Local version newer than repo version.

miqorz · 2005-01-08 16:45:15

I got sick of using Enlightenment 16.7.1 (newest in the repo) so I altered the PKGBUILD and made 16.7.2-1 and now I get this whenever I use pacman..

:: enlightenment: local version (0.16.7.2-1) is newer than repo version (0.16.7.1-2

Is there a "right" way to make that just.. go away?

cactus · 2005-01-08 20:01:40

-create your own repo, and put it earlier in the repo list than the default repos.
-add it to your IgnorePkg list
-pipe pacman output through grep

pacman -Syu | grep -v "enlightenment"

The last one wasn't really very serious.

Xentac · 2005-01-09 20:29:12

Why do you want it to go away? Does it matter than much?

miqorz · 2005-01-09 22:03:40

Blah, I hate explaining this...

I have OCD. It stands for Obsessive Compulsive disorder, little things like that piss me off.

I like having things 'just so'.

Xentac · 2005-01-09 23:09:19

Currently there is no way to get rid of that, apart from making your own repo and having it override the current ones, like cactus said.

miqorz · 2005-01-09 23:39:47

Is it hard to make your own repo?

Xentac · 2005-01-09 23:43:20

Not really. Type gensync. All the information should be there.

cactus · 2005-01-10 00:26:20

Yes, it is very easy.
1. Put your pkgbuilds in a heirarchical structure, much like in abs. I have the following structure for mine.

/var/abs/local/
/var/abs/local/amavisd-new
/var/abs/local/ltsp-utils
/var/abs/local/mod_ruby
/var/abs/local/php
/var/abs/local/postfix
/var/abs/local/webalizer

The pkgbuilds and the related files are in their respective folders..

2. Move the binary packages that are resultant from building the packages to a folder of your choosing. Like /home/eliott/public_html/archlinux/binary-packages/ for example.

3.

gensync /var/abs/local/  /home/eliott/public_html/archlinux/binary-packages/cactus_repo.db.tar.gz

The first part of the db.tar.gz target is the name of the repository that you would put in brackets in pacman.conf.

4. Put rule in pacman.conf
If you wan't it to override what is in the archlinux repos, then put it first.

[cactus_repo]
Server = file:///home/eliott/public_html/archlinux/binary-packages
#Server = http://cactuswax.net/~eliott/archlinux/binary-packages

The first server is if the repo is on the same machine. The second one, commented out, is if it is on a different machine. This is very useful if you have alot of servers, and want to centrally manage package deployment.

Now, everytime you update a package or add a new one, you can just rerun the gensync command above, and it will rebuild the repo list for you.

dp · 2005-01-10 01:05:50

what about an option to put in /etc/pacman.conf that makes this things not appear?:

IgnoreIsNewerWarnings

(feature request)

miqorz · 2005-01-10 03:36:27

That would make things alot nicer, Cuts the crap.

dp · 2005-01-10 05:44:57

miqorz wrote:

That would make things alot nicer, Cuts the crap.

it's only an idea from me ... if you like it, post a feature request @ bugs.archlinux.org

sarah31 · 2005-01-10 18:35:23

bloat.

miqorz · 2005-01-10 18:38:34

Yes, One line would be HUGE ammounts of bloat.

Thank you for that largely insightful one liner post, what would we do without you?

phrakture · 2005-01-10 19:24:46

miqorz wrote:

Yes, One line would be HUGE ammounts of bloat.
Thank you for that largely insightful one liner post, what would we do without you?

it's one line in the config file, but alot of code within pacman... that is the bloat... not the configuration setting.....

frankly, i agree with sarah31... bloat implies an unneeded feature there to make obscure people happy...

How about pumping the pacman output through an awk script or something to remove that line instead of changin pacman to suit your needs?

miqorz · 2005-01-10 20:13:23

Well if enough people find the feature useful it won't be bloat, now will it?

I think that if someone put the time and effort into coding this warning message, it wouldn't be too hard to make a toggle for it.

I call bloat on it telling my version is too new in that case.

sarah31 · 2005-01-10 20:58:01

Whatever, you were given two options:

1. if you want to do the work and get rid of the message on your own you can run your own repo and there are advantages to this. Of course if you are lazy then this would not be appealing.

2. You can request the feature be added to pacman. One line would be added to your conf and several line sof code to pacman. To date you are the only one that wants it and there is nothing wrong with that. Just be warned that if Judd feels it is not need or of low concern/interest level it will either not ever appear or it could take a LONG time to appear.

Either way you have to do something. It isn't up to us to tell you which solution to go with. (personally if it concerned me then i would do #1, file for #2 and run #1 until i knew something about #2)

I still think it is bloat but if enough people want it then I guess it would not be.

as for your rudeness .... I won't even bother except to say this is probably the first and last time I will help you out. Consider yourself on my ignore list.

phrakture · 2005-01-10 22:19:34

sarah31 wrote:

as for your rudeness .... I won't even bother except to say this is probably the first and last time I will help you out. Consider yourself on my ignore list.

hahaha... that happens alot doesn't it... sarah? hello? stop ignoring me!

sarah31 · 2005-01-10 22:20:40

pfft. i can handle your evil posting ways now phrak.

xerxes2 · 2005-01-10 22:53:30

miqorz wrote:

Well if enough people find the feature useful it won't be bloat, now will it?
I think that if someone put the time and effort into coding this warning message, it wouldn't be too hard to make a toggle for it.
I call bloat on it telling my version is too new in that case.

i agree with you migorz that there should be an option to ignore the new versions and also to not warn about ignore packages,

maybe it will be done in the new pacman library,

Arch Linux

#1 2005-01-08 16:45:15

Local version newer than repo version.

#2 2005-01-08 20:01:40

Re: Local version newer than repo version.

#3 2005-01-09 20:29:12

Re: Local version newer than repo version.

#4 2005-01-09 22:03:40

Re: Local version newer than repo version.

#5 2005-01-09 23:09:19

Re: Local version newer than repo version.

#6 2005-01-09 23:39:47

Re: Local version newer than repo version.

#7 2005-01-09 23:43:20

Re: Local version newer than repo version.

#8 2005-01-10 00:26:20

Re: Local version newer than repo version.

#9 2005-01-10 01:05:50

Re: Local version newer than repo version.

#10 2005-01-10 03:36:27

Re: Local version newer than repo version.

#11 2005-01-10 05:44:57

Re: Local version newer than repo version.

#12 2005-01-10 18:35:23

Re: Local version newer than repo version.

#13 2005-01-10 18:38:34

Re: Local version newer than repo version.

#14 2005-01-10 19:24:46

Re: Local version newer than repo version.

#15 2005-01-10 20:13:23

Re: Local version newer than repo version.

#16 2005-01-10 20:58:01

Re: Local version newer than repo version.

#17 2005-01-10 22:19:34

Re: Local version newer than repo version.

#18 2005-01-10 22:20:40

Re: Local version newer than repo version.

#19 2005-01-10 22:53:30

Re: Local version newer than repo version.

Board footer