A 2017-04-02T02:02:30 -0400, Eli Schwartz via arch-general escreveu: > On 04/01/2017 11:14 AM, João Miguel via arch-general wrote: > > First of all, why is this a warning? What is the problem of me having a > > newer version of a package than the repository? --quiet does not help. I > > could do > > Why would a mismatch between what is expected and what is actually > there, *not* be something to warn the user about? I mean, why is it unexpected? Is it at all unexpected that a package I ignored is being ignored? (see below for newer versions) > > (...) > > warnings like this. Could they at least be less verbose? Say, in one line: > > > > warning: ignoring (42) package updates (for nvidia, nvidia-dkms, > > haskell-src-exts, ...) > > This would result in some extremely long lines, but I am not really sure > why you have 42 packages ignored anyway. So I am not entirely sure how > much this would help your case. 42 was an example, I don't have anywhere near that number of packages ignored. The actual number in my case varies between 0 and 15 (currently 3). > > I found this old bug report (https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/31594) > > regarding this, but there's no decision about it. Note: if this is really not worth anyone's time, this should be closed as WONTFIX. > > > > I'd like there to be an option to quiet these, possibly in pacman.conf: > > > > QuietWarning = NewerThanRepo | IgnoredUpdate | ... > > (...) > > If pacman is going to output such messages in the first place, offering > to ignore them strikes me as unwise. > > The whole reason for outputting such messages to begin with, IMHO, is to > alert the user that something unexpected (packages from the future) is But when would there be packages from the future!? I think if pacman finds I have a more recent version than the repos do, the obvious reason is that I got it from somewhere else. When would I have a higher version except for that reason? > going on, or they are performing a risky action (ignoring packages). I know it is unsupported, but I don't need to be told that it is risky every time in such a verbose manner. > It is hardly a huge burden to see them, since after all you are looking > at the output of an interactive program which already emits lots of > other information you are expected to read, some of which is > interspersed with stuff you don't really have to pay attention to > (progress bars). > In short, important information is important, and should be seen... What I'm disputing here is precisely that information being important. Progress bars are important sometimes, and can be disabled with --noprogressbar. I'd say that option is less important (and is already implicit with, say, piping). > ... > > Though, personally, if I fork a repo package I add it to my [custom] > repo which has priority. So I never see the state of the official repos. Thank you, that does sound like a nice idea! (to anyone interested, found some information here: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Pacman/Tips_and_tricks#Custom_local_repository) João Miguel
