Feature request: mark downgraded packages (from backup) and do not update them automatically

[FrankMittelbach]

Use case

• some package is broken and I had to revert to previous version
• on next occation it will be offered again for update even though all it will update to is the buggy version backed out previously
• with many updates pending it can easily happen that one does "update all" and then gets the buggy version back by mistake
• then one has to back things out again

Suggestion

• mark downgraded packages and remember from which version they where downgraded
• update those packages only upon explicit request (different from "update all") or if they actually get a new version which is later than then one that was backed out (ie when the package has "probably" gotten some fix of some sort)

[amaxwell]

This is an interesting case, and I'm still thinking about how to implement it. I think I'd have to manually track which packages were backed out, and basically keep a database of all backup actions. Alternately, maybe a way to flag a package or pin the version, since I imagine most people are going to want it updated next time.

Per a discussion with Karl Berry, would this be based on the catalogue version? I assume so…but I don't have access to that for backup listings, unfortunately.

[FrankMittelbach]

This is an interesting case, and I'm still thinking about how to implement it. I think I'd have to manually track which packages were backed out, and basically keep a database of all backup actions. Alternately, maybe a way to flag a package or pin the version, since I imagine most people are going to want it updated next time.

if you remember the revision number of any backout package then keeping that package "greyed out for backup" until the new revision number is higher than the one that was backed out would already go a long long way because as you say normally one package a certain package out if it is defective and typically if it gets a new revsion that means something got fix if that turns out to be wrong then, one has to back out once more but in most cases that will do the trick

Per a discussion with Karl Berry, would this be based on the catalogue version? I assume so…but I don't have access to that for backup listings, unfortunately.

you don't? well that's a pity because the catalogue version is indeed much more informative than the mere revision number (which is technical). But even if all this is only based on the revsion that would be a great help