updated yum packages are now available in c5-testing
 

On 12/13/2008 02:56 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> The following packages have been updated in the testing repo :
>
[...]
I've just noticed that there is a small typo in %description for
yum-basearchonly. Quoting the relevant part only:
Description: this plugin makes Yum only install basearch packages on
multiarch systems. If you type 'yum install
: foo' on a x68_64 system, only 'foo-x.y.x86_46.rpm' is
installed.

note that x68_64 != x86_46 (and neither one is correct.)
This is also valid for 1.1.10-9.el5.centos (from Base) and for
1.1.14-0_beta_15_2.el5.centos (testing)


And I think that the license (GPL) is also not correct, all other
plugins coming from the same source seem to be GPLv2+

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

updated yum packages are now available in c5-testing
 

Karanbir Singh wrote:
> keepcache is now turned on, how does this impact everyone's yum setups ?

James quite rightly pointed out that few people ever run 'yum clean'. So
given that CentOS installs can be around for years and years, perhaps a
default policy of keepcache=1 might not be a good idea.

Most people who use this, tend to do so when they need to setup a sort
of local shared-cache between multiple machines - and there are a few
optoins on the horizon that address that usecase in a much better way.

However, if someone wants to take on a bit of coding and propose a patch
where keepcache goes from either being On or OFf to become
keepcache=<num of days>; that would be quite nice too.

- KB

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

updated yum packages are now available in c5-testing
 

Karanbir Singh napsal(a):
> test these on non-production machines only for now. And all feedback is
> appreciated.
>
> keepcache is now turned on, how does this impact everyone's yum setups ?
>

Hi,
I confirm that this version and previous one work for me. No issues till
now.
DH
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

updated yum packages are now available in c5-testing
 

On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 4:56 PM, Karanbir Singh <mail-lists@karan.org> wrote:
> The following packages have been updated in the testing repo :
> ./5/testing/SRPMS/yum-utils-1.1.16-13.el5.centos.src.rpm
> ./5/testing/SRPMS/yum-3.2.19-18.el5.centos.src.rpm

> test these on non-production machines only for now. And all feedback is
> appreciated.

yum-3.2.19-18 produces the following errors if run with the
"--enablerepo=atrpms" option.

Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/usr/bin/yum", line 29, in ?
yummain.user_main(sys.argv[1:], exit_code=True)
File "/usr/share/yum-cli/yummain.py", line 229, in user_main
errcode = main(args)
File "/usr/share/yum-cli/yummain.py", line 145, in main
(result, resultmsgs) = base.buildTransaction()
File "/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/yum/__init__.py", line 647,
in buildTransaction
(rescode, restring) = self.resolveDeps()
File "/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/yum/depsolve.py", line 696,
in resolveDeps
CheckDeps, checkinstalls, checkremoves, missing =
self._resolveRequires(errors)
File "/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/yum/depsolve.py", line 779,
in _resolveRequires
thisneeds = self._checkInstall(txmbr)
File "/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/yum/depsolve.py", line 851,
in _checkInstall
provs = self.tsInfo.getProvides(*req)
File "/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/yum/transactioninfo.py", line
432, in getProvides
result.update(self.getNewProvides(name, flag, version))
File "/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/yum/transactioninfo.py", line
414, in getNewProvides
for pkg, hits in self.pkgSack.getProvides(name, flag, version).iteritems():
File "/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/yum/packageSack.py", line
300, in getProvides
return self._computeAggregateDictResult("getProvides", name, flags, version)
File "/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/yum/packageSack.py", line
470, in _computeAggregateDictResult
sackResult = apply(method, args)
File "/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/yum/sqlitesack.py", line 861,
in getProvides
return self._search("provides", name, flags, version)
File "/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/yum/sqlitesack.py", line 43, in newFunc
return func(*args, **kwargs)
File "/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/yum/sqlitesack.py", line 837,
in _search
for pkg in self.searchFiles(name, strict=True):
File "/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/yum/sqlitesack.py", line 43, in newFunc
return func(*args, **kwargs)
File "/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/yum/sqlitesack.py", line 568,
in searchFiles
self._sql_pkgKey2po(rep, cur, pkgs)
File "/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/yum/sqlitesack.py", line 470,
in _sql_pkgKey2po
pkg = self._packageByKey(repo, ob['pkgKey'])
File "/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/yum/sqlitesack.py", line 413,
in _packageByKey
po = self.pc(repo, cur.fetchone())
File "/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/yum/sqlitesack.py", line 68,
in __init__
self._read_db_obj(db_obj)
File "/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/yum/sqlitesack.py", line 94,
in _read_db_obj
setattr(self, item, _share_data(db_obj[item]))
TypeError: unsubscriptable object

<end of error output>

CentOS' distro yum runs just fine on the same machine.

Akemi
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

updated yum packages are now available in c5-testing
 

On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 10:34:55PM +0100, Dag Wieers wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Dec 2008, James Antill wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2008-12-22 at 12:29 -0800, Akemi Yagi wrote:
> >> On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 4:56 PM, Karanbir Singh <mail-lists@karan.org> wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >> File "/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/yum/sqlitesack.py", line 470,
> >> in _sql_pkgKey2po
> >> pkg = self._packageByKey(repo, ob['pkgKey'])
> >> File "/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/yum/sqlitesack.py", line 413,
> >> in _packageByKey
> >> po = self.pc(repo, cur.fetchone())
> >> File "/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/yum/sqlitesack.py", line 68,
> >> in __init__
> >> self._read_db_obj(db_obj)
> >> File "/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/yum/sqlitesack.py", line 94,
> >> in _read_db_obj
> >> setattr(self, item, _share_data(db_obj[item]))
> >> TypeError: unsubscriptable object
> >
> > This is more understandable upstream by:
> >
> > http://yum.baseurl.org/gitweb?p=yum.git;a=commitdiff;h=3120676a73219b018d 317d8adaac0d858d751a3b;hp=54bd2c6eebf6be6b2596e255 38bff6b35e34c443
> >
> > ...which gives a "nice" message. There is also a change to
> > yum-metadata-parser, which should work around the problem in atrpms.
> > The short term. fixes are:
> >
> > 1. Don't use atrpms.
> >
> > 2. Use "yum clean metadata"
>
> Can you be a little bit more specific ? Is there a thread describing the
> issue ? Is there going to be a real fix for it ?
>
> I really don't feel good with this patch. The error does not indicate
> to a user that a "yum clean metadata" resolves their problem.
>
> If we are going to have all our users that use atrpms go through this by
> default, then I think we should avoid it at all cost.

I also don't understand the patch mentioned above. What at ATrpms
upsets the new yum that way? If it's something I can fix on my end,
I'd gladly do so, but I'm just using plain createrepo (and this seems
to work with the yum version in question with other distros).
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

updated yum packages are now available in c5-testing
 

On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 05:48:22PM -0500, James Antill wrote:
> > If it's something I can fix on my end,
> > I'd gladly do so, but I'm just using plain createrepo (and this seems
> > to work with the yum version in question with other distros).
>
> Pass -d to create repo. and it'll work (and be faster).

OK, which version of createrepo should be used (distribution range is
EL3-5, F8-10)? Currently I use 0.4.9, but there is even 0.9.6
available.

Or does it not matter wrt the outcome?
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel