Hi,
When trying yum with ATrpms, I find that dependencies get not resolved and this makes yum almost unusable.
Is there a fix ?
Regards, Marcel
On Thu, 2004-12-30 at 18:23 +0100, Marcel Janssen wrote:
Hi,
When trying yum with ATrpms, I find that dependencies get not resolved and this makes yum almost unusable.
Is there a fix ?
Don't take this wrong, but yeah.
rpm -ve --nodeps `rpm -vq | grep AT` (remove all "AT" rpms) yum --disablerepo atrpms update (update)
There's been many an argument over what is, and is not needed to fix that repo, and I've been right where you are...which is why I just don't use it anymore. Google the wars and rumors of wars...but don't bother.
The "AT" there might be lower case, instead...you get the idea.
On Thursday 30 December 2004 18:48, Brian Fahrlander wrote:
There's been many an argument over what is, and is not needed to fixthat repo, and I've been right where you are...which is why I just don't use it anymore. Google the wars and rumors of wars...but don't bother.
I hope not using it is not the fix :-)
Anyways, I've managed to install most things I want from ATrpms. It's just that it does take a lot of time to do this (yum won't do it, so have to look for the dependencies myself). Anyways, compiling myself is also not really an option as it would take even more time so I'll be installing things with yum package by package instead of having yum finding the dependencies. Updates seem to work fine, if that's not the case than I'm back to quare one and will compile everything myself again.
Anyways, this is something that needs to be fixed.
Regards, Marcel
Marcel Janssen said:
Hi,
When trying yum with ATrpms, I find that dependencies get not resolved and this makes yum almost unusable.
Is there a fix ?
There have been reports in the archives that the version of yum in updates-testing works better with file dependencies (which for what ever reason seems to affect ATrpms disproportionately).
-- William Hooper
Brian Fahrlander wrote:
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 10:49:28 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----_=_NextPart_002_01C4EE97.F28CC280"
On Thu, 2004-12-30 at 18:23 +0100, Marcel Janssen wrote:
Hi,
When trying yum with ATrpms, I find that dependencies get not resolved and this makes yum almost unusable.
Is there a fix ?
Don't take this wrong, but yeah. rpm -ve --nodeps `rpm -vq | grep AT` (remove all "AT" rpms) yum --disablerepo atrpms update (update) There's been many an argument over what is, and is not needed to fixthat repo, and I've been right where you are...which is why I just don't use it anymore. Google the wars and rumors of wars...but don't bother.
The "AT" there might be lower case, instead...you get the idea.
I think that this is a scarry suggestion but it may be the only way to go.
Yesterday it was recommended to try smart package manager from http://smartpm.org. RPM at DAG as a beta. May be a bit nicer than the nodeps.
I have removed atrpms from my yum.conf file.
On Thursday 30 December 2004 19:45, Robin Laing wrote:
Yesterday it was recommended to try smart package manager from http://smartpm.org. RPM at DAG as a beta. May be a bit nicer than the nodeps.
This smartpm sounds nice. Anyways, I managed to get all things going from ATrpms. It did take me some time to get things installed though. Hopefully things get fixed soon.
Regards, Marcel
Marcel Janssen wrote:
On Thursday 30 December 2004 19:45, Robin Laing wrote:
Yesterday it was recommended to try smart package manager from http://smartpm.org. RPM at DAG as a beta. May be a bit nicer than the nodeps.
This smartpm sounds nice. Anyways, I managed to get all things going from ATrpms. It did take me some time to get things installed though. Hopefully things get fixed soon.
Regards, Marcel
I installed smartpm yesterday and I can really recommend using it. It solved my dependency-hell with .at-packages (though some apps - 'mattricks' for one - didn't agree).
It also makes it easy to downgrade from .at-packages to more easy-going packages (so to speak).
/Kristian Poul Herkild
On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 11:48:48AM -0600, Brian Fahrlander wrote:
On Thu, 2004-12-30 at 18:23 +0100, Marcel Janssen wrote:
Hi,
When trying yum with ATrpms, I find that dependencies get not resolved and this makes yum almost unusable.
Is there a fix ?
Don't take this wrong, but yeah. rpm -ve --nodeps `rpm -vq | grep AT` (remove all "AT" rpms) yum --disablerepo atrpms update (update) There's been many an argument over what is, and is not needed to fixthat repo,
You won't blame the food if the spoon is broken, or will you? ;)
The packages are fine, yum is having some trouble
http://bugzilla.atrpms.net/show_bug.cgi?id=289 http://bugzilla.atrpms.net/show_bug.cgi?id=290
At least some of the bugs are said to be fixed by the latest released yum. You can also try apt/up2date and if you are willing to use a very promising resolver in beta stadium go smart! :)
and I've been right where you are...which is why I just don't use it anymore. Google the wars and rumors of wars...but don't bother.
You mean the wars against bugs? ;)
The "AT" there might be lower case, instead...you get the idea.
Axel Thimm wrote:
On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 11:48:48AM -0600, Brian Fahrlander wrote:
On Thu, 2004-12-30 at 18:23 +0100, Marcel Janssen wrote:
Hi,
When trying yum with ATrpms, I find that dependencies get not resolved and this makes yum almost unusable.
Is there a fix ?
Don't take this wrong, but yeah.
rpm -ve --nodeps `rpm -vq | grep AT` (remove all "AT" rpms) yum --disablerepo atrpms update (update)
There's been many an argument over what is, and is not needed to fix that repo,
You won't blame the food if the spoon is broken, or will you? ;)
The packages are fine, yum is having some trouble
http://bugzilla.atrpms.net/show_bug.cgi?id=289 http://bugzilla.atrpms.net/show_bug.cgi?id=290
At least some of the bugs are said to be fixed by the latest released yum. You can also try apt/up2date and if you are willing to use a very promising resolver in beta stadium go smart! :)
and I've been right where you are...which is why I just don't use it anymore. Google the wars and rumors of wars...but don't bother.
You mean the wars against bugs? ;)
The "AT" there might be lower case, instead...you get the idea.
Hmm... I'm using apt-get and I've had the same troubles with the .at-packages smartpm did solve it - to a certain extent - but right now I'm downgrading from .at-packages to packages more easy-going on my system. It may be the spoon which is the problem, but if all spoons are broken,the soup may be too strongly flavoured :P (sorry for that one)
/Herkild
On Thu, 2004-12-30 at 14:57, Axel Thimm wrote:
and I've been right where you are...which is why I just don't use it anymore. Google the wars and rumors of wars...but don't bother.
You mean the wars against bugs? ;)
I suspect the reference was to packages that obsolete other packager's equivalent packages... I thought I saw some recent rumors about things converging at fedora extras. Is something going on there?
--- Les Mikesell les@futuresource.com
On Thursday 30 December 2004 21:54, Kristian Poul Herkild wrote:
I installed smartpm yesterday and I can really recommend using it. It solved my dependency-hell with .at-packages (though some apps - 'mattricks' for one - didn't agree).
So smartpm looks promising. I'll give it a try and see how it does.
Thanks, Marcel
On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 10:06:15PM +0100, Kristian Poul Herkild wrote:
Axel Thimm wrote:
On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 11:48:48AM -0600, Brian Fahrlander wrote:
On Thu, 2004-12-30 at 18:23 +0100, Marcel Janssen wrote:
Hi,
When trying yum with ATrpms, I find that dependencies get not resolved and this makes yum almost unusable.
Is there a fix ?
You won't blame the food if the spoon is broken, or will you? ;)
The packages are fine, yum is having some trouble
http://bugzilla.atrpms.net/show_bug.cgi?id=289 http://bugzilla.atrpms.net/show_bug.cgi?id=290
At least some of the bugs are said to be fixed by the latest released yum. You can also try apt/up2date and if you are willing to use a very promising resolver in beta stadium go smart! :)
and I've been right where you are...which is why I just don't use it anymore. Google the wars and rumors of wars...but don't bother.
You mean the wars against bugs? ;)
The "AT" there might be lower case, instead...you get the idea.
Hmm... I'm using apt-get and I've had the same troubles with the .at-packages smartpm did solve it - to a certain extent - but right now I'm downgrading from .at-packages to packages more easy-going on my system. It may be the spoon which is the problem, but if all spoons are broken,the soup may be too strongly flavoured :P (sorry for that one)
Can you provide an example of troubles in apt land? The only one known to me is yum itself.
Kristian Poul Herkild wrote:
Axel Thimm wrote:
Hmm... I'm using apt-get and I've had the same troubles with the .at-packages smartpm did solve it - to a certain extent - but right now I'm downgrading from .at-packages to packages more easy-going on my system. It may be the spoon which is the problem, but if all spoons are broken,the soup may be too strongly flavoured :P (sorry for that one)
/Herkild
This shows that the issue is with the .at packages, not YUM. The issues were with FC1 and continue with FC3.
On Fri, Dec 31, 2004 at 09:22:30AM -0700, Robin Laing wrote:
Kristian Poul Herkild wrote:
Axel Thimm wrote:
Hmm... I'm using apt-get and I've had the same troubles with the .at-packages smartpm did solve it - to a certain extent - but right now I'm downgrading from .at-packages to packages more easy-going on my system. It may be the spoon which is the problem, but if all spoons are broken,the soup may be too strongly flavoured :P (sorry for that one)
/Herkild
This shows that the issue is with the .at packages, not YUM. The issues were with FC1 and continue with FC3.
Makes me wonder how > 10.000 apt users daily have no issues with the same set of packages ...
apt seems to be a pretty solid spoon I guess ;)
The yum bugs are known, reported on various bugzilla's including ATrpms and Red Hat, and there was an upstream yum release to resolve some of them. What more do you need to believe this are (or were if you upgraded yum to updates-testing) yum bugs?
Axel Thimm wrote:
On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 10:06:15PM +0100, Kristian Poul Herkild wrote:
Hmm... I'm using apt-get and I've had the same troubles with the .at-packages smartpm did solve it - to a certain extent - but right now I'm downgrading from .at-packages to packages more easy-going on my system. It may be the spoon which is the problem, but if all spoons are broken,the soup may be too strongly flavoured :P (sorry for that one)
Can you provide an example of troubles in apt land? The only one known to me is yum itself.
Oh yeah.... I just tried to update 'smart' using apt-get ... This is but a very very very very very short glimpse of what happened .. *LOL*
file /etc/apt/apt.conf from install of atrpms-package-config-91-1.rhfc3.at conflicts with file from package apt-0.5.15cnc6-4.1.fc3.rf
file /etc/apt/preferences from install of atrpms-package-config-91-1.rhfc3.at conflicts with file from package apt-0.5.15cnc6-4.1.fc3.rf
file /etc/apt/rpmpriorities from install of atrpms-package-config-91-1.rhfc3.at conflicts with file from package apt-0.5.15cnc6-4.1.fc3.rf
file /etc/apt/vendors.list from install of atrpms-package-config-91-1.rhfc3.at conflicts with file from package apt-0.5.15cnc6-4.1.fc3.rf
REMEMBER: This is just the first few problems when using apt-get and .at-packages... I didn't want to use to much of your bandwidth listing everysingle issue... but you do get picture, right? There are many conflicts but these were the first conflicts with apt-get ... there were many more with many other packages...
In smart this can be solved... but yum and apt-get do not like .at-packages as I've just proved (at least not on my machine).
All theses errors came up when trying to update smart using apt-get. Now, that's what I call a "too strongly flavoured soup" - unless the intention is to break all spoons :P
/Kristian Poul Herkild
. o O ( I'm gonna downgrade first thing in the new year - which is about 3 hours from now in Denmark )
On Fri, 2004-12-31 at 20:55 +0100, Kristian Poul Herkild wrote:
Can you provide an example of troubles in apt land? The only one known to me is yum itself.
Oh yeah.... I just tried to update 'smart' using apt-get ... This is but a very very very very very short glimpse of what happened .. *LOL*
file /etc/apt/apt.conf from install of atrpms-package-config-91-1.rhfc3.at conflicts with file from package apt-0.5.15cnc6-4.1.fc3.rf
file /etc/apt/preferences from install of atrpms-package-config-91-1.rhfc3.at conflicts with file from package apt-0.5.15cnc6-4.1.fc3.rf
file /etc/apt/rpmpriorities from install of atrpms-package-config-91-1.rhfc3.at conflicts with file from package apt-0.5.15cnc6-4.1.fc3.rf
file /etc/apt/vendors.list from install of atrpms-package-config-91-1.rhfc3.at conflicts with file from package apt-0.5.15cnc6-4.1.fc3.rf
REMEMBER: This is just the first few problems when using apt-get and .at-packages... I didn't want to use to much of your bandwidth listing everysingle issue... but you do get picture, right? There are many conflicts but these were the first conflicts with apt-get ... there were many more with many other packages...
In smart this can be solved... but yum and apt-get do not like .at-packages as I've just proved (at least not on my machine).
All theses errors came up when trying to update smart using apt-get. Now, that's what I call a "too strongly flavoured soup" - unless the intention is to break all spoons :P
/Kristian Poul Herkild
. o O ( I'm gonna downgrade first thing in the new year - which is about 3 hours from now in Denmark )
This is the typical progression; Axel creates packages that become incompatible with everyone else, but you don't see it until you GET something from somewhere else. Using his packages alone is just fine.
Someone complains.
Axel claims there's nothing wrong with his setup.
2-3 people come outta the woods with detailed examples of what's wrong.
He seems to get quiet, but doesn't change anything.
Peace again resumes.
I spent many nights hacking on the problem, and the result to me was to just not use his packages. Since that time, I've not had any such problems, even with the supposedly-ill yum, and all is fine.
People that I see as incredibly gifted at understanding RPM have told him specific details of the problem, and they've not been mean about it....and he could fix these priority things, but this is the way he likes it. I'm almost to the point of thinking he actually _likes_ being the part of the world that's being talked about. Axel Thimm is just one of his...names? Personalities? I don't really want to know why he uses three different names- I just walked away from the whole mess. Which is why you saw me illuminate the problem and then just clam up. Otherwise the cycle begins again.
If you're having trouble with yum on that machine, just remove those packages with --nodeps then replace them from another repo. I can source you a very sucessful set of repos; I don't like anything beta or 'almost ready' but I do like things newer than directly from Fedora; life's too short to spend it all at the terminal, ya know?
Hey- I've got a backup copy of those files; I'll just include them, here. Take a peek at'em; make sure you agree with their philosophy before you 'yum update' and let me know how it goes for ya.
Enjoy!
That last one was meant to quell this seemingly infinite argument- not to inflame. I just want it over. For as long as I've known apt, this has been a perennial issue that has been talked to death.
I had intended to send it off list to meet these goals, (as you can tell by the attachment, which is a no-no here) but obviously I got distracted before sending it, and managed to plop it out here. Axell, I wasn't trying to air dirty laundry in public; I apologize.
It's humbling to know one's foot never gets so big that it can't still fit in one's mouth.
On Fri, Dec 31, 2004 at 08:55:34PM +0100, Kristian Poul Herkild wrote:
Axel Thimm wrote:
On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 10:06:15PM +0100, Kristian Poul Herkild wrote:
Hmm... I'm using apt-get and I've had the same troubles with the .at-packages smartpm did solve it - to a certain extent - but right now I'm downgrading from .at-packages to packages more easy-going on my system. It may be the spoon which is the problem, but if all spoons are broken,the soup may be too strongly flavoured :P (sorry for that one)
Can you provide an example of troubles in apt land? The only one known to me is yum itself.
Oh yeah.... I just tried to update 'smart' using apt-get ... This is but a very very very very very short glimpse of what happened .. *LOL*
file /etc/apt/apt.conf from install of atrpms-package-config-91-1.rhfc3.at conflicts with file from package apt-0.5.15cnc6-4.1.fc3.rf
That's not an issue with apt as a package resolver, but with the named packages themselves (the thread was about bugs in the yum resolver not allowing it to resolve the right packages out of a set from a repo).
REMEMBER: This is just the first few problems when using apt-get and .at-packages... I didn't want to use to much of your bandwidth listing everysingle issue... but you do get picture, right? There are many conflicts but these were the first conflicts with apt-get ... there were many more with many other packages...
In smart this can be solved... but yum and apt-get do not like .at-packages as I've just proved (at least not on my machine).
No, there is a different policy of packaging. ATrpms prefers to package apt and its config files in separate packages and this has been discussed quite often and found to be beneficial to allowing multiple repository coexistence (the apt package become vendor/repo neutral and you can have any *-package-config package you like, ATrpms itself offers two flavours already to prove the mechanism).
All theses errors came up when trying to update smart using apt-get. Now, that's what I call a "too strongly flavoured soup" - unless the intention is to break all spoons :P
No, both spoons and soup are perfectly working, just use the apt package from ATrpms.
I mean I _am_ using half a dozen repos right now including of course the Fedora Core base and updates repos. And I'm certainly not the only one ;)
On Fri, Dec 31, 2004 at 04:43:11PM -0600, Brian Fahrlander wrote:
This is the typical progression; Axel creates packages thatbecome incompatible with everyone else, but you don't see it until you GET something from somewhere else. Using his packages alone is just fine.
That's false, ATrpms was the first repo to promote multiple repo coexistence. In general the people that know about the repos know that ATrpms is propably the strongest force towards cross-repo comaptibility.
Someone complains. Axel claims there's nothing wrong with his setup. 2-3 people come outta the woods with detailed examples of what'swrong.
Please provide a valid example and no FUD.
He seems to get quiet, but doesn't change anything.
That's below the belt, please give an example. ATrpms users know that true bugs are fixed as soon as possible.
I spent many nights hacking on the problem, and the result to mewas to just not use his packages. Since that time, I've not had any such problems, even with the supposedly-ill yum, and all is fine.
Then please keep it that way and don't spread FUD. You didn't even check the URL of the bug reports posted in this thread, did you? What is "supposedly-ill" in
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=140832#c4 http://bugzilla.atrpms.net/show_bug.cgi?id=289
The bugs was reported, identified and even fixed! And you talk about "supposedly-ill".
Try to check the facts, don't produce FUD. You are hurting the community.
People that I see as incredibly gifted at understanding RPM havetold him specific details of the problem, and they've not been mean about it....and he could fix these priority things, but this is the way he likes it.
FUD, FUD, FUD.
I'm almost to the point of thinking he actually _likes_ being the part of the world that's being talked about. Axel Thimm is just one of his...names? Personalities? I don't really want to know why he uses three different names
Which are the other ones I use? Bill Gates and George W. Bush? You are totally insane.
I just walked away from the whole mess. Which is why you saw me illuminate the problem and then just clam up. Otherwise the cycle begins again.
You call this clam up?
You didn't write this right after coming from the pub, did you?
On Fri, Dec 31, 2004 at 05:24:42PM -0600, Brian Fahrlander wrote:
That last one was meant to quell this seemingly infinite argument-not to inflame.
That's a joke, right? Think before typing.
I just want it over. For as long as I've known apt, this has been a perennial issue that has been talked to death.
Probably by yourself.
I had intended to send it off list to meet these goals, (as you cantell by the attachment, which is a no-no here) but obviously I got distracted before sending it, and managed to plop it out here. Axell, I wasn't trying to air dirty laundry in public; I apologize.
Sorry, take your apologies elsewhere. I'm glad you did this in public, I hate your FUD creeping along in private and making false facts hear-say and then rumors. If you have an opinion that you think is solid make it public or keep it for yourself. False accusations is something I really hate.
It's humbling to know one's foot never gets so big that it can'tstill fit in one's mouth.
It depends on your mouth's size.
On Sat, 2005-01-01 at 10:54 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
On Fri, Dec 31, 2004 at 05:24:42PM -0600, Brian Fahrlander wrote:
That last one was meant to quell this seemingly infinite argument-not to inflame.
That's a joke, right? Think before typing.
Nope, no joke; I did a 'reply all' to get all the addresses, got distracted by my daughter, my Mom, and a bunch of other things and merely forgot to make a change to the address list before sending it. Third shift makes you tired all day long...and usually, night, too.
It wasn't my intention to cause this row publicly; while I apologize profusely for the public posting, I stand by the content.
I just want it over. For as long as I've known apt, this has been a perennial issue that has been talked to death.
Probably by yourself.
Uh, no. I've been through the use of your repo under apt three times at last count, before giving up. I was too stubborn to listen to the legion of people telling me it was a priority/epoch kinda problem.
I really like your packages, and other than these sticky deps, you're good at it. But I can't run this course every time I want something a little ahead of the rest of'em. Life's way too short.
Sorry, take your apologies elsewhere. I'm glad you did this in public, I hate your FUD creeping along in private and making false facts hear-say and then rumors. If you have an opinion that you think is solid make it public or keep it for yourself. False accusations is something I really hate.
Too bad; you're getting an apologu anyway because I didn't mean to defame you. This guy needed help, and I wanted to steer him from something that had been trouble for me and others, before.
But this is a proven, reproducible, fact. I've done it multiple times. I was using apt with RH9 the last time. And so many times, I'm far more happy to throw up my hands and give up on it, rather than throwing more man-hours in the rathole.
The original poster described the problem in the original post; are you going to tell him, too, that the problem doesn't exist?
I'm sorry man; I just don't have time for this like you do. I love your packages, I appreciate the work you've gone to, to bring them into being (its a large and sweet list) but I don't want to get involved with'em again. Sorry.
It's humbling to know one's foot never gets so big that it can'tstill fit in one's mouth.
It depends on your mouth's size.
(Actually, it's a relative statement...so...it doesn't.)
When trying yum with ATrpms, I find that dependencies get not resolved and this makes yum almost unusable.
Is there a fix ?
There have been reports in the archives that the version of yum in updates-testing works better with file dependencies (which for what ever reason seems to affect ATrpms disproportionately).
Hi list, First, BEST WISHES FOR THE 2005 to all fedora-users whenever it starts wherever you all are... Now, simply to say (see like facts, not consider insane criticism..) that I had some dependencies problems too by trying to update or install packages both with yum as apt-get when using ATrpms repo, but never REPORTED that since I just commented out again its lines in the /etc configuration files, then the system recovered again its package consistency. *Before, when using FC1 I chose as ADDITIONAL repositories the dag, freshrpms, dries and newrpms ones. Well, not exactly "I chose", simply...one day, I ran into dag's repo, learnt what a hell was that..., follow its instructions, and added it. Then would come the others. But adding ATrpms (the last one) I experienced some problems, so -and although this one was announced as "compatible" with the another ones-, I simply removed it from the list. "Never mind, newbie problems...", and I didn't give to it major importance* since I didn't want to complicate things on the system because of that. *Then when using FC3 (my next big step...;-) I chose (this time yes...) to have again the same "compatible-group" of repos than before, but without adding the ATrpms one in prevention; For several days, everything worked like a charm, but giving me a new chance with ATrpms again, finally added it (I was interested in some rpm packages like skencil). There started those mentioned problems, with both yum and apt (this one gave me some additional info in its warnings about the possible origin of the problem and how i could correct the situation, I did it (don't remember the option to type that apt suggested..) I have to say that revert to the previous stage was easy. Of course, I had to remove skencil by hand if I wanted that the system was updated whenever I wanted it.
There is no criticism at all, simply I'm not reluctant to play with some things if I can avoid it.
Cheers
* Is that said in that way in English ??? Ummm...apologies for my English.., I think it's becoming worse and worse by the time. I hope not to destroy too much its syntaxis, I feel that..:-)
P.S. (Now or never..) Many thanks to all those people that in some way or another are contributing with their time and effort to the Fedora project in particular, and Linux in general.
Cheers again,
Daniel Rodríguez
-
Axel Thimm -
Brian Fahrlander -
korgull -
Kristian Poul Herkild -
Les Mikesell -
M Daniel R M -
Robin Laing -
William Hooper