yum Traceback in yummain.main(sys.argv[1:]) ...

[Axel Thimm]

On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 12:23:45AM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On 01/11/2007, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm at atrpms.net> wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 09:11:55PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > > On 01/11/2007, Oliver (savage) <no-reply-gw at fcp.surfsite.org> wrote:
> > > > Hi Michael, thanks for your answer.
> > > >
> > > > RPM -QA ALSA-KMDL*
> > > > alsa-kmdl-2.6.22.4-65.fc7-1.0.14-61.fc7 _(I removed it with yum)_
> > > > alsa-kmdl-2.6.22.9-91.fc7-1.0.15-62.fc7
> > > >
> > > > RPM -QA ALSA-KMDL*
> > > > alsa-kmdl-2.6.22.9-91.fc7-1.0.15-62.fc7
> > >
> > > "alsa-kmdl" still is no official Fedora package.
> >
> > Which has nothing to do with yum bombing out, right?
> 
> Only with Yum failing to resolve the dependencies of the kmdl pkgs.

Nope, that's a genouine yum problem. Nothing to do with installed
packages depending on other installed packages. I any mechanism in yum
decides to remove package A, then it needs to remove the depending on
A packages B1, B2, etc.

So actually installonlyn/installonly_limit misbehaved in three ways:
First in the way it surprises people with its low value in keeping
kernels around, then with the way it calculates them, and finally with
forgetting that installonly packages may be depending upon.

And that does not only affect kmdls, just yesterday there was a broad
call on fedora-devel-announce on "official" packages depening on the
kernel needing a rebuild for the final kernel in F8.

> > The OP has two problems, one is a know feature/bug from yum (just set
> > installonly_limit in yum.conf to 0 and see yum be happy again
> > concerning old kernels and packages depending on them).
> 
> Does that keep all kernels? If so, why isn't the default
> installonly_limit=2 sufficient when the OP has only one kernel
> installed and another in the update transaction? Yum prints when it
> plans to remove an old kernel. It did in the quotes in this thread.

Don't ask me, turning installonly off fixes all issues, so installonly
may be counting in strange ways. BTW when installonlyn was a plugin
this bug did not exist, i.e. only the embedded version has this
problem.

> > Still trying to put the blame on "unofficial" packages is less than
> > fair.
> 
> Keeping them installed and disabling the corresponding repos very
> likely leads to problems, not just with regard to kmdl pkgs. I didn't
> blame anyone, I just pointed out that those pkgs are not in the Fedora
> repos.

Well, actually in this case this should not be a problem. If yum were
to behave properly, then the kmdls of the old kernels would be removed
when these kernels were removed and the traces of the 3rd party repos
would slowly vanish (at least the ones depending on specific kernel
versions like kernel modules do).
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20071102/8919522d/attachment-0001.bin