Weak RPM dependencies which are not automatically re-installed on update

[Florian Weimer]

Is there a form of weak dependency which is installed when available,
but not automatically re-installed on each update?

If all the optional components are back after an update, that means that
it's quite hard to maintain a minimal system installation.

Thanks,
Florian

[Fabio Valentini]

On Tue, Jun 4, 2019, 15:30 Florian Weimer <fweimer(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:

>  Is there a form of weak dependency which is installed when
> available,
>  but not automatically re-installed on each update?
>
>  If all the optional components are back after an update, that means that
>  it's quite hard to maintain a minimal system installation.
>  
The only permanent way to I found to block installation of certain weak
dependencies is to add them to dnf's exclude list ...

Fabio


>  Thanks,
>  Florian
>  _______________________________________________
>  devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
>  List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>  List Archives:
>  https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]
>

[Miro Hrončok]

On 04. 06. 19 15:28, Florian Weimer wrote:
>  Is there a form of weak dependency which is installed when
> available,
>  but not automatically re-installed on each update?
>  
>  If all the optional components are back after an update, that means that
>  it's quite hard to maintain a minimal system installation. 
See also
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1699672

-- 
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: [phone]
IRC: mhroncok

[Neal Gompa]

On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 9:30 AM Florian Weimer <fweimer(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  Is there a form of weak dependency which is installed when available,
>  but not automatically re-installed on each update?
>
>  If all the optional components are back after an update, that means that
>  it's quite hard to maintain a minimal system installation.
>  
This feature is not yet wired up in DNF. We have all the information
we need to make those kinds of decisions, but it currently isn't
accounted for. I discussed this with Daniel Mach at openSUSE
Conference and he's aware that it's possible and some work could be
done to support this depending on demand for the feature.



-- 
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!

[Florian Weimer]

* Neal Gompa:

>  On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 9:30 AM Florian Weimer
> <fweimer(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
> >
> > Is there a form of weak dependency which is installed when available,
> > but not automatically re-installed on each update?
> >
> > If all the optional components are back after an update, that means that
> > it's quite hard to maintain a minimal system installation.
> >
>
>  This feature is not yet wired up in DNF. We have all the information
>  we need to make those kinds of decisions, but it currently isn't
>  accounted for. I discussed this with Daniel Mach at openSUSE
>  Conference and he's aware that it's possible and some work could be
>  done to support this depending on demand for the feature. 
Does it sense to reopen bug 1699672, in light of this development?

Thanks,
Florian

[Adam Williamson]

On Tue, 2019-06-04 at 15:53 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>  * Neal Gompa:
>  
>  > On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 9:30 AM Florian Weimer <fweimer(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  > > Is there a form of weak dependency which is installed when available,
>  > > but not automatically re-installed on each update?
>  > > 
>  > > If all the optional components are back after an update, that means that
>  > > it's quite hard to maintain a minimal system installation.
>  > > 
>  > 
>  > This feature is not yet wired up in DNF. We have all the information
>  > we need to make those kinds of decisions, but it currently isn't
>  > accounted for. I discussed this with Daniel Mach at openSUSE
>  > Conference and he's aware that it's possible and some work could be
>  > done to support this depending on demand for the feature.
>  
>  Does it sense to reopen bug 1699672, in light of this development? 
As a side note, if your goal is "to maintain a minimal system
installation", perhaps what you might want is to be able to configure
dnf to simply *never* install weak (Recommends) or very weak (Suggests)
dependencies. IIRC, this is configurable on SUSE - you can set this as
permanent package manager configuration. I'm not sure if it is in DNF,
but if not, perhaps it could be?
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net

[Fabio Valentini]

On Tue, Jun 4, 2019, 18:03 Adam Williamson <adamwill(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
wrote:

>  On Tue, 2019-06-04 at 15:53 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>  > * Neal Gompa:
>  >
>  > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 9:30 AM Florian Weimer <fweimer(a)redhat.com&gt;
>  wrote:
>  > > > Is there a form of weak dependency which is installed when available,
>  > > > but not automatically re-installed on each update?
>  > > >
>  > > > If all the optional components are back after an update, that means
>  that
>  > > > it's quite hard to maintain a minimal system installation.
>  > > >
>  > >
>  > > This feature is not yet wired up in DNF. We have all the information
>  > > we need to make those kinds of decisions, but it currently isn't
>  > > accounted for. I discussed this with Daniel Mach at openSUSE
>  > > Conference and he's aware that it's possible and some work could be
>  > > done to support this depending on demand for the feature.
>  >
>  > Does it sense to reopen bug 1699672, in light of this development?
>
>  As a side note, if your goal is "to maintain a minimal system
>  installation", perhaps what you might want is to be able to configure
>  dnf to simply *never* install weak (Recommends) or very weak (Suggests)
>  dependencies. IIRC, this is configurable on SUSE - you can set this as
>  permanent package manager configuration. I'm not sure if it is in DNF,
>  but if not, perhaps it could be?
>  
There is:

--setopt=install_weak_deps=False

Fabio

-- 
>  Adam Williamson
>  Fedora QA Community Monkey
>  IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
>  http://www.happyassassin.net
>  _______________________________________________
>  devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
>  List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>  List Archives:
>  https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]
>

[Neal Gompa]

On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 12:06 PM Fabio Valentini <decathorpe(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  On Tue, Jun 4, 2019, 18:03 Adam Williamson <adamwill(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2019-06-04 at 15:53 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > > * Neal Gompa:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 9:30 AM Florian Weimer <fweimer(a)redhat.com&gt;
> wrote:
> > > > > Is there a form of weak dependency which is installed when available,
> > > > > but not automatically re-installed on each update?
> > > > >
> > > > > If all the optional components are back after an update, that means
> that
> > > > > it's quite hard to maintain a minimal system installation.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > This feature is not yet wired up in DNF. We have all the information
> > > > we need to make those kinds of decisions, but it currently isn't
> > > > accounted for. I discussed this with Daniel Mach at openSUSE
> > > > Conference and he's aware that it's possible and some work could
> be
> > > > done to support this depending on demand for the feature.
> > >
> > > Does it sense to reopen bug 1699672, in light of this development?
> >
> > As a side note, if your goal is "to maintain a minimal system
> > installation", perhaps what you might want is to be able to configure
> > dnf to simply *never* install weak (Recommends) or very weak (Suggests)
> > dependencies. IIRC, this is configurable on SUSE - you can set this as
> > permanent package manager configuration. I'm not sure if it is in DNF,
> > but if not, perhaps it could be?
>
>
>  There is:
>
>  --setopt=install_weak_deps=False
>  
The option can also be set in dnf.conf (--setopt= maps to options that
you can set there. :) )



-- 
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!

[Michael Cronenworth]

On 6/4/19 11:27 AM, Neal Gompa wrote:
>  The option can also be set in dnf.conf (--setopt= maps to options
> that
>  you can set there.:)  ) 
This is one option, but it hides them entirely. I would like an option that still 
shows possible weak dependencies without installing them. Example:

--setopt=install_weak_deps=False

and
--setopt=show_weak_deps=True

[Florian Weimer]

* Adam Williamson:

>  As a side note, if your goal is "to maintain a minimal system
>  installation", perhaps what you might want is to be able to configure
>  dnf to simply *never* install weak (Recommends) or very weak (Suggests)
>  dependencies. IIRC, this is configurable on SUSE - you can set this as
>  permanent package manager configuration. I'm not sure if it is in DNF,
>  but if not, perhaps it could be? 
My experience with Debian is that their --no-install-recommends feature
is pretty aggressive, so you often end up manually chasing dependencies
to get the required feature set if you disable the default of installing
weak dependencies.  So it's usually more convenient to install them
automatically, and the remove select parts you don't want.  YMMV, of
course.

Thanks,
Florian

[Adam Williamson]

On Tue, 2019-06-04 at 19:06 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>  * Adam Williamson:
>  
>  > As a side note, if your goal is "to maintain a minimal system
>  > installation", perhaps what you might want is to be able to configure
>  > dnf to simply *never* install weak (Recommends) or very weak (Suggests)
>  > dependencies. IIRC, this is configurable on SUSE - you can set this as
>  > permanent package manager configuration. I'm not sure if it is in DNF,
>  > but if not, perhaps it could be?
>  
>  My experience with Debian is that their --no-install-recommends feature
>  is pretty aggressive, so you often end up manually chasing dependencies
>  to get the required feature set if you disable the default of installing
>  weak dependencies.  So it's usually more convenient to install them
>  automatically, and the remove select parts you don't want.  YMMV, of
>  course. 
Well, I mean, the 'aggression' or otherwise is determined by the
*packages*, not the package manager, surely? It's up to the individual
packager where they draw the line between a Requires: and a
Recommends:, so long as they abide by distro policy, which has a little
to say about this but not a lot.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net

[Kevin Kofler]

Florian Weimer wrote:
>  Does it sense to reopen bug 1699672, in light of this development?
It would also make sense to get the upstream issue:
https://github.com/openSUSE/libsolv/issues/168
reopened.

        Kevin Kofler

[Neal Gompa]

On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 5:36 PM Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at&gt; wrote:
>  Florian Weimer wrote:
>  > Does it sense to reopen bug 1699672, in light of this development?
>
>  It would also make sense to get the upstream issue:
>  https://github.com/openSUSE/libsolv/issues/168
>  reopened.
>  
That will not get reopened, because at the libsolv level, it won't
know these things. We know this in DNF through the SWDB.


-- 
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!

[Miroslav Suchý]

Dne 04. 06. 19 v 15:48 Neal Gompa napsal(a):
>  he's aware that it's possible and some work could be
>  done to support this depending on demand for the feature. 
I do demand this feature :)

I would love to see "dnf mark" command to utilize for this. Something like: dnf
mark soft-remove
I.e. remove the package and does not install it again unless something pull it back using
hard "Requires".

-- 
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Associate Manager ABRT/Copr, #brno, #fedora-buildsys

[Kevin Kofler]

Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>  I would love to see "dnf mark" command to utilize for this.
> Something
>  like: dnf mark soft-remove I.e. remove the package and does not install it
>  again unless something pull it back using hard "Requires". 
Why would we require explicit marking? There is no technical reason to. Just 
implement the logic I described in:
https://github.com/openSUSE/libsolv/issues/168#issuecomment-349738465

Requiring explicit marking would be no better than requiring an explicit 
excludes= in the dnf.conf, i.e., no real improvement over the current broken 
status quo.

        Kevin Kofler

[Kevin Kofler]

Florian Weimer wrote:
>  Is there a form of weak dependency which is installed when
> available,
>  but not automatically re-installed on each update? 
The only workaround for that broken DNF behavior that packagers can in some 
cases use at this time is to use boolean Supplements instead of a simple 
Recommends or Supplements.

E.g., if you have a package foo that has an optional subpackage foo-bar 
making use of a third package bar, it is often reasonable to change:
foo Recommends: foo-bar
or:
foo-bar Supplements: foo
to:
foo-bar Supplements: (foo and bar)

So you will get the subpackage dragged in only if you already have bar and 
so are likely to want foo to work together with it. This is particularly 
useful for desktop integration packages, e.g., the libyui-gtk and libyui-qt 
backends work this way. Another example is plasma-discover-flatpak, which 
Supplements: (plasma-discover and flatpak).

But there are cases where there is no useful package bar to key on like 
that, so this workaround is not universally applicable.

        Kevin Kofler

[Vít Ondruch]

Just FTR:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1278196

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1437884


Vít



Dne 04. 06. 19 v 15:28 Florian Weimer napsal(a):
> Is there a form of weak dependency which is installed when available,
> but not automatically re-installed on each update?
>
> If all the optional components are back after an update, that means that
> it's quite hard to maintain a minimal system installation.
>
> Thanks,
> Florian
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]