X-Original-To: alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org Delivered-To: alpine-devel@mail.alpinelinux.org Received: from mail-pb0-f54.google.com (mail-pb0-f54.google.com [209.85.160.54]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.alpinelinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FA47DC013E for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 07:58:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pb0-f54.google.com with SMTP id rp8so3831pbb.13 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 00:58:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:reply-to:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:message-id; bh=rGQB+gDXdmiaoRL7SrDP1sttkroSZimpZjYA8o6nZyA=; b=UQ5SfgXd2lqpVQqRfb/T6jfJw/QlYXBYih8/e26WNqyzJT6SzdjS2UNyjyu3VUOdyL tiU4+XIFQ4loIXzq8KKCWXs9qx4AW1kW5VDDJF9wMMzFRs9gQBkzV+AIEmfyKXtOrFHC Bm6K2v+QzFxcyHtw+UDyI8cxtpjh+gBXyCDdFLtVsGZxXbBpGbQy1HTC8q/NZez7SxKC WhSae3nAD5wYkGtcb/jk1UCmp4TcmLxDT5Svv3YGoih3ZiYVe3lxwLUEa8Oom4QHZuSw unb+g470rdumDefgqbyD64XmKTCB3kPJING8wIZ0RR2rR7TOC1g5HEnjxEPSjMdGeNuC zKXw== Received: by 10.68.226.136 with SMTP id rs8mr100769086pbc.153.1351583901932; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 00:58:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from microknoppix.localnet ([117.227.171.251]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o7sm7321pay.14.2012.10.30.00.58.18 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 30 Oct 2012 00:58:21 -0700 (PDT) From: "V.Krishn" Reply-To: vkrishn4@gmail.com To: alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org Subject: Re: [alpine-devel] Questions about apk CMD -U Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 13:25:03 +0530 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.3.7-64; KDE/4.7.4; x86_64; ; ) References: <20121029181737.GB16841@vaio.jimpryor.net> <20121029225747.GD16841@vaio.jimpryor.net> <20121030080626.778185d0@vostro> In-Reply-To: <20121030080626.778185d0@vostro> 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="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201210301325.04001.vkrishn4@gmail.com> On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 11:36:26 AM Timo Teras wrote: > On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 18:57:47 -0400 Dubiousjim > > wrote: > > 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? > > Yes - but it is not trivial and depends on the action executed. > > If everything looks identical - package version, dependencies, etc. > Then in practice apk prefers the repository listed first. In case of > *.list files, it is currently the physical order in which those files > are read. And that can be hard to predict. > > > 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. > > If you want to make sure you use always your custom package - add your > own repository with @ownrepo tag, and use "apk add mypackage@ownrepo" > to add them. The repository pinning overrides even version matching > and upgrades - if necessari it will downgrade packages to make it work. > > Alternatively you should modify the version. If the -rN level does not > matter. Then you could add _p1 suffix before it - e.g. foo-1.2.3_p1-r0. > Though, there are few packages that use the _pN suffix on their main > versions (you can still suffix with second _pN too). > > Perhaps we should fix the -rN field to allow decimal point for > "customized" builds or similar, like '-r1.1'. Any opinions on this? > Or any other ideas? How does _pN suffix get applied? I mean , can it be any _N? if not then '-r1.1' may not be very helpful, coz package name should indentify the packager in someway. -- Regards. V.Krishn > > - Timo > > > --- > Unsubscribe: alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org > Help: alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org > --- --- Unsubscribe: alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org Help: alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org ---