[SOLVED]force installation of dependencies but no to make them explici

rezad · 2022-07-12 04:00:03

I have some packages that were installed via a test x64-v3 repo.
I reverted back to official repo.

now many packages (mostly dependencies) are still from that test repo and because their version is higher (via a added .1 at the end of version) they don't get upgraded over to official version.

because they are low level core (like the filesystem,zlib ,xz and so one) packages I cant uninstall them.
I also don't want to explicitly install them (which would pollute the explicit installed package database).

it there a way for my to tell pacman to install a package (say plasma-session) and all of its dependencies that would force them over the left over versions but would not make the dependencies that get reinstalled over ,as explicitly installed packages (which would be shown with 'pacman -Qe'?

Last edited by rezad (2022-07-12 05:42:42)

Allan · 2022-07-12 04:28:40

pacman -S <pkg>

Try one and see what it does to the install reason!

rezad · 2022-07-12 04:32:49

Allan wrote:

pacman -S <pkg>
Try one and see what it does to the install reason!

what???
try one for what?
the dependencies?
you mean I should just use "sudo pacman -S filesystem"?
wouldnt that put it in explicitly installed packages database?
if not , would this work with pikaur too?

Last edited by rezad (2022-07-12 04:33:42)

Awebb · 2022-07-12 05:10:50

Read this first and see if you've done it that way and if this fixes your immediate problem: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Offici … positories. Then read man pacman and find out what passing -u twice does.

What Allan wants you to try out, is taking a single package that's too far ahead because of [testing] and explicitly install it again without [testing] enabled and see what happens regarding the version it installs. I think he didn't want to spoil your fun learning how pacman works.

yochananmarqos · 2022-07-12 05:12:09

In the time you spent questioning the developer of pacman, you could have already found out why he gave you the answer he did.

If you're savvy enough to use a test repo, then you also should be savvy enough to return to a normal state.

Last edited by yochananmarqos (2022-07-12 05:14:50)

rezad · 2022-07-12 05:37:26

yochananmarqos wrote:

In the time you spent questioning the developer of pacman, you could have already found out why he gave you the answer he did.
If you're savvy enough to use a test repo, then you also should be savvy enough to return to a normal state.

I tested and thankfully it worked.
but you are missing something.
if I "In the time you spent questioning the developer of pacman, you could have already found out why he gave you the answer he did." and then the package (like filesystem package) got the explicit installed flag, then that would make my issue double.
one the old issue that maybe some other answer would fix , and the new issue of how to remove explicit installed flag from a system package that I cant just remove.

I am aware of concept of testing and seeing a result of a command.
I just wanted to be sure that the poster knew what I wanted and that also to be sure that I understood his answer.

and also "return to a normal state" is literally my question.
so you are telling my I should know the answer of my own question and not ask it?

Last edited by rezad (2022-07-12 05:39:13)

rezad · 2022-07-12 05:41:53

Awebb wrote:

Read this first and see if you've done it that way and if this fixes your immediate problem: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Offici … positories. Then read man pacman and find out what passing -u twice does.
What Allan wants you to try out, is taking a single package that's too far ahead because of [testing] and explicitly install it again without [testing] enabled and see what happens regarding the version it installs. I think he didn't want to spoil your fun learning how pacman works.

thnaks.
I dint know about pacman -Syuu
I knew about pacman -Syyu but not this.

.

Last edited by rezad (2022-07-12 05:44:16)

Awebb · 2022-07-12 05:58:21

Nobody in their right mind expects you to know everything and know all the answers. To be fair, you need to dig deeper into the wiki. I didn't really know the answer, I typed "testing" into the wiki search bar and got your solution in a second. This wiki rocks. I personally think it's the single most condensed collection of "beyond the manual" Linux information.

yochananmarqos wrote:

In the time you spent questioning the developer of pacman, you could have already found out why he gave you the answer he did.
If you're savvy enough to use a test repo, then you also should be savvy enough to return to a normal state.

I like to tell noobs to RTFM as much as the next guy, but this was unnecessarily rude and entirely uncalled-for.

rezad · 2022-07-12 06:06:14

Awebb wrote:

Nobody in their right mind expects you to know everything and know all the answers. To be fair, you need to dig deeper into the wiki. I didn't really know the answer, I typed "testing" into the wiki search bar and got your solution in a second. This wiki rocks. I personally think it's the single most condensed collection of "beyond the manual" Linux information.
yochananmarqos wrote:
In the time you spent questioning the developer of pacman, you could have already found out why he gave you the answer he did.
If you're savvy enough to use a test repo, then you also should be savvy enough to return to a normal state.
I like to tell noobs to RTFM as much as the next guy, but this was unnecessarily rude and entirely uncalled-for.

if this forum had emoji reaction support (like github) I would have added so many hearts.
thank you.

Arch Linux

#1 2022-07-12 04:00:03

[SOLVED]force installation of dependencies but no to make them explici

#2 2022-07-12 04:28:40

Re: [SOLVED]force installation of dependencies but no to make them explici

#3 2022-07-12 04:32:49

Re: [SOLVED]force installation of dependencies but no to make them explici

#4 2022-07-12 05:10:50

Re: [SOLVED]force installation of dependencies but no to make them explici

#5 2022-07-12 05:12:09

Re: [SOLVED]force installation of dependencies but no to make them explici

#6 2022-07-12 05:37:26

Re: [SOLVED]force installation of dependencies but no to make them explici

#7 2022-07-12 05:41:53

Re: [SOLVED]force installation of dependencies but no to make them explici

#8 2022-07-12 05:58:21

Re: [SOLVED]force installation of dependencies but no to make them explici

#9 2022-07-12 06:06:14

Re: [SOLVED]force installation of dependencies but no to make them explici

Board footer