Re: yum: rpm_check_debug vs. depsolve: rhnlib needs python(abi) = 2.4

[Jon Ciesla]

>  On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 11:39:31AM -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
> >
> > I expect that we(http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/LiveUpgrade) might
> > want to find a way to deal with this, maybe not with Obsoletes, but
> > something inthe f-r.rpm %postinstall or something.  Maybe not.
>
>  It seems to me that if a package blocks something in updates
>  and is an "orphan" (both conditions tested in one time or another)
>  then it should be marked for a removal; otherwise I would be very
>  careful about doing anything hasty.  Likely packages deleted
>  that way should be marked quite prominently in logs. 
Agreed.  I wouldn't want to pull something off someone's system just
because Fedora stopped carrying it, if the user finds it useful.  In the
case of an abi dep, like rhnlib and python, yum sees that the upgrade will
break rhnlib, so won't do it with rhnlib there, which is The Right Thing
To Do.  Maybe we just leave all as it is, and add a list of dead packages
to the release notes for each release, so you know what to pull beforehand
if you want.

>     Michal
>  

-- 
novus ordo absurdum

yum: rpm_check_debug vs. depsolve: rhnlib needs python(abi) = 2.4

[Jef Spaleta]

On 11/1/07, Jon Ciesla <limb(a)jcomserv.net&gt; wrote:
>  Agreed.  I wouldn't want to pull something off someone's
> system just
>  because Fedora stopped carrying it, if the user finds it useful.  In the
>  case of an abi dep, like rhnlib and python, yum sees that the upgrade will
>  break rhnlib, so won't do it with rhnlib there, which is The Right Thing
>  To Do.  Maybe we just leave all as it is, and add a list of dead packages
>  to the release notes for each release, so you know what to pull beforehand
>  if you want. 
We need to carry around information as to what the Fedora "repository"
has stopped carrying as an optional repository metadata. Once we do
that, we can teach clientside tools to parse such repository level
data and then local admins can decide how to deal with packages which
are no longer being provided.

We could use this sort of metadata to inform users about orphaned as
well as deprecated packages on a repository by repository basis.

-jef

yum: rpm_check_debug vs. depsolve: rhnlib needs python(abi) = 2.4

[Jon Ciesla]

Posting Jeff's +1 Insightful back to the list I inadvetently hijacked the
topic from. :)

>  On 11/1/07, Jon Ciesla <limb(a)jcomserv.net&gt; wrote:
> > Agreed.  I wouldn't want to pull something off someone's system just
> > because Fedora stopped carrying it, if the user finds it useful.  In the
> > case of an abi dep, like rhnlib and python, yum sees that the upgrade
> > will
> > break rhnlib, so won't do it with rhnlib there, which is The Right Thing
> > To Do.  Maybe we just leave all as it is, and add a list of dead
> > packages
> > to the release notes for each release, so you know what to pull
> > beforehand
> > if you want.
>
>  We need to carry around information as to what the Fedora "repository"
>  has stopped carrying as an optional repository metadata. Once we do
>  that, we can teach clientside tools to parse such repository level
>  data and then local admins can decide how to deal with packages which
>  are no longer being provided.
>
>  We could use this sort of metadata to inform users about orphaned as
>  well as deprecated packages on a repository by repository basis.
>
>  -jef
>  

-- 
novus ordo absurdum

yum: rpm_check_debug vs. depsolve: rhnlib needs python(abi) = 2.4

[Steve Grubb]

On Thursday 01 November 2007 02:44:51 pm Jeff Spaleta wrote:
>  We need to carry around information as to what the Fedora
> "repository"
>  has stopped carrying as an optional repository metadata. Once we do
>  that, we can teach clientside tools to parse such repository level
>  data and then local admins can decide how to deal with packages which
>  are no longer being provided. 
This would be really handy for those of us that run rawhide as the first 
indication that something is no longer shipped is a failed upgrade of a 
library that it uses. At that point you don't know if a recompiled package is 
on the way or not.

-Steve

yum: rpm_check_debug vs. depsolve: rhnlib needs python(abi) = 2.4

[Jef Spaleta]

On 11/1/07, Steve Grubb <sgrubb(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  This would be really handy for those of us that run rawhide as the
> first
>  indication that something is no longer shipped is a failed upgrade of a
>  library that it uses. At that point you don't know if a recompiled package is
>  on the way or not. 
I'm hopefully we can have the metadata in place before F9.

https://hosted.fedoraproject.org/projects/packagedb/ticket/57

The harder part is going to be teaching the clientside tools how to
parse it and use it in useful ways.

-jef