X-Original-To: alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org Delivered-To: alpine-devel@mail.alpinelinux.org Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.alpinelinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1BC74DC00D3 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 22:58:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.46]) by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46F9920A17 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 18:58:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend2.nyi.mail.srv.osa ([10.202.2.161]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 29 Oct 2012 18:58:18 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=smtpout; bh=WPUPxScJPQIxS42O/SqeO8KyWW0=; b=lKo26SjWB7Ce7XCkv4Wv3b8MaGzY ODStnvuxdg6ezNJGlFAGKjQcn1KrfuOwxObl7SdaSVNMZkwc8TbXz807Fc09TAq8 lvTBoWgGcCnZVKUZaplbcJXYeoN/dA2YMqACCeUvzAdiZEZ3OqgyocFOP3bTZb0G oBBG+iunFI7b5jw= X-Sasl-enc: To+mki3B2rMeb/RcQ03/ZrZVY63UpanXxSiTy9lgtQwR 1351551497 Received: from localhost (unknown [69.86.161.234]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id DB2C2482662 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 18:58:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 18:57:47 -0400 From: Dubiousjim To: alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org Subject: Re: [alpine-devel] Questions about apk CMD -U Message-ID: <20121029225747.GD16841@vaio.jimpryor.net> References: <20121029181737.GB16841@vaio.jimpryor.net> <20121029204343.501bef56@vostro> <20121029191524.GC16841@vaio.jimpryor.net> <1351540938.8606.2.camel@Nokia-N900> X-Mailinglist: alpine-devel Precedence: list List-Id: Alpine Development List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1351540938.8606.2.camel@Nokia-N900> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 10:02:18PM +0200, Timo Ter?s wrote: > The tags need to be defined in repositories file. See: > > http://git.alpinelinux.org/cgit/apk-tools/commit/?id=500f8d4a7d7b17871647392e79e4c7a17c210534 > > This is quite unique feature in apk... to the degree that the pinnings are specified on command line and not in config file like apt. Also the dependency pulling is rather smart - and getting smarter in v2.5. > > Few other things to mention might be: > http://git.alpinelinux.org/cgit/apk-tools/commit/?id=77e203bf3224293d8f8e01dd15d6262eed840cf9 > http://git.alpinelinux.org/cgit/apk-tools/commit/?id=ba3ee3f86396f05123f732da7c7879c8ed016c9d > > These are since alpine v2.4. Thanks Timo, I'll add some notes about these to the wiki. Have a look at it sometime later and see whether it looks right. If one does have multiple repositories listed in one's /etc/apk/repositories or /etc/apk/repository.d/*.list files, and several of those repos contain foo-1.23-r0.apk, but the package binaries differ, is there any system to which repository will be used? Here's why I ask. I'm still in the process of shifting myself into Alpine. From past experiences with Arch and FreeBSD, I've noticed the following pattern. I tend to accumulate a bunch of packages which are in the official repositories, but for which I want to customize the build. The way I've settled into doing this is to have a personal git branch in my aports repo. Then when the official APKBUILDs get updated, I'll see the changes when I try to merge the master branch with my personal branch. But what version should I give my custom packages? Ideally, I'd want to be able to insert any number of my own revisions in between the official foo-1.23-r0 and foo-1.23-r1. I'd also want to be able to insert any number of my own revisions before the official foo-1.23-r0, if I end up building that before it appears in the official repositories. If there's some way to insert my packages into gaps in the existing versioning space, terrific. If not, then I'm guessing the best thing to do is to name my custom package foo-1.23-r0 also. It will be a different binary than the official foo-1.23-r0. But if I arranged for my local package repositories to be searched first, then I'd be sure to always get my home-built packages, unless the official binary gets ahead of me version-wise. This is why I'm asking which repos in one's /etc/apk/repo** files have priority over the others. I'm sure others have come up with schemes to deal with this. I'd welcome any feedback about what tends to work best. -- Dubiousjim dubiousjim@gmail.com --- Unsubscribe: alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org Help: alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org ---