01 23:33:57

I notice that the Beginners' Guide now effectively tells users to do pacman -Sy and then pacman -S <package>. This seems unfortunate. I'm almost positive that it did not used to advise this. Is there some reason for the change and, if so, what would be the best way of saying the equivalent of "you need to do this once but should never, ever do it again"?

Basically:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Be … ure_pacman -> says to configure pacman and then run pacman -Sy
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Be … bootloader -> says to install a bootloader using pacman -S

Last edited by cfr (2013-02-01 23:34:30)

doru001 · 2013-02-03 16:10:31

doru001 wrote:

I will try to propose an improvement. At the time when I was browsing the pacman wiki page I did not understand the pacman limitations and how these can interract with the rolling nature of the arch archive. As a result those statements did not have a meaning for me. It is a vicious circle. Things are simple and I will try to propose a formulation that is easy to understand for a beginner in a short while. Probably they will never accept to complete the manual, but at least the wiki can be improved.

Well, the improvement is here: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Pa … troduction. Comment on it if you dare. The news statement does not look right. Where are those news about the introduction of systemd and the need to copy a directory of glibc?

Lone_Wolf · 2013-02-03 16:39:55

cfr wrote:

I notice that the Beginners' Guide now effectively tells users to do pacman -Sy and then pacman -S <package>. This seems unfortunate. I'm almost positive that it did not used to advise this. Is there some reason for the change and, if so, what would be the best way of saying the equivalent of "you need to do this once but should never, ever do it again"?
Basically:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Be … ure_pacman -> says to configure pacman and then run pacman -Sy
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Be … bootloader -> says to install a bootloader using pacman -S

The configure_pacman part only mentions running pacman -Sy when you have changed the repos in pacman.conf , and this is indeed necessary.
It's also one of the use-cases where pacman -Sy is a good choice.

I agree it can be confusing though, looks like configuring_pacman should be changed in a general part and a subsection for the multilib part.

doru001 · 2013-02-04 11:35:51

I posted my introduction to pacman here: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Pa … troduction. It has been removed and now I corrected and published it again. I would appreciate your opinion on the talk page: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Ta … il_missing.

Lone_Wolf · 2013-02-04 13:18:51

Posted there.

Arch Linux

#26 2013-02-01 01:03:43

Re: arch upgrade with pacman -Su

#27 2013-02-01 01:58:33

Re: arch upgrade with pacman -Su

#28 2013-02-01 03:40:09

Re: arch upgrade with pacman -Su

#29 2013-02-01 09:12:55

Re: arch upgrade with pacman -Su

#30 2013-02-01 09:17:09

Re: arch upgrade with pacman -Su

#31 2013-02-01 10:17:09

Re: arch upgrade with pacman -Su

#32 2013-02-01 10:34:33

Re: arch upgrade with pacman -Su

#33 2013-02-01 13:27:34

Re: arch upgrade with pacman -Su

#34 2013-02-01 14:12:47

Re: arch upgrade with pacman -Su

#35 2013-02-01 14:44:29

Re: arch upgrade with pacman -Su

#36 2013-02-01 14:47:18

Re: arch upgrade with pacman -Su

#37 2013-02-01 15:52:14

Re: arch upgrade with pacman -Su

#38 2013-02-01 23:33:57

Re: arch upgrade with pacman -Su

#39 2013-02-03 16:10:31

Re: arch upgrade with pacman -Su

#40 2013-02-03 16:39:55

Re: arch upgrade with pacman -Su

#41 2013-02-04 11:35:51

Re: arch upgrade with pacman -Su

#42 2013-02-04 13:18:51

Re: arch upgrade with pacman -Su

Board footer