FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 12-12-2008, 07:28 PM
John Ellson
 
Default yum --skip-broken update by default?

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<


Why? Thats a dumb way to select features. Make them not-conflict and
provide some kind of configuration option.


Who is going to read the fine print when there 5000 rpms to play with?

Just IMHO



--
John Ellson

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 12-12-2008, 07:29 PM
"Jeff Spaleta"
 
Default yum --skip-broken update by default?

On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 10:42 AM, John Ellson <john.ellson@comcast.net> wrote:
> How about just within the current Fedora collection?

You missed the point.

If we make skip-broken work silently by default and do not notify
users about the crap being skipped... then our users who have 3rd
party repos installs will be missing Fedora updates. That means..
they will silently fail to receive Fedora signed security updates. Not
cool. We can't just turn a blind-eye to that because they have 3rd
party repos enabled if we deliberately choose a default setting which
does that sort of thing silently.

Then there is also crap like locally installed packages..which were
downloaded from outside a repository structure. Poeple do it. We make
it easy for them to do via a url handler in Firefox. There's no bloody
way a team of testers can catch that.

You can not possibly hit all the in the wild cases where someone is
going be affected by a broken dep chain which prevents them from
getting a Fedora signed security update with a small team of testers
who dedicate their very existence to testing for depchain breakage.
We have to notify users as its happening on their systems. I've no
problem giving them a choice to skip once they are notified.. but they
absolutely must be notified that updates are being skipped and whether
those updates are considered security or critical. To silently ignore
that those updates aren't being installed, is a failure to adequately
notify users so they can make informed choices.

-jef

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 12-12-2008, 07:33 PM
Jason L Tibbitts III
 
Default yum --skip-broken update by default?

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

JE> Why? Thats a dumb way to select features. Make them not-conflict
JE> and provide some kind of configuration option.

Because there have been certain difficulties in getting these packages
to live with each other, requiring various finessing which as I
understand things has been progressing.

I mean, come on, two syslog daemons? Each needing to own (and do
things like provide log rotation for) the same files? Alternatives
isn't going to handle that, you know. And as I understand it, there
are actually three syslog daemons people might want to use, all with
the same issues. You make it sound as if these things have absolutely
trivial solutions, and the only reason for making them conflict is to
annoy you. Do you even allow for the possibility that there's an
actual difficult issue here?

- J<

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 12-12-2008, 07:40 PM
John Ellson
 
Default yum --skip-broken update by default?

Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:

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



JE> Why? Thats a dumb way to select features. Make them not-conflict
JE> and provide some kind of configuration option.

Because there have been certain difficulties in getting these packages
to live with each other, requiring various finessing which as I
understand things has been progressing.

I mean, come on, two syslog daemons? Each needing to own (and do
things like provide log rotation for) the same files? Alternatives
isn't going to handle that, you know. And as I understand it, there
are actually three syslog daemons people might want to use, all with
the same issues. You make it sound as if these things have absolutely
trivial solutions, and the only reason for making them conflict is to
annoy you. Do you even allow for the possibility that there's an
actual difficult issue here?

- J<


Sure I allow that. But we're off track. My primary complaint is that
this dependency conflict
isn't listed in the daily yum updates dependency list and that yum
doesn't deal with it automatically.




--
John Ellson

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 12-12-2008, 07:42 PM
John Ellson
 
Default yum --skip-broken update by default?

Jeff Spaleta wrote:

On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 10:42 AM, John Ellson <john.ellson@comcast.net> wrote:


How about just within the current Fedora collection?



You missed the point.

If we make skip-broken work silently by default and do not notify
users about the crap being skipped...
That would be fine, and notify the developers too, but then just install
the rest of the updates

without quitting on me.








then our users who have 3rd
party repos installs will be missing Fedora updates. That means..
they will silently fail to receive Fedora signed security updates. Not
cool. We can't just turn a blind-eye to that because they have 3rd
party repos enabled if we deliberately choose a default setting which
does that sort of thing silently.

Then there is also crap like locally installed packages..which were
downloaded from outside a repository structure. Poeple do it. We make
it easy for them to do via a url handler in Firefox. There's no bloody
way a team of testers can catch that.

You can not possibly hit all the in the wild cases where someone is
going be affected by a broken dep chain which prevents them from
getting a Fedora signed security update with a small team of testers
who dedicate their very existence to testing for depchain breakage.
We have to notify users as its happening on their systems. I've no
problem giving them a choice to skip once they are notified.. but they
absolutely must be notified that updates are being skipped and whether
those updates are considered security or critical. To silently ignore
that those updates aren't being installed, is a failure to adequately
notify users so they can make informed choices.

-jef





--
John Ellson

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 12-12-2008, 07:43 PM
Seth Vidal
 
Default yum --skip-broken update by default?

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008, John Ellson wrote:


Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:

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



JE> Why? Thats a dumb way to select features. Make them not-conflict
JE> and provide some kind of configuration option.

Because there have been certain difficulties in getting these packages
to live with each other, requiring various finessing which as I
understand things has been progressing.

I mean, come on, two syslog daemons? Each needing to own (and do
things like provide log rotation for) the same files? Alternatives
isn't going to handle that, you know. And as I understand it, there
are actually three syslog daemons people might want to use, all with
the same issues. You make it sound as if these things have absolutely
trivial solutions, and the only reason for making them conflict is to
annoy you. Do you even allow for the possibility that there's an
actual difficult issue here?

- J<


Sure I allow that. But we're off track. My primary complaint is that this
dependency conflict
isn't listed in the daily yum updates dependency list and that yum doesn't
deal with it automatically.


How would you recommend it be dealt with? And remember we have to have an
acceptable behavior for 'yum -y update'.



When there is a conflict should we:
1. assume the existing pkgs are better
or
2. assume the installing pkgs are better


argument in favor of 1 is that the existing pkgs are on the system and
should therefore be protected as a possible running service.


argument in favor of 2 is that the user is requesting an action and the
user knows best, therefore the requested action must be the 'best' action.


I bet out of 1000 fedora users I'll get an almost even split between them.
-sv

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 12-14-2008, 10:26 AM
"Nicolas Mailhot"
 
Default yum --skip-broken update by default?

> If we make skip-broken work silently by default and do not notify
> users about the crap being skipped...

In case no one noticed, skip-broken does notify users about the crap
being skipped now

Granted, this is a bit lost in yum's usual verbosity. But that's not
an argument to no make sckip-broken the default

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 12-14-2008, 10:56 AM
Tim Lauridsen
 
Default yum --skip-broken update by default?

Nicolas Mailhot wrote:




If we make skip-broken work silently by default and do not notify
users about the crap being skipped...



In case no one noticed, skip-broken does notify users about the crap
being skipped now

Granted, this is a bit lost in yum's usual verbosity. But that's not
an argument to no make sckip-broken the default



Skipped packages is shown in package confirmation, just like installed,
updated etc. So running yum-cli is not then problem, but pk need to

be able to show skipped packages too.



Tim



--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 12-14-2008, 12:13 PM
John Ellson
 
Default yum --skip-broken update by default?

Seth Vidal wrote:



On Fri, 12 Dec 2008, John Ellson wrote:


My primary complaint is that this dependency conflict
isn't listed in the daily yum updates dependency list and that yum
doesn't deal with it automatically.


How would you recommend it be dealt with? And remember we have to have
an acceptable behavior for 'yum -y update'.



When there is a conflict should we:
1. assume the existing pkgs are better
or
2. assume the installing pkgs are better


argument in favor of 1 is that the existing pkgs are on the system and
should therefore be protected as a possible running service.


argument in favor of 2 is that the user is requesting an action and
the user knows best, therefore the requested action must be the 'best'
action.


I bet out of 1000 fedora users I'll get an almost even split between
them.

-sv



I don't think we ask for broken packages to be installed by doing "yum
update". If would be different for "rpm -Uvh --force...."


The currently installed version should never be affected until an
upgrade can be performed without force, error or exceptions.
This is basic transaction semantics. (Where the transaction is not the
entire "yum update", but each independent package dependency subtree).


Anyway, if a package has a conflict, then its not going to install, so
the installed version wins.


Updates are only allowed if all conditions are met, otherwise something
is going on that the packager or the developer didn't foresee, and this
needs
to be reported back to them and fixed. However, unrelated updates
should be allowed to proceed. With ~500M of updates

every day in Rawhide, its not acceptable to block the entire firehose.

Updates should never be forced, because then you have broken dependency
rules or transformations.



As a user, its mostly not very interesting if an update is broken.
Don't bother me with it, just tell the packager to fix it and come back
later.


Occasionally I might be willing to move a few things out of the way
manually to get an update to install, but for me this is the exception.



--
John Ellson

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

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:55 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org