Bill Nottingham wrote:
Seth Vidal (skvidal@fedoraproject.org) said:

1) People who have dependency problem won't see them anymore.

b/c we need to get the dep problems reported, too.


Then you also enable by default the yum-email-dep-problems-to-fedora-devel
plugin.

Bill

Hmmm, I'm not sure exactly what kind of repository information you can
query from a yum plugin, but this plugin would need to be fairly
specific to the fedora repositories and would need to ignore
dep-problems on peoples on-site mirrors and such. Otherwise we'd get a
lot of bugs filed, caused by the use of such repos.


/Thomas

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Thu, 2008-12-11 at 15:09 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
> On Thu, 11 Dec 2008, Steven Moix wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > Last night I had an idea, why not alias "yum update" to "yum
> > --skip-broken update" by default? This simple hack could prevent a lot
> > of recurring support questions on the forums:
> >
> > 1) People who have dependency problem won't see them anymore.
>
> b/c we need to get the dep problems reported, too.
>
> > 2) It doesn't change anything for the rest of the people.
> >
>
> sure it does, it means that you think you're updated completely, but
> you're not.
>
> -sv
>

Ok, you have a point.

I was suggesting this from a guy-who-reads-user-forums standpoint. The
Fedora update mirrors are often out of sync for 1-3 days, which fills
the forums almost every day with users who don't understand what's going
on when they have dependency problems.

I'm fully aware that this is a dirty hack, but it could solve just that
problem, now there are side effects of course.

Steven

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Thu, 2008-12-11 at 22:07 +0100, Steven Moix wrote:

> I was suggesting this from a guy-who-reads-user-forums standpoint. The
> Fedora update mirrors are often out of sync for 1-3 days, which fills
> the forums almost every day with users who don't understand what's going
> on when they have dependency problems.

My understanding was the MM wanted mirrors to be in sync. within a day,
and as long as the metadata is within sync. it is almost "free" to
switch mirrors to find metadata/packages now (just get 404s and move
along).

> I'm fully aware that this is a dirty hack, but it could solve just that
> problem, now there are side effects of course.

To be fair, there is a much less dirty hack of just setting
"skip_broken = true" in yum.conf (it's in the man page ). And this
might be turned on a some point, but as other people have said before
that happens we really want:

. Lots of checking server side (repoclosure type stuff) to make sure
what we push is good.

. Lots of testing to make sure skip-broken doesn't make the problem
worse (many cases of infinite loops in the past, although it's getting
close now).

--
James Antill <james@fedoraproject.org>
Fedora

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Seth Vidal wrote:



On Thu, 11 Dec 2008, Steven Moix wrote:


Hello,

Last night I had an idea, why not alias "yum update" to "yum
--skip-broken update" by default? This simple hack could prevent a lot
of recurring support questions on the forums:

1) People who have dependency problem won't see them anymore.


b/c we need to get the dep problems reported, too.


I'm just wondering why you need 1000s of busy developers to all hit the
same dependency issues to find this out?


Can't you do this on one "dependency checker' machine somewhere? Or
have it automatically reported from a limited number of testers?



--
John Ellson

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 4:40 PM, John Ellson <john.ellson@comcast.net> wrote:
> Can't you do this on one "dependency checker' machine somewhere? Or have
> it automatically reported from a limited number of testers?

A limited number of testers who attempt to install and update
EVERYTHING from every possible starting state between release and
current update collection.. including 3rd party interactions?

-jef

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Jeff Spaleta wrote:

On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 4:40 PM, John Ellson <john.ellson@comcast.net> wrote:


Can't you do this on one "dependency checker' machine somewhere? Or have
it automatically reported from a limited number of testers?



A limited number of testers who attempt to install and update
EVERYTHING from every possible starting state between release and
current update collection.. including 3rd party interactions?

-jef



How about just within the current Fedora collection?

e.g.


# yum install sysklogd
Resolving Dependencies
--> Running transaction check
---> Package sysklogd.x86_64 0:1.5-3.fc10 set to be updated
--> Processing Conflict: sysklogd conflicts rsyslog
--> Finished Dependency Resolution
sysklogd-1.5-3.fc10.x86_64 from rawhide has depsolving problems
--> sysklogd conflicts with rsyslog
Error: sysklogd conflicts with rsyslog

or the problem that causes "yum install tetex-bytefield tetex-perltex"
to just die without even trying to install them.

(rpm -Uvh ... reports conflicts for these two with texlive)
rpm -Uvh ./rawhide/packages/tetex-bytefield-1.2a-4.fc10.noarch.rpm
./rawhide/packages/tetex-perltex-1.7-1.fc10.noarch.rpm
Preparing...
########################################### [100%]
file /usr/share/texmf/doc/latex/perltex/perltex.pdf from install
of tetex-perltex-1.7-1.fc10.noarch conflicts with file from package
texlive-texmf-doc-2007-26.fc10.noarch
file /usr/share/texmf/tex/latex/perltex/perltex.sty from install
of tetex-perltex-1.7-1.fc10.noarch conflicts with file from package
texlive-texmf-latex-2007-26.fc10.noarch
file /usr/share/texmf/doc/latex/bytefield/bytefield.pdf from
install of tetex-bytefield-1.2a-4.fc10.noarch conflicts with file from
package texlive-texmf-doc-2007-26.fc10.noarch
file /usr/share/texmf/tex/latex/bytefield/bytefield.sty from
install of tetex-bytefield-1.2a-4.fc10.noarch conflicts with file from
package texlive-texmf-latex-2007-26.fc10.noarch


or the similar problem with "sos" ?
rpm -Uvh ./rawhide/packages/sos-1.8-3.fc11.noarch.rpm
Preparing...
########################################### [100%]
file /usr/sbin/sysreport from install of sos-1.8-3.fc11.noarch
conflicts with file from package sysreport-1.4.4-1.noarch
file /usr/share/sysreport/functions from install of
sos-1.8-3.fc11.noarch conflicts with file from package
sysreport-1.4.4-1.noarch






--
John Ellson

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

>>>>> "JE" == John Ellson <john.ellson@comcast.net> writes:

JE> How about just within the current Fedora collection?

JE> Error: sysklogd conflicts with rsyslog

I hope you realize that's intentional. The two packages explicitly
conflict.

- J<

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Fri, 2008-12-12 at 13:56 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> >>>>> "JE" == John Ellson <john.ellson@comcast.net> writes:
>
> JE> How about just within the current Fedora collection?
>
> JE> Error: sysklogd conflicts with rsyslog
>
> I hope you realize that's intentional. The two packages explicitly
> conflict.
>
> - J<

Which I do believe is against the packaging guidelines.

We /cannot/ have any 2 current packages in Fedora that conflict with
eachother. That is something I will fight tooth and nail for until the
end of time.

--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

>>>>> "JK" == Jesse Keating <jkeating@redhat.com> writes:

JK> Which I do believe is against the packaging guidelines.

Not really. Conflicts should be explicit if they exist.

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Conflicts

"Whenever possible, Fedora packages should avoid conflicting with each
other. Unfortunately, this is not always possible. These guidelines
illustrate how conflicts should be handled in Fedora, specifically
concerning when and when not to use the Conflicts: field."

- J<

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs@math.uh.edu> wrote:
>>>>>> "JK" == Jesse Keating <jkeating@redhat.com> writes:
>
> JK> Which I do believe is against the packaging guidelines.
>
> Not really. Conflicts should be explicit if they exist.
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Conflicts
>
> "Whenever possible, Fedora packages should avoid conflicting with each
> other. Unfortunately, this is not always possible. These guidelines
> illustrate how conflicts should be handled in Fedora, specifically
> concerning when and when not to use the Conflicts: field."

More importantly, in the next paragraph:

"As a general rule, Fedora packages must NOT contain any usage of the
Conflicts: field."

jerry

--
Store in cool, dry place. Rotate stock.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list