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 06-08-2010, 11:30 PM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default llvm case study: yum's handling of newly-converted noarch subpackages

Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
> Any idea how to fix this? We should probably add a section to the
> packaging guidelines, on how to migrate to noarch subpackages without
> breaking upgrade paths.

Or just not support users who have unneeded multilib packages installed.
Installing only those multilib packages that are actually needed has been
the default since Fedora 9, if people set up yum to pull in everything as
multilib, that's their problem.

Kevin Kofler

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-09-2010, 03:08 AM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default llvm case study: yum's handling of newly-converted noarch subpackages

On 06/09/2010 05:00 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
>
>> Any idea how to fix this? We should probably add a section to the
>> packaging guidelines, on how to migrate to noarch subpackages without
>> breaking upgrade paths.
>>
> Or just not support users who have unneeded multilib packages installed.
> Installing only those multilib packages that are actually needed has been
> the default since Fedora 9, if people set up yum to pull in everything as
> multilib, that's their problem.

As long as yum offers it as a option, bugs must be fixed.

Rahul

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-09-2010, 04:28 AM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default llvm case study: yum's handling of newly-converted noarch subpackages

On Wednesday 09 June 2010, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> As long as yum offers it as a option, bugs must be fixed.

Nonsense. There are plenty of options in software we ship which we don't and
can't support.

Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-09-2010, 04:39 AM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default llvm case study: yum's handling of newly-converted noarch subpackages

On 06/09/2010 09:58 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> On Wednesday 09 June 2010, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
>> As long as yum offers it as a option, bugs must be fixed.
>>
> Nonsense. There are plenty of options in software we ship which we don't and
> can't support.
>

Then stop including such a option or mark it unsupported or experimental.

Rahul
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-09-2010, 04:43 AM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default llvm case study: yum's handling of newly-converted noarch subpackages

On Wednesday 09 June 2010, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 06/09/2010 09:58 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Nonsense. There are plenty of options in software we ship which we don't
> > and can't support.
>
> Then stop including such a option or mark it unsupported or experimental.

A lot of software we ship supports more than just Fedora, you just can't
expect all options to work on Fedora.

As for yum in particular, there are plenty of ways to end up with a broken
setup by modifying yum.conf, e.g. exclude=kdelibs will definitely let you end
up with broken dependencies from updates if you have ANY KDE packages
installed, likewise exclude=xulrunner if you have Firefox or any other Gecko-
using package installed. You just cannot expect any random setting in yum.conf
to result in a working setup.

The defaults are set the way they are for a reason.

Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-09-2010, 04:49 AM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default llvm case study: yum's handling of newly-converted noarch subpackages

On 06/09/2010 10:13 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> A lot of software we ship supports more than just Fedora, you just can't
> expect all options to work on Fedora.
>
> As for yum in particular, there are plenty of ways to end up with a broken
> setup by modifying yum.conf, e.g. exclude=kdelibs will definitely let you end
> up with broken dependencies from updates if you have ANY KDE packages
> installed, likewise exclude=xulrunner if you have Firefox or any other Gecko-
> using package installed. You just cannot expect any random setting in yum.conf
> to result in a working setup.
>
> The defaults are set the way they are for a reason.
>

I don't buy your argument and trashing anyone's opinion you disagree
with you as "crap" and "nonsense" is hardly going to help make your
case. Excluding a dependency and setting a multi_lib option is hardly
the same thing. Anyway, I am pretty sure none of the yum developers
are going to agree with your view point either. Again, it in our
responsibility towards users to include options that we can support or
mark them as unsupported.

Rahul
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-09-2010, 04:53 AM
Seth Vidal
 
Default llvm case study: yum's handling of newly-converted noarch subpackages

On Wed, 9 Jun 2010, Rahul Sundaram wrote:

>
> I don't buy your argument and trashing anyone's opinion you disagree
> with you as "crap" and "nonsense" is hardly going to help make your
> case. Excluding a dependency and setting a multi_lib option is hardly
> the same thing. Anyway, I am pretty sure none of the yum developers
> are going to agree with your view point either. Again, it in our
> responsibility towards users to include options that we can support or
> mark them as unsupported.
>

a suggestion.

Since neither of you speak for any of the yum developers, please stop
doing so either implicitly or explicitly.

kthxbai

-sv

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-09-2010, 04:54 AM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default llvm case study: yum's handling of newly-converted noarch subpackages

On Wednesday 09 June 2010, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> I don't buy your argument and trashing anyone's opinion you disagree
> with you as "crap" and "nonsense" is hardly going to help make your
> case. Excluding a dependency and setting a multi_lib option is hardly
> the same thing. Anyway, I am pretty sure none of the yum developers
> are going to agree with your view point either. Again, it in our
> responsibility towards users to include options that we can support or
> mark them as unsupported.

Good luck going through the hundreds of thousands of options of our hundreds
of packages and listing all the ones we don't support for whatever reason. By
the time such a list would be completed, it'd already be decades out of date
and thus completely useless!

If you set a non-default option and your software doesn't work, the obvious
answer is "Don't Do That Then".

Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-09-2010, 04:55 AM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default llvm case study: yum's handling of newly-converted noarch subpackages

On 06/09/2010 10:23 AM, Seth Vidal wrote:
> a suggestion.
>
> Since neither of you speak for any of the yum developers, please stop
> doing so either implicitly or explicitly.

I am not speaking for you any yum developers implicitly or explicitly.
I am expressing a view point. You can as a yum developer agree or
disagree with it. That is certainly more useful than this message.

Rahul


--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 06-09-2010, 05:01 AM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default llvm case study: yum's handling of newly-converted noarch subpackages

On Wednesday 09 June 2010, Seth Vidal wrote:
> Since neither of you speak for any of the yum developers, please stop
> doing so either implicitly or explicitly.

I'm not speaking for any of the yum developers. I'm just suggesting we,
Fedora, stop caring about bizarre yum options which we don't default to for
good reasons.

The advice I have for you yum developers is to drop that broken "install all
packages as multilib" option entirely. I always considered that behavior a bug
in yum, I'm glad it has been made optional and even more glad that Fedora
stopped defaulting to it in F9, but I don't understand why it's even still
supported at all. Packages should only be installed as multilib when required
as a dependency or when explicitly requested for that particular package by
the user.

Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 03:13 PM.

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