From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Feb 04 04:16:14 2015 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 4 Feb 2015 09:16:14 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:33424 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YIw4E-0000CM-7N for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2015 04:16:14 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:50268) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YIw4C-0000C6-8f for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2015 04:16:12 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YIw46-0006qo-Dy for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2015 04:16:06 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::11]:42814) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YIw46-0006qf-B5 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2015 04:16:06 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51989) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YIw45-0007w8-ED for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2015 04:16:06 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YIw42-0006qA-9o for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2015 04:16:05 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:41957) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YIw42-0006q6-6k for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2015 04:16:02 -0500 Received: from reverse-83.fdn.fr ([80.67.176.83]:35430 helo=pluto) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YIw41-0004so-M6 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2015 04:16:02 -0500 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) To: bug-guix@gnu.org Subject: Downgrade reported as an ugprade X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 16 =?utf-8?Q?Pluvi=C3=B4se?= an 223 de la =?utf-8?Q?R=C3=A9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0xEA52ECF4 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 83C4 F8E5 10A3 3B4C 5BEA D15D 77DD 95E2 EA52 ECF4 X-OS: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 10:15:58 +0100 Message-ID: <878ugem3zl.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::11 X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) As seen during a =E2=80=98guix package=E2=80=99 demo at FOSDEM, downgrades = are reported as upgrades as of 0.8.1. Ludo=E2=80=99. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Feb 04 11:18:06 2015 Received: (at 19764) by debbugs.gnu.org; 4 Feb 2015 16:18:07 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:34076 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YJ2eU-0004qP-KN for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2015 11:18:06 -0500 Received: from world.peace.net ([50.252.239.5]:38497 ident=hope1) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YJ2eT-0004qH-6r for 19764@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2015 11:18:05 -0500 Received: from [10.1.10.11] (helo=jojen) by world.peace.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1YJ2eM-0002lU-BM; Wed, 04 Feb 2015 11:17:58 -0500 From: Mark H Weaver To: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: bug#19764: Downgrade reported as an ugprade References: <878ugem3zl.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 11:18:06 -0500 In-Reply-To: <878ugem3zl.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic \=\?utf-8\?Q\?Court\=C3\=A8s\=22'\?\= \=\?utf-8\?Q\?s\?\= message of "Wed, 04 Feb 2015 10:15:58 +0100") Message-ID: <87r3u5hcqp.fsf@netris.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 19764 Cc: 19764@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: > As seen during a =E2=80=98guix package=E2=80=99 demo at FOSDEM, downgrade= s are reported > as upgrades as of 0.8.1. I don't know about this one, but another problem with our upgrade command is that it mishandles outputs other than "out", at least in the console output. It _always_ says it's upgrading them. Mark From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Feb 08 13:02:45 2015 Received: (at 19764-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Feb 2015 18:02:45 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37517 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YKWBw-0004WL-OC for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2015 13:02:44 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([208.118.235.10]:36040 ident=Debian-exim) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YKWBt-0004WB-Q2 for 19764-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2015 13:02:42 -0500 Received: from reverse-83.fdn.fr ([80.67.176.83]:47821 helo=pluto) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YKWBt-0001ZW-0q for 19764-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2015 13:02:41 -0500 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) To: 19764-done@debbugs.gnu.org Subject: Re: bug#19764: Downgrade reported as an ugprade References: <878ugem3zl.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2015 19:02:38 +0100 In-Reply-To: <878ugem3zl.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic \=\?utf-8\?Q\?Court\=C3\=A8s\=22'\?\= \=\?utf-8\?Q\?s\?\= message of "Wed, 04 Feb 2015 10:15:58 +0100") Message-ID: <8761bcqo1t.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 19764-done X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) skribis: > As seen during a =E2=80=98guix package=E2=80=99 demo at FOSDEM, downgrade= s are reported > as upgrades as of 0.8.1. Fixed in 46b23e1: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- $ ./pre-inst-env guix package -p foo -i guile-1.8.8 -n gnu/packages/guile.scm:50:2: rimarko: ni uzas guile-1.8.8 sed guile-2.0.11 = disponeblas unuanivele The following package would be downgraded: guile 2.0.11 =E2=86=92 1.8.8 /gnu/store/660m94139bka6mi7bdja5nvvqwq61zkk= -guile-1.8.8 --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- Ludo'. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Feb 08 13:09:26 2015 Received: (at 19764) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Feb 2015 18:09:26 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37523 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YKWIP-0004gd-KM for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2015 13:09:25 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([208.118.235.10]:36092 ident=Debian-exim) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YKWIN-0004gW-UB for 19764@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2015 13:09:24 -0500 Received: from reverse-83.fdn.fr ([80.67.176.83]:47823 helo=pluto) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YKWIN-0004FG-5I; Sun, 08 Feb 2015 13:09:23 -0500 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) To: Mark H Weaver Subject: Re: bug#19764: Downgrade reported as an ugprade References: <878ugem3zl.fsf@gnu.org> <87r3u5hcqp.fsf@netris.org> Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2015 19:09:16 +0100 In-Reply-To: <87r3u5hcqp.fsf@netris.org> (Mark H. Weaver's message of "Wed, 04 Feb 2015 11:18:06 -0500") Message-ID: <871tm0qnqr.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 19764 Cc: 19764@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) Mark H Weaver skribis: > I don't know about this one, but another problem with our upgrade > command is that it mishandles outputs other than "out", at least in the > console output. It _always_ says it's upgrading them. >From a quick check, =E2=80=98manifest-transaction-effects=E2=80=99 reports = the right thing when upgrading just a single output. Could you send an example that illustrates the problem? TIA, Ludo=E2=80=99. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Feb 09 09:56:31 2015 Received: (at 19764) by debbugs.gnu.org; 9 Feb 2015 14:56:31 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38377 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YKplH-0003Nc-11 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2015 09:56:31 -0500 Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.10]:60866) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YKplE-0003NW-DO for 19764@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2015 09:56:29 -0500 Received: from debian ([82.66.2.95]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (mreue104) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0M4a32-1XOLO93CaC-00yfOM; Mon, 09 Feb 2015 15:56:02 +0100 Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 15:55:57 +0100 From: Andreas Enge To: Ludovic =?iso-8859-15?Q?Court=E8s?= Subject: Re: bug#19764: Downgrade reported as an ugprade Message-ID: <20150209145557.GA28061@debian> References: <878ugem3zl.fsf@gnu.org> <87r3u5hcqp.fsf@netris.org> <871tm0qnqr.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <871tm0qnqr.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:jUkGqAMN9zMsDJ5TxSvQyeN+0P917IebHU7tfhIREpKK2t+Tfx0 QM/+INie/uuZV1fsVId+/NEMbn62uxdq3qDRvMCU8p+WnE3Qye2Skk4Jilmym4NwhoXvMPa QsrXhssaRisgzn8bKAvA26yqZ2eurwYsbboWLaSzQXyLFtCYsspHfSX4ZW3NidKHxfNti7u d1LKlNEmO5jjZMF/mYvQQ== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1; X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 19764 Cc: Mark H Weaver , 19764@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) Now, pseudo-upgrades are reported as downgrades. Namely, when the version number of a package does not increase, but something changes with respect to its inputs. I would suggest to treat them as upgrades. Andreas From unknown Sun Jun 22 07:53:22 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: Did not alter fixed versions and reopened. Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 15:33:02 +0000 User-Agent: Fakemail v42.6.9 # This is a fake control message. # # The action: # Did not alter fixed versions and reopened. thanks # This fakemail brought to you by your local debbugs # administrator From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Feb 09 12:19:25 2015 Received: (at 19764) by debbugs.gnu.org; 9 Feb 2015 17:19:25 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38497 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YKrzY-0001Bq-SP for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2015 12:19:25 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([208.118.235.10]:57949 ident=Debian-exim) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YKrzW-0001Bi-Lq for 19764@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 09 Feb 2015 12:19:23 -0500 Received: from pluto.bordeaux.inria.fr ([193.50.110.57]:50367 helo=pluto) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YKrzU-0000tb-Hi; Mon, 09 Feb 2015 12:19:21 -0500 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) To: Andreas Enge Subject: Re: bug#19764: Downgrade reported as an ugprade References: <878ugem3zl.fsf@gnu.org> <87r3u5hcqp.fsf@netris.org> <871tm0qnqr.fsf@gnu.org> <20150209145557.GA28061@debian> X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 21 =?utf-8?Q?Pluvi=C3=B4se?= an 223 de la =?utf-8?Q?R=C3=A9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0xEA52ECF4 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 83C4 F8E5 10A3 3B4C 5BEA D15D 77DD 95E2 EA52 ECF4 X-OS: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 18:19:17 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20150209145557.GA28061@debian> (Andreas Enge's message of "Mon, 9 Feb 2015 15:55:57 +0100") Message-ID: <87oap3m296.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 19764 Cc: Mark H Weaver , 19764@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) Andreas Enge skribis: > Now, pseudo-upgrades are reported as downgrades. Namely, when the version > number of a package does not increase, but something changes with respect > to its inputs. I would suggest to treat them as upgrades. Indeed. Fixed in 3bea13b, thanks! Ludo=E2=80=99. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Apr 04 18:01:08 2015 Received: (at request) by debbugs.gnu.org; 4 Apr 2015 22:01:08 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44963 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YeW7o-0004VJ-2B for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 04 Apr 2015 18:01:08 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([208.118.235.10]:40033 ident=Debian-exim) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YeW7m-0004V9-7g for request@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 04 Apr 2015 18:01:06 -0400 Received: from reverse-83.fdn.fr ([80.67.176.83]:46837 helo=pluto) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YeW7l-0007Zz-Ly for request@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 04 Apr 2015 18:01:06 -0400 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) To: request@debbugs.gnu.org Subject: close X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 16 Germinal an 223 de la =?utf-8?Q?R=C3=A9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0x3D9AEBB5 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 3CE4 6455 8A84 FDC6 9DB4 0CFB 090B 1199 3D9A EBB5 X-OS: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2015 00:01:03 +0200 Message-ID: <87iodbh7ts.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: request X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -5.0 (-----) close 19764 thanks From unknown Sun Jun 22 07:53:22 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Sun, 03 May 2015 11:24:06 +0000 User-Agent: Fakemail v42.6.9 # This is a fake control message. # # The action: # bug archived. thanks # This fakemail brought to you by your local debbugs # administrator