X-Original-To: alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org Delivered-To: alpine-devel@mail.alpinelinux.org Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.alpinelinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D6658DC016C for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 12:36:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.mail.srv.osa [10.202.2.44]) by gateway1.nyi.mail.srv.osa (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D3B620740 for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 07:36:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from frontend2.nyi.mail.srv.osa ([10.202.2.161]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 05 Dec 2012 07:36:16 -0500 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=1p3T46zaEJWfIo/nCC89a1tei+0=; b=JtoKavWGaJWd/RBgb5nEjhJZIFfa hEg+dQ/5QxYPyhPxZ9pMsgUCuCvTX7ayg+CJCcluWUUdU3Za/SH8FWkh1h1CA62P lEAvX2V3k+FO1U+VPIG6jk2tw84s75/ACF5udHYtdOyCaTD4bRGudtzM6QjZZ95P JyyBBEsyWx9vug0= X-Sasl-enc: UXE2W8b/CXIFdqS2XK/LCBexWmYErk+4Rli0auk9sOmv 1354710976 Received: from localhost (unknown [69.86.161.244]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 4B47A4827C8 for ; Wed, 5 Dec 2012 07:36:16 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 07:34:07 -0500 From: Dubiousjim To: alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org Subject: Re: [alpine-devel] Some questions about apk-tools Message-ID: <20121205123407.GB2390@vaio.jimpryor.net> References: <20121128234406.GD2390@vaio.jimpryor.net> <20121129084044.29515fc1@vostro> <20121129124028.GE2390@vaio.jimpryor.net> <20121130154404.68b4de2a@vostro> <20121130151417.GI2390@vaio.jimpryor.net> <20121130153633.GJ2390@vaio.jimpryor.net> <20121203154214.153cc8b0@vostro> <20121203152017.GQ2390@vaio.jimpryor.net> <20121205115344.641973d3@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=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20121205115344.641973d3@vostro> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 11:53:44AM +0200, Timo Teras wrote: > > Ok, so given what we've said, I'd have expected > > `apk fix _` or `apk fix -r _` for one of the packages with an > > upgrade available to only install the current version, not the > > available upgrade. However: > > > > # apk fix cups-libs > > (1/1) Upgrading cups-libs (1.6.1-r0 -> 1.6.1-r1) > > Executing uclibc-utils-0.9.33.2-r14.trigger > > OK: 831 MiB in 317 packages > > This happens because the older version is no longer available in the > index. Thus it can't reinstall the same version. So it prefers to > intall the new version compared to doing nothing. > > If you want to test the regular fix, you might take some cdrom image > and add it as one source - install package from it. Then add some > online repository and see if it has updated version. And then try > regular fix - it should reinstall the old version from cdrom. Ok, that makes sense at least. I *think* the older version was still available in my apk cache though---can't check anymore since I've synched the cache recently. If the old version were available in the cache but not any index, and `-u` were omitted, is the intended behavior for it to reinstall or upgrade? -- Dubiousjim dubiousjimm@gmail.com --- Unsubscribe: alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org Help: alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org ---