Greetings all;
I just ran smart pkg mgr on my FC5 lappy, and any cups I click on claims it will downgrade 3 packages if I exec it. What the heck? Yumex doesn't seem to have that problem.
Gene Heskett wrote:
Greetings all;
I just ran smart pkg mgr on my FC5 lappy, and any cups I click on claims it will downgrade 3 packages if I exec it. What the heck? Yumex doesn't seem to have that problem.
Smart uses a different dependency resolving algorithm that offers to downgrade packages automatically. RPM is not designed for downgrades and Yum, Yumex, Pirut etc dont support this. Whether this is a advantage or not is debatable.
Rahul
On Saturday 30 September 2006 15:44, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Gene Heskett wrote:
Greetings all;
I just ran smart pkg mgr on my FC5 lappy, and any cups I click on claims it will downgrade 3 packages if I exec it. What the heck? Yumex doesn't seem to have that problem.
Smart uses a different dependency resolving algorithm that offers to downgrade packages automatically. RPM is not designed for downgrades and Yum, Yumex, Pirut etc dont support this. Whether this is a advantage or not is debatable.
Rahul
My point being that smart didn't show me a cups upgrade at all, only downgrades, while yumex just got done with 168 megs of upgrades w/o any apparent problems. Including cups and friends from whatever to 1.1.2-4.1-1.
On Sat September 30 2006 3:57 pm, Gene Heskett wrote:
My point being that smart didn't show me a cups upgrade at all, only downgrades, while yumex just got done with 168 megs of upgrades w/o any apparent problems. Including cups and friends from whatever to 1.1.2-4.1-1.
I don't usually accept the downgrades when they're offered, but, I have found those situations useful for other reasons. I'd still bet some other package was being modified that could only work by reverting your cups, and it gave you that choice. As to comparing to Yum, it's almost surely the case that Yum did not hit the same mirrors as Smart, and even if it did, it did so at a different point in time. I have found plenty of weirdness with yum as well, but my general view now is wait - 90% or more of issues that come up during updating will be fixed by waiting a while.
On 9/30/06, Claude Jones claude_jones@levitjames.com wrote:
On Sat September 30 2006 3:57 pm, Gene Heskett wrote:
My point being that smart didn't show me a cups upgrade at all, only downgrades, while yumex just got done with 168 megs of upgrades w/o any apparent problems. Including cups and friends from whatever to 1.1.2-4.1-1.
I don't usually accept the downgrades when they're offered, but, I have found those situations useful for other reasons. I'd still bet some other package was being modified that could only work by reverting your cups, and it gave you that choice. As to comparing to Yum, it's almost surely the case that Yum did not hit the same mirrors as Smart, and even if it did, it did so at a different point in time. I have found plenty of weirdness with yum as well, but my general view now is wait - 90% or more of issues that come up during updating will be fixed by waiting a while. -- Claude Jones Brunswick, Md, USA
This problem normally occurs when the repositories for smart are not the same as those set up for yum.
On Saturday 30 September 2006 18:38, Kam Leo wrote:
I don't usually accept the downgrades when they're offered, but, I have found those situations useful for other reasons. I'd still bet some other package was being modified that could only work by reverting your cups, and it gave you that choice. As to comparing to Yum, it's almost surely the case that Yum did not hit the same mirrors as Smart, and even if it did, it did so at a different point in time. I have found plenty of weirdness with yum as well, but my general view now is wait - 90% or more of issues that come up during updating will be fixed by waiting a while.
This problem normally occurs when the repositories for smart are not the same as those set up for yum.
I run Smart on all my FC5 boxes, and Yumex as well. They are configured the same, though I haven't bothered to enter all the mirrors in Smart that are looked up by Yumex - it's one area where Smart is a bit cumbersome, so I haven't bothered. So, the repos are exactly the same on my machines for both package managers, but the Yumex configuration has more mirrors to try.
On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 01:14:35AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Gene Heskett wrote:
I just ran smart pkg mgr on my FC5 lappy, and any cups I click on claims it will downgrade 3 packages if I exec it. What the heck? Yumex doesn't seem to have that problem.
Are you perhaps clicking on old packages? If you have foo-1.2.3 and foo-devel-1.2.3 installed and you click on foo-devel-1.0.0 it will try to downgrade at least two packages, since you asked smart to do so more or less explicitly.
Smart uses a different dependency resolving algorithm that offers to downgrade packages automatically. RPM is not designed for downgrades
One of the core features of rpm from the very beginning was to downgrades and uninstalls so the user is able to revert from a bad package. So rpm does indeed support downgrades by design. It does have a safety pin installed in that you need to use --oldpackage so novice users don't accidentially downgrade stuff while thinking they are upgrading it.
The downgrading offer should be investigated. Since the repo is not counting on package managers downgrading stuff, but a depsolver still believes this is neccessary, either the depsolver made a bogus calculation, or there is an issue in the repo. Both are worthwhile to understand and fix, so the plea to the original poster to explicitely post the output of smart.
and Yum, Yumex, Pirut etc dont support this. Whether this is a advantage or not is debatable.
Axel Thimm wrote:
On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 01:14:35AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Gene Heskett wrote:
I just ran smart pkg mgr on my FC5 lappy, and any cups I click on claims it will downgrade 3 packages if I exec it. What the heck? Yumex doesn't seem to have that problem.
Are you perhaps clicking on old packages? If you have foo-1.2.3 and foo-devel-1.2.3 installed and you click on foo-devel-1.0.0 it will try to downgrade at least two packages, since you asked smart to do so more or less explicitly.
Smart uses a different dependency resolving algorithm that offers to downgrade packages automatically. RPM is not designed for downgrades
One of the core features of rpm from the very beginning was to downgrades and uninstalls so the user is able to revert from a bad package. So rpm does indeed support downgrades by design. It does have a safety pin installed in that you need to use --oldpackage so novice users don't accidentially downgrade stuff while thinking they are upgrading it.
Except that there is no proper way to revert back changes that is done through install scripts or triggers and what not. There is also the thing that QA is never done on downgrades.
Rahul
On Sunday 01 October 2006 02:01, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Except that there is no proper way to revert back changes that is done through install scripts or triggers and what not. There is also the thing that QA is never done on downgrades.
Good points. It's the reason I almost never accept downgrades suggested by Smart, except when I'm trying to get around some dependency issue, and intend to reinstall the current packages immediately after - I have done it on one or two other occasions, but for very special circumstances. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, Smart always gives you an approval window where it lists exactly what it intends to do before proceeding, and there's a cancel button.
On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 02:12:07AM -0400, Claude Jones wrote:
Good points. It's the reason I almost never accept downgrades suggested by Smart, except when I'm trying to get around some dependency issue, and intend to reinstall the current packages immediately after - I have done it on one or two other occasions, but for very special circumstances. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, Smart always gives you an approval window where it lists exactly what it intends to do before proceeding, and there's a cancel button.
Claude, for a meaningful discussion on this subject you should post what exactly smart is trying to do, best with --explain. Otherwise we're hunting myths and noone is served by this, it just creates hearsay arguments that some people like the software and others don't. W/o details it cannot be analysed.
On Sunday 01 October 2006 05:11, Axel Thimm wrote:
Claude, for a meaningful discussion on this subject you should post what exactly smart is trying to do, best with --explain. Otherwise we're hunting myths and noone is served by this, it just creates hearsay arguments that some people like the software and others don't. W/o details it cannot be analysed.
Yes, you're right. Nor, as stated previously, was it my intention to become a proselytizer for Smart. My memory isn't good enough to remember details about updates that happenned some weeks or months ago, so I'll say nothing further on the matter.
On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 11:31:15AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
RPM is not designed for downgrades
One of the core features of rpm from the very beginning was to downgrades and uninstalls so the user is able to revert from a bad package. So rpm does indeed support downgrades by design.
Except that there is no proper way to revert back changes that is done through install scripts or triggers and what not. There is also the thing that QA is never done on downgrades.
Packages can be broken, of course, and any package installing itself in an inrevocable way in scriplets that isn't undone by %*un scripts is usually broken irrespective of downgrade or upgrades. You can also have broken packages breaking upgrade paths, and we have a large list of such existing examples.
In short broken packages don't indicate any (missing) abilities in rpm itself. Otherwise for each feature of rpm we could find a broken package and we'd conclude that rpm is designed for nothing. ;)
On Sun, 2006-10-01 at 11:31 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Axel Thimm wrote:
On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 01:14:35AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Gene Heskett wrote:
I just ran smart pkg mgr on my FC5 lappy, and any cups I click on claims it will downgrade 3 packages if I exec it. What the heck? Yumex doesn't seem to have that problem.
Are you perhaps clicking on old packages? If you have foo-1.2.3 and foo-devel-1.2.3 installed and you click on foo-devel-1.0.0 it will try to downgrade at least two packages, since you asked smart to do so more or less explicitly.
Smart uses a different dependency resolving algorithm that offers to downgrade packages automatically. RPM is not designed for downgrades
One of the core features of rpm from the very beginning was to downgrades and uninstalls so the user is able to revert from a bad package. So rpm does indeed support downgrades by design. It does have a safety pin installed in that you need to use --oldpackage so novice users don't accidentially downgrade stuff while thinking they are upgrading it.
Except that there is no proper way to revert back changes that is done through install scripts or triggers and what not. There is also the thing that QA is never done on downgrades.
True, but ... the classical situation when apt/smart try to downgrade is resolving broken package deps inside of an installed system. apt and smart diagnose them and try to resolve them (by downgrading), yum doesn't diagnose these problems and lets users believe "everything is OK", while it actually isn't.
I.e. the fact yum doesn't complain, doesn't mean it is right.
Ralf
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
True, but ... the classical situation when apt/smart try to downgrade is resolving broken package deps inside of an installed system. apt and smart diagnose them and try to resolve them (by downgrading), yum doesn't diagnose these problems and lets users believe "everything is OK", while it actually isn't.
I.e. the fact yum doesn't complain, doesn't mean it is right.
I have run into problems where apt tries to fix the repository issues and fails and doesnt let me perform other operations like updating a package which is completely unrelated to repo breakages.
I rather run a separate program or enable a different switch to debug and fix unrelated repository issues for this reason. Yum would however complain if you have a unresolved dependency in the package you are trying to install which serves my purpose. I dont need it to perform a general repository health check everytime I try to do something with in any package in the repository. That sort of thing can be a plugin IMO.
Rahul
On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 03:25:30PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
True, but ... the classical situation when apt/smart try to downgrade is resolving broken package deps inside of an installed system. apt and smart diagnose them and try to resolve them (by downgrading), yum doesn't diagnose these problems and lets users believe "everything is OK", while it actually isn't.
I.e. the fact yum doesn't complain, doesn't mean it is right.
I have run into problems where apt tries to fix the repository issues and fails and doesnt let me perform other operations like updating a package which is completely unrelated to repo breakages.
That's true, apt always checks the global health of your system and bails out if it detects something broken to alert the user. That is a debatable policy (there is no technical reason to do so) mostly because it doesn't allow you to use apt anymore to fix the breakage.
smart goes a golden middle way. You can ask smart to do a global check and also to fix everything that is broken, but the usual checks performed by upgrade/install operation do are context-local, e.g. only the packages and package relations directly affected by the current operation are checked (and fixed). This includes both broken dependencies in the system already as well as broken repos (e.g. half mirrored repos).
I think smart offers the best of both worlds, local checking and local fixing of broken dependencies and *optional* global checking & dependency fixing.
On Sun, 2006-10-01 at 12:35 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 03:25:30PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
True, but ... the classical situation when apt/smart try to downgrade is resolving broken package deps inside of an installed system. apt and smart diagnose them and try to resolve them (by downgrading), yum doesn't diagnose these problems and lets users believe "everything is OK", while it actually isn't.
I.e. the fact yum doesn't complain, doesn't mean it is right.
I have run into problems where apt tries to fix the repository issues and fails and doesnt let me perform other operations like updating a package which is completely unrelated to repo breakages.
That's true, apt always checks the global health of your system and bails out if it detects something broken to alert the user. That is a debatable policy (there is no technical reason to do so) mostly because it doesn't allow you to use apt anymore to fix the breakage.
I yum installed smart and now when I try to invoke it I get this.. [root@iam ~]# smart --gui error: Interface 'gtk' not available
[root@iam ~]#
Seems a dependency wasn't considered and I have everything gtk installed known to yum... via yum install gtk* ..about 40 megs worth and I still get this error. Ric
On 10/1/06, Ric Moore wayward4now@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, 2006-10-01 at 12:35 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 03:25:30PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
True, but ... the classical situation when apt/smart try to downgrade is resolving broken package deps inside of an installed system. apt and smart diagnose them and try to resolve them (by downgrading), yum doesn't diagnose these problems and lets users believe "everything is OK", while it actually isn't.
I.e. the fact yum doesn't complain, doesn't mean it is right.
I have run into problems where apt tries to fix the repository issues and fails and doesnt let me perform other operations like updating a package which is completely unrelated to repo breakages.
That's true, apt always checks the global health of your system and bails out if it detects something broken to alert the user. That is a debatable policy (there is no technical reason to do so) mostly because it doesn't allow you to use apt anymore to fix the breakage.
I yum installed smart and now when I try to invoke it I get this.. [root@iam ~]# smart --gui error: Interface 'gtk' not available
[root@iam ~]#
Seems a dependency wasn't considered and I have everything gtk installed known to yum... via yum install gtk* ..about 40 megs worth and I still get this error. Ric
Extras has four packages (smart, smart-update, smart-gui, and ksmarttray) available for downloading. You need to install the first three to get full capabilities.
On Sun, 2006-10-01 at 17:24 -0800, Kam Leo wrote:
root@iam ~]#
Seems a dependency wasn't considered and I have everything gtk installed known to yum... via yum install gtk* ..about 40 megs worth and I still get this error. Ric
Extras has four packages (smart, smart-update, smart-gui, and ksmarttray) available for downloading. You need to install the first three to get full capabilities.
THAT was it! Thank you? I still wonder why those packages aren't dependent on each other to be yummyfied. Thanks a million, Ric
On Sun October 1 2006 11:01 pm, Ric Moore wrote:
THAT was it! Thank you? I still wonder why those packages aren't dependent on each other to be yummyfied. Thanks a million, Ric
Because you can run Smart from the command line if you choose to not use the GUI. Smart-update is an additional capability for the baseline program. So, technically, neither is a dependency. My guess is you tried to run smart as a GUI without having the package installed, and you got a cryptic error...
On Mon, 2006-10-02 at 00:00 -0400, Claude Jones wrote:
On Sun October 1 2006 11:01 pm, Ric Moore wrote:
THAT was it! Thank you? I still wonder why those packages aren't dependent on each other to be yummyfied. Thanks a million, Ric
Because you can run Smart from the command line if you choose to not use the GUI. Smart-update is an additional capability for the baseline program. So, technically, neither is a dependency. My guess is you tried to run smart as a GUI without having the package installed, and you got a cryptic error...
That has to be it, it works just fine now. Gonna read the FAQ before I let it do anything though! Ric
On Sunday 01 October 2006 21:24, Kam Leo wrote:
On 10/1/06, Ric Moore wayward4now@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, 2006-10-01 at 12:35 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 03:25:30PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
True, but ... the classical situation when apt/smart try to downgrade is resolving broken package deps inside of an installed system. apt and smart diagnose them and try to resolve them (by downgrading), yum doesn't diagnose these problems and lets users believe "everything is OK", while it actually isn't.
I.e. the fact yum doesn't complain, doesn't mean it is right.
I have run into problems where apt tries to fix the repository issues and fails and doesnt let me perform other operations like updating a package which is completely unrelated to repo breakages.
That's true, apt always checks the global health of your system and bails out if it detects something broken to alert the user. That is a debatable policy (there is no technical reason to do so) mostly because it doesn't allow you to use apt anymore to fix the breakage.
I yum installed smart and now when I try to invoke it I get this.. [root@iam ~]# smart --gui error: Interface 'gtk' not available
[root@iam ~]#
Seems a dependency wasn't considered and I have everything gtk installed known to yum... via yum install gtk* ..about 40 megs worth and I still get this error. Ric
Extras has four packages (smart, smart-update, smart-gui, and ksmarttray) available for downloading. You need to install the first three to get full capabilities.
I cannot see ksmarttray in extras.
On Sun October 1 2006 11:51 pm, Gene Heskett wrote:
I cannot see ksmarttray in extras.
It's there. I just installed it. Trying to find some documentation right now. You guys that are experimenting with it, I would highly suggest you take ten minutes and read the smartpm faq which is here: http://labix.org/smart/faq Also, there's a script that's installed by the Livna repo rpm, which will take care of configuring Livna for Smart if you run it. See the instrux at the Livna site. That Smart faq will show you how to configure all your other repos. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, Smart is a bit more tedious to configure than yum, especially if you want to create a mirror list, but the faq explains it all. One nice thing is, since you're inputting the mirrors by hand, you can choose a smaller selection than the ones in the mirror lists, and pick sites that are closest to you geographically. There's also a Fedora Smart configuration package, which will set up all the Fedora repos for you. The first time you open Smart, if you've not done so, it will ask you whether to include your current yum repos, one by one, in its configuration - make sure you say yes to all those dialogs. It's far easier to delete them later if you get a felt need, than to create them fresh. Once you get it all up, make sure you go to menu item Edit/Channels and make sure only the repos you want to use are checked!
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 12:20:57AM -0400, Claude Jones wrote:
That Smart faq will show you how to configure all your other repos. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, Smart is a bit more tedious to configure than yum, especially if you want to create a mirror list, but the faq explains it all.
Apart from mirrors you will find definitions for smart channels for all repos out there in the *-package-config packages at http://atrpms.net/name/3rd-party-package-config/
Just do a yum smart-tray and you should get it. I got it last night just fine ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gene Heskett" gene.heskett@verizon.net To: "For users of Fedora Core releases" fedora-list@redhat.com Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 10:51 PM Subject: Re: smart package mgr question?
On Sunday 01 October 2006 21:24, Kam Leo wrote:
On 10/1/06, Ric Moore wayward4now@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, 2006-10-01 at 12:35 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 03:25:30PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
True, but ... the classical situation when apt/smart try to downgrade is resolving broken package deps inside of an installed system. apt and smart diagnose them and try to resolve them (by downgrading), yum doesn't diagnose these problems and lets users believe "everything is OK", while it actually isn't.
I.e. the fact yum doesn't complain, doesn't mean it is right.
I have run into problems where apt tries to fix the repository issues and fails and doesnt let me perform other operations like updating a package which is completely unrelated to repo breakages.
That's true, apt always checks the global health of your system and bails out if it detects something broken to alert the user. That is a debatable policy (there is no technical reason to do so) mostly because it doesn't allow you to use apt anymore to fix the breakage.
I yum installed smart and now when I try to invoke it I get this.. [root@iam ~]# smart --gui error: Interface 'gtk' not available
[root@iam ~]#
Seems a dependency wasn't considered and I have everything gtk installed known to yum... via yum install gtk* ..about 40 megs worth and I still get this error. Ric
Extras has four packages (smart, smart-update, smart-gui, and ksmarttray) available for downloading. You need to install the first three to get full capabilities.
I cannot see ksmarttray in extras.
Just do a yum smart-tray and you should get it. I got it last night just fine --
Cheers, Gene "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above message by Gene Heskett are: Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
On Monday 02 October 2006 11:09, Scott Berry wrote:
Just do a yum smart-tray and you should get it. I got it last night just fine
I tried "yum install smart-tray" just now and got: No Match for argument: smart-tray Nothing to do
----- Original Message ----- From: "Gene Heskett" gene.heskett@verizon.net To: "For users of Fedora Core releases" fedora-list@redhat.com Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 10:51 PM Subject: Re: smart package mgr question?
On Sunday 01 October 2006 21:24, Kam Leo wrote:
On 10/1/06, Ric Moore wayward4now@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, 2006-10-01 at 12:35 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 03:25:30PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote: >True, but ... the classical situation when apt/smart try to > downgrade is resolving broken package deps inside of an > installed system. apt and smart diagnose them and try to > resolve them (by downgrading), yum doesn't diagnose these > problems and lets users believe "everything is OK", while it > actually isn't. > >I.e. the fact yum doesn't complain, doesn't mean it is right.
I have run into problems where apt tries to fix the repository issues and fails and doesnt let me perform other operations like updating a package which is completely unrelated to repo breakages.
That's true, apt always checks the global health of your system and bails out if it detects something broken to alert the user. That is a debatable policy (there is no technical reason to do so) mostly because it doesn't allow you to use apt anymore to fix the breakage.
I yum installed smart and now when I try to invoke it I get this.. [root@iam ~]# smart --gui error: Interface 'gtk' not available
[root@iam ~]#
Seems a dependency wasn't considered and I have everything gtk installed known to yum... via yum install gtk* ..about 40 megs worth and I still get this error. Ric
Extras has four packages (smart, smart-update, smart-gui, and ksmarttray) available for downloading. You need to install the first three to get full capabilities.
I cannot see ksmarttray in extras.
Just do a yum smart-tray and you should get it. I got it last night just fine --
Cheers, Gene "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above message by Gene Heskett are: Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 05:24:35PM -0800, Kam Leo wrote:
On 10/1/06, Ric Moore wayward4now@gmail.com wrote:
I yum installed smart and now when I try to invoke it I get this.. [root@iam ~]# smart --gui error: Interface 'gtk' not available
[root@iam ~]#
Seems a dependency wasn't considered and I have everything gtk installed known to yum... via yum install gtk* ..about 40 megs worth and I still get this error. Ric
Extras has four packages (smart, smart-update, smart-gui, and ksmarttray) available for downloading. You need to install the first three to get full capabilities.
You don't reall need smart-update if you don't use ksmarttray. smart-update is for allowing non-root to run "smart update" (freshen up the package lists), e.g. is only good for notification.
Perhaps that subpackage should merge into ksmarttray proper.
Axel Thimm wrote:
On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 01:14:35AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Smart uses a different dependency resolving algorithm that offers to downgrade packages automatically. RPM is not designed for downgrades
One of the core features of rpm from the very beginning was to downgrades and uninstalls so the user is able to revert from a bad package.
I didnt see any RPM design documents mention downgrades so I am curious where you got this impression from. A few examples,
http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/drafts/rpm-guide-en/ch01s02.html http://www.rpm.org/max-rpm/s1-intro-to-rpm-rpm-design-goals.html
While there are command line arguments that would let RPM perform downgrades and even ignore dependencies, I wouldnt claim it was designed for such things.
Rahul
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 08:14:28PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Axel Thimm wrote:
On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 01:14:35AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: RPM is not designed for downgrades
One of the core features of rpm from the very beginning was to downgrades and uninstalls so the user is able to revert from a bad package.
I didnt see any RPM design documents
Cool, you found rpm design documents?
mention downgrades so I am curious where you got this impression from. A few examples,
http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/drafts/rpm-guide-en/ch01s02.html http://www.rpm.org/max-rpm/s1-intro-to-rpm-rpm-design-goals.html
While there are command line arguments that would let RPM perform downgrades and even ignore dependencies, I wouldnt claim it was designed for such things.
Rahul, I don't see what you're trying to get at. It is known that both documents have been written after the fact and that maximum rpm contains many inaccuracies even though it was the sole documentation available for users for several years. Still even maximum rpm has this to say about downgrades (as you would had found yourself with a little more research):
"With RPM, there's no need to name the programs with a version-specific name, as RPM can easily upgrade to a new version and even downgrade back, if the new version doesn't work as well."
But the best and most accurate source is to just grep through rpm's source for "downgrade", or ask someone else from the early days to confirm what I've stated if you don't trust me. redhat.com's bugzilla and the rpm user and devel lists have also references to downgrade support both in rpm mechanics and explicit packages. Also ask yourself the question: What good would the (now also ancient) repackage support be if downgrades were not part of the design? So downgrade support is at least as old as repackaging support, but in fact is even older, call it pre-historic if you like. ;)
Anyway it remains a fact that rpm properly handles downgrades just the same as upgrades, and that is not by coincidence, but by (very early) design.
Furthermore it's also a fact that if a Red Hat/Fedora package is not downgradable it is considered a bug. Special cases like non-downgradablity due to change of semantics (e.g. downgrading the FC5 kernel to RH7.3's) excluded. Otherwise you would lose an important aspect of packaging: Being able to revert a change.
Axel Thimm wrote:
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 08:14:28PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Axel Thimm wrote:
On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 01:14:35AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: RPM is not designed for downgrades
One of the core features of rpm from the very beginning was to downgrades and uninstalls so the user is able to revert from a bad package.
I didnt see any RPM design documents
Cool, you found rpm design documents?
mention downgrades so I am curious where you got this impression from. A few examples,
http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/drafts/rpm-guide-en/ch01s02.html http://www.rpm.org/max-rpm/s1-intro-to-rpm-rpm-design-goals.html
While there are command line arguments that would let RPM perform downgrades and even ignore dependencies, I wouldnt claim it was designed for such things.
Rahul, I don't see what you're trying to get at. It is known that both documents have been written after the fact and that maximum rpm contains many inaccuracies even though it was the sole documentation available for users for several years.
What am I pointing out is that what functionality RPM offers is different from what is being designed for. Example: RPM's ability to ignore dependencies. I never heard any RPM developer describe rpm's ability to do downgrades as part of its design (quite the opposite) nor did I see it being described as such in any RPM guides.
Furthermore it's also a fact that if a Red Hat/Fedora package is not downgradable it is considered a bug.
Sure but there is no QA being done on this and has higher chances of bugs than upgrades. Rollback is much more harder to implement correctly than upgrades. So I would advise caution when doing either. I am out.
Rahul
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 09:37:33PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Axel Thimm wrote:
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 08:14:28PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Axel Thimm wrote:
On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 01:14:35AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: RPM is not designed for downgrades
One of the core features of rpm from the very beginning was to downgrades and uninstalls so the user is able to revert from a bad package.
What am I pointing out is that what functionality RPM offers is different from what is being designed for.
It was designed for allowing downgrades and it has this functionality. So there is no such difference for the topic discussed.
I never heard any RPM developer describe rpm's ability to do downgrades as part of its design (quite the opposite) nor did I see it being described as such in any RPM guides.
I just gave you a quote out of the "RPM guides" that explicitely does so that you trimmed in your reply. Didn't you read it?
And wrt rpm developers stating that rpm does not support downgrades - since you don't want to check the archives/bugzilla, I challenge you to state that on rpm user/devel list. I'm sure you'll read some strong rectifying answers on that. ;)
Axel Thimm wrote:
What am I pointing out is that what functionality RPM offers is different from what is being designed for.
It was designed for allowing downgrades and it has this functionality. So there is no such difference for the topic discussed.
There is where we disagree.
I never heard any RPM developer describe rpm's ability to do downgrades as part of its design (quite the opposite) nor did I see it being described as such in any RPM guides.
I just gave you a quote out of the "RPM guides" that explicitely does so that you trimmed in your reply. Didn't you read it?
Yes. I did but its not described anywhere as a design goal. We already know that RPM has this feature. So pointing out that to me makes no difference.
And wrt rpm developers stating that rpm does not support downgrades - since you don't want to check the archives/bugzilla, I challenge you to state that on rpm user/devel list. I'm sure you'll read some strong rectifying answers on that. ;)
I have talked to rpm people on IRC before when rpm rollbacks got screwed up so I dont feel the need to go witch hunting now again on this. When we decide who the upstream is next, I will make sure to ask them about downgrades ;-). Anyway, enough of this now.
Rahul
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 10:03:49PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
There is where we disagree.
Let's agree on disagreeing. I don't think I will be able to change your mind, and even less will you be able to do so with mine ;)
Yes. I did but its not described anywhere as a design goal. We already know that RPM has this feature. [...] When we decide who the upstream is next, I will make sure to ask them about downgrades
Just to point out a contradiction: We are nitpicking about whether rpm had downgrades planned in from the beginning or whether that support just currently exist now w/o having been planned - any future maintainer/developer of rpm will not be the right addressee about discussing design goals of rpm of the *past* simply due to time-causal reasons.
BTW the whole question is off-topic with the original post that was about whether smart's downgrades are good or bad resulting to your statement on rpm not being designed for downgrades - but at least you do seem to agree by now that the current state of rpm does properly support downgrading.
Enough nitpicking, I agree to disagree, and hopefully you too. :)
On Sat September 30 2006 3:17 pm, Gene Heskett wrote:
Greetings all;
I just ran smart pkg mgr on my FC5 lappy, and any cups I click on claims it will downgrade 3 packages if I exec it. What the heck? Yumex doesn't seem to have that problem.
SMART is doing what it's supposed to do. It offers an upgradeable file, but, because all the mirrors haven't caught up, or because someone forgot to update a spec file, or because I forgot to take my meds this am, SMART is warning you that it will have to downgrade two other packages in order to upgrade the first - sometimes, that can be very useful. Yumex can't get that sophisticated, and just returns a failed dependencies error in the same situation.
now - 'bout those meds.....
On Saturday 30 September 2006 15:45, Claude Jones wrote:
On Sat September 30 2006 3:17 pm, Gene Heskett wrote:
Greetings all;
I just ran smart pkg mgr on my FC5 lappy, and any cups I click on claims it will downgrade 3 packages if I exec it. What the heck? Yumex doesn't seem to have that problem.
SMART is doing what it's supposed to do. It offers an upgradeable file, but, because all the mirrors haven't caught up, or because someone forgot to update a spec file, or because I forgot to take my meds this am, SMART is warning you that it will have to downgrade two other packages in order to upgrade the first - sometimes, that can be very useful. Yumex can't get that sophisticated, and just returns a failed dependencies error in the same situation.
Well, yumex is doing it, 168 megs worth of updates, seemingly without developing a tummy ache.
now - 'bout those meds.....
Yeah. Can I recommend Noni Juice?
-- Claude Jones Brunswick, Md, USA
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 15:44:12 -0400 Gene Heskett gene.heskett@verizon.net wrote:
On Saturday 30 September 2006 15:45, Claude Jones wrote:
On Sat September 30 2006 3:17 pm, Gene Heskett wrote:
Greetings all;
I just ran smart pkg mgr on my FC5 lappy, and any cups I click on claims it will downgrade 3 packages if I exec it. What the heck? Yumex doesn't seem to have that problem.
SMART is doing what it's supposed to do. It offers an upgradeable file, but, because all the mirrors haven't caught up, or because someone forgot to update a spec file, or because I forgot to take my meds this am, SMART is warning you that it will have to downgrade two other packages in order to upgrade the first - sometimes, that can be very useful. Yumex can't get that sophisticated, and just returns a failed dependencies error in the same situation.
Well, yumex is doing it, 168 megs worth of updates, seemingly without developing a tummy ache.
now - 'bout those meds.....
Yeah. Can I recommend Noni Juice?
-- Claude Jones Brunswick, Md, USAI
Ran Smart Package Manger once and never again. I had to reload many of the applications I prefer to use after smart package decide to remove them. The worst thing was it decide to force the issue on the gnome/kde debate. Smart Package decide I was not to use gnome removed it and loaded kde for me instead. In the end I had such a mess that the best thing to do was a full reinstal. Norm
On Saturday 30 September 2006 21:46, norm wrote:
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 15:44:12 -0400
Gene Heskett gene.heskett@verizon.net wrote:
On Saturday 30 September 2006 15:45, Claude Jones wrote:
On Sat September 30 2006 3:17 pm, Gene Heskett wrote:
Greetings all;
I just ran smart pkg mgr on my FC5 lappy, and any cups I click on claims it will downgrade 3 packages if I exec it. What the heck? Yumex doesn't seem to have that problem.
SMART is doing what it's supposed to do. It offers an upgradeable file, but, because all the mirrors haven't caught up, or because someone forgot to update a spec file, or because I forgot to take my meds this am, SMART is warning you that it will have to downgrade two other packages in order to upgrade the first - sometimes, that can be very useful. Yumex can't get that sophisticated, and just returns a failed dependencies error in the same situation.
Well, yumex is doing it, 168 megs worth of updates, seemingly without developing a tummy ache.
now - 'bout those meds.....
Yeah. Can I recommend Noni Juice?
-- Claude Jones Brunswick, Md, USAI
Ran Smart Package Manger once and never again. I had to reload many of the applications I prefer to use after smart package decide to remove them. The worst thing was it decide to force the issue on the gnome/kde debate. Smart Package decide I was not to use gnome removed it and loaded kde for me instead. In the end I had such a mess that the best thing to do was a full reinstal. Norm
Humm, now that doesn't sound exactly like a ringing recommendation for whats supposed to be, and is being sold as, the next generation package manager.
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 21:52:55 -0400 Gene Heskett gene.heskett@verizon.net wrote:
On Saturday 30 September 2006 21:46, norm wrote:
Ran Smart Package Manger once and never again. I had to reload many of the applications I prefer to use after smart package decide to remove them. The worst thing was it decide to force the issue on the gnome/kde debate. Smart Package decide I was not to use gnome removed it and loaded kde for me instead. In the end I had such a mess that the best thing to do was a full reinstal. Norm
Humm, now that doesn't sound exactly like a ringing recommendation for whats supposed to be, and is being sold as, the next generation package manager.
I gave it a try because of its billing as the next generation package manager, never again. Smart package manager is not ready for prime time yet.
On Sat, Sep 30, 2006 at 08:29:10PM -0700, norm wrote:
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 21:52:55 -0400 Gene Heskett gene.heskett@verizon.net wrote:
On Saturday 30 September 2006 21:46, norm wrote:
Ran Smart Package Manger once and never again. I had to reload many of the applications I prefer to use after smart package decide to remove them. The worst thing was it decide to force the issue on the gnome/kde debate. Smart Package decide I was not to use gnome removed it and loaded kde for me instead. In the end I had such a mess that the best thing to do was a full reinstal. Norm
Humm, now that doesn't sound exactly like a ringing recommendation for whats supposed to be, and is being sold as, the next generation package manager.
I gave it a try because of its billing as the next generation package manager, never again. Smart package manager is not ready for prime time yet.
Well, let's be fair. As someone already mentioned at the very least smart will have warned the user that this was about to happen and obviously the user was novice/sloppy enough to just let it happen.
And given that smart detects broken dependencies and tries to cure the system by either installing more packages, or if that isn't possible to drop others, I can imagine that the same user had broken the dependencies on his system by various means (one of them could be blindly rpm --nodeps'ing an other half-rawhiding the system). Of course, this is wild guessing, since a report w/o details like "smart like kde better than gnome" is not helpful for anyone.
But smart has a switch called --explain, that can be used to understand why smart chose to do suggest some things. People with broken dependenices are usually surprised to see their sins outlayed in front of them ;)
On Saturday 30 September 2006 21:46, norm wrote:
Ran Smart Package Manger once and never again. I had to reload many of the applications I prefer to use after smart package decide to remove them. The worst thing was it decide to force the issue on the gnome/kde debate. Smart Package decide I was not to use gnome removed it and loaded kde for me instead. In the end I had such a mess that the best thing to do was a full reinstal. Norm
Sorry, but, that wasn't Smart's fault. It may have all sorts of problems, but it always tells you exactly what it's going to do, and gives you a chance to opt out.
In any event, I don't want this to turn into my proselytizing for Smartpm. For me, it's working far better than earlier implementations, and does some things better than Yumex, so I use it. I use Yumex as well - right tool for the job is the criteria...
-
Axel Thimm -
Claude Jones -
Gene Heskett -
Kam Leo -
Norm -
Rahul Sundaram -
Ralf Corsepius -
Ric Moore -
Scott Berry