hey folks, Can some of you test out yum 2.1.13 in updates-testing? I'd like to know if there are any other problems found. I've gotten 2 reports that have been fixed now but I'm looking for more issues.
Thanks! -sv
On Sat, 2005-02-05 at 01:10 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
hey folks, Can some of you test out yum 2.1.13 in updates-testing? I'd like to know if there are any other problems found. I've gotten 2 reports that have been fixed now but I'm looking for more issues.
OK - here's one:
# yum upgrade Setting up Upgrade Process Setting up Repos extras-debug 100% |=========================| 951 B 00:00 extras 100% |=========================| 951 B 00:00 updates-released 100% |=========================| 951 B 00:00 base 100% |=========================| 951 B 00:00 local 100% |=========================| 951 B 00:00 Reading repository metadata in from local files extras-deb: ################################################## 393/393 extras : ################################################## 723/723 updates-re: ################################################## 659/659 base : ################################################## 1652/1652 local : ################################################## 46/46 Resolving Dependencies --> Populating transaction set with selected packages. Please wait. ---> Package wxGTK.i386 0:2.4.2-7 set to be updated ---> Package perl-IO-Socket-SSL.noarch 0:0.96-3 set to be updated ---> Package portaudio.i386 0:18.1-3 set to be updated ---> Package synaptic.i386 0:0.55.3-2 set to be updated ---> Package id3lib.i386 0:3.8.3-9 set to be updated ---> Package Hermes.i386 0:1.3.3-6 set to be updated ---> Package imlib2.i386 0:1.2.0-4 set to be updated ---> Package alsaplayer.i386 0:0.99.76-3 set to be updated ---> Package pyzor.noarch 0:0.4.0-6 set to be updated ---> Package xosd.i386 0:2.2.14-1 set to be updated --> Running transaction check --> Processing Dependency: wxGTK-common = 2.4.2-7 for package: wxGTK --> Processing Dependency: libapt-pkg-libc6.3-6.so.2 for package: synaptic --> Restarting Dependency Resolution with new changes. --> Populating transaction set with selected packages. Please wait. ---> Package apt.i386 0:0.5.15cnc6-12.r362 set to be updated ---> Package wxGTK-common.i386 0:2.4.2-7 set to be updated --> Running transaction check
Dependencies Resolved Transaction Listing: Update: pyzor.noarch 0:0.4.0-6 - extras Update: imlib2.i386 0:1.2.0-4 - extras Update: alsaplayer.i386 0:0.99.76-3 - extras Update: synaptic.i386 0:0.55.3-2 - extras Update: wxGTK.i386 0:2.4.2-7 - extras Update: perl-IO-Socket-SSL.noarch 0:0.96-3 - extras Update: portaudio.i386 0:18.1-3 - extras Update: id3lib.i386 0:3.8.3-9 - extras Update: xosd.i386 0:2.2.14-1 - extras Update: Hermes.i386 0:1.3.3-6 - extras
Performing the following to resolve dependencies: Install: wxGTK-common.i386 0:2.4.2-7 - extras Update: apt.i386 0:0.5.15cnc6-12.r362 - extras Total download size: 6.4 M Is this ok [y/N]: y Downloading Packages: Running Transaction Test Finished Transaction Test Transaction Check Error: package apt-0.5.15cnc6-53.4.rhfc3.at (which is newer than apt-0.5.15cnc6-12.r362) is already installed
Output with -d5 attached.
Phil
On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 09:20:06 -0500, Phil Schaffner P.R.Schaffner@ieee.org wrote: <snip>
Update: synaptic.i386 0:0.55.3-2 - extras
<snip>
Transaction Check Error: package apt-0.5.15cnc6-53.4.rhfc3.at (which is newer than apt-0.5.15cnc6-12.r362) is already installed
<snip>
Check the requirements of the synaptic yum wants to update check the provides of the apt you currently have installed. you have apt from atrpms installed... you dont have atrpms in the yum repository information that you loaded....
Looks like a packaging conflict from using multiple repositories to me. I don't see how this qualifies as a yum problem considering that yum isn't going to downgrade packages as a matter of design.
-jef
On Sat, 2005-02-05 at 09:34 -0500, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 09:20:06 -0500, Phil Schaffner P.R.Schaffner@ieee.org wrote:
<snip> > Update: synaptic.i386 0:0.55.3-2 - extras <snip> > Transaction Check Error: package apt-0.5.15cnc6-53.4.rhfc3.at (which is newer than apt-0.5.15cnc6-12.r362) is already installed <snip>
Check the requirements of the synaptic yum wants to update check the provides of the apt you currently have installed. you have apt from atrpms installed... you dont have atrpms in the yum repository information that you loaded....
Looks like a packaging conflict from using multiple repositories to me. I don't see how this qualifies as a yum problem considering that yum isn't going to downgrade packages as a matter of design.
It's still a bug - it should complain and moan about the problem rather than appear to go through with it.
-sv
On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 09:34:52AM -0500, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 09:20:06 -0500, Phil Schaffner P.R.Schaffner@ieee.org wrote:
<snip> > Update: synaptic.i386 0:0.55.3-2 - extras <snip> > Transaction Check Error: package apt-0.5.15cnc6-53.4.rhfc3.at (which is newer than apt-0.5.15cnc6-12.r362) is already installed <snip>
Check the requirements of the synaptic yum wants to update check the provides of the apt you currently have installed. you have apt from atrpms installed... you dont have atrpms in the yum repository information that you loaded....
Looks like a packaging conflict from using multiple repositories to me. I don't see how this qualifies as a yum problem considering that yum isn't going to downgrade packages as a matter of design.
No, the proper way for yum to do is to not upgrade a package (synaptic) if it is going to miss its (explicit) dependencies (apt with a given version/release).
The repo bug is most probably in synaptic from extras requiring explicitely apt-0.5.15cnc6-12.r362, i.e. not allowing other apt with different release tags.
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 09:34:52 -0500, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 09:20:06 -0500, Phil Schaffner P.R.Schaffner@ieee.org wrote:
<snip> > Update: synaptic.i386 0:0.55.3-2 - extras <snip> > Transaction Check Error: package apt-0.5.15cnc6-53.4.rhfc3.at (which is newer than apt-0.5.15cnc6-12.r362) is already installed <snip>
Check the requirements of the synaptic yum wants to update check the provides of the apt you currently have installed. you have apt from atrpms installed... you dont have atrpms in the yum repository information that you loaded....
Looks like a packaging conflict from using multiple repositories to me. I don't see how this qualifies as a yum problem considering that yum isn't going to downgrade packages as a matter of design.
synaptic requires libapt-pkg-libc6.3-6.so.0, which is only provided by apt-0.5.15cnc6-12.r362 in Phil's configured set of repositories. yum decides to take that one, but then realises that a higher version of apt is installed already and does not come from the enabled repositories. That's not a conflict, but an inconsistent repository configuration.
Btw, yum 2.1.13 from updates-testing works for me so far.
On Sat, 2005-02-05 at 16:24 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 09:34:52 -0500, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 09:20:06 -0500, Phil Schaffner P.R.Schaffner@ieee.org wrote:
<snip> > Update: synaptic.i386 0:0.55.3-2 - extras <snip> > Transaction Check Error: package apt-0.5.15cnc6-53.4.rhfc3.at (which is newer than apt-0.5.15cnc6-12.r362) is already installed <snip>
Check the requirements of the synaptic yum wants to update check the provides of the apt you currently have installed. you have apt from atrpms installed... you dont have atrpms in the yum repository information that you loaded....
Looks like a packaging conflict from using multiple repositories to me. I don't see how this qualifies as a yum problem considering that yum isn't going to downgrade packages as a matter of design.
synaptic requires libapt-pkg-libc6.3-6.so.0, which is only provided by apt-0.5.15cnc6-12.r362 in Phil's configured set of repositories. yum decides to take that one, but then realises that a higher version of apt is installed already and does not come from the enabled repositories. That's not a conflict, but an inconsistent repository configuration.
Deliberately disabled 3rd party repos to test new yum and new Extras repo. Seems yum should ideally notice the conflict in apt versions earlier in the process, before asking the user to confirm the upgrade (or should I say downgrade?). I get the same failure with ATrpms, FreshRPMS, Dag, NR, NewRPMS, locally-built and Macromedia (my usual [excessive?] set of 3rd party repos) added to the mix. Only way to avoid the conflict/error seems to be to remove Extras - in which case, result is "No Packages marked for Update/Obsoletion".
Looks like Extras does not play nicely with ATrpms, FreshRPMS, ... any more than Fedora.US did - or vice versa. Perhaps the situation will improve now that Extras is on the Red Hat server. Otherwise, will just stick with the "compatible" set of repos plus home-built where required.
Phil
Deliberately disabled 3rd party repos to test new yum and new Extras repo. Seems yum should ideally notice the conflict in apt versions earlier in the process, before asking the user to confirm the upgrade (or should I say downgrade?).
It's just a bug - I'll look into it.
I get the same failure with ATrpms, FreshRPMS, Dag, NR, NewRPMS, locally-built and Macromedia (my usual [excessive?] set of 3rd party repos) added to the mix. Only way to avoid the conflict/error seems to be to remove Extras - in which case, result is "No Packages marked for Update/Obsoletion".
Looks like Extras does not play nicely with ATrpms, FreshRPMS, ... any more than Fedora.US did - or vice versa. Perhaps the situation will improve now that Extras is on the Red Hat server. Otherwise, will just stick with the "compatible" set of repos plus home-built where required.
1. extras isn't built on the red hat server 2. why do feel the need to attribute to malice that which is simply a bug?
Do you really think I care enough about other repositories to go out my way to hurt them by not making yum catch this?
cmon. let's be reasonable here. there's no need for drama.
-sv
On Sat, 2005-02-05 at 23:45 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
Deliberately disabled 3rd party repos to test new yum and new Extras repo. Seems yum should ideally notice the conflict in apt versions earlier in the process, before asking the user to confirm the upgrade (or should I say downgrade?).
It's just a bug - I'll look into it.
Yep - just trying to help.
I get the same failure with ATrpms, FreshRPMS, Dag, NR, NewRPMS, locally-built and Macromedia (my usual [excessive?] set of 3rd party repos) added to the mix. Only way to avoid the conflict/error seems to be to remove Extras - in which case, result is "No Packages marked for Update/Obsoletion".
Looks like Extras does not play nicely with ATrpms, FreshRPMS, ... any more than Fedora.US did - or vice versa. Perhaps the situation will improve now that Extras is on the Red Hat server. Otherwise, will just stick with the "compatible" set of repos plus home-built where required.
- extras isn't built on the red hat server
But it is now available at baseurl=http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/extras/$releasever/$basea...
- why do feel the need to attribute to malice that which is simply a
bug?
Do you really think I care enough about other repositories to go out my way to hurt them by not making yum catch this?
cmon. let's be reasonable here. there's no need for drama.
Did not intend to imply malice, nor to be dramatic or unreasonable. Was just commenting that it has historically been inadvisable to mix Fedora.US/Livna with FreshRPMS and friends repos (not that they always play seamlessly together either). Was hoping the situation would improve with Extras.
Sorry to have inadvertently caused offense - just trying to help out by testing/reporting as you requested. Believe me, your work on yum and attention to the various mailing lists (and that of ALL the repo maintainers) is very much appreciated and the last thing I would want to do is to be intentionally offensive. E-mail is not the clearest communications channel and it seems very easy to misinterpret.
Best regards, Phil
On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 22:57:28 -0500, Phil Schaffner wrote:
Looks like a packaging conflict from using multiple repositories to me. I don't see how this qualifies as a yum problem considering that yum isn't going to downgrade packages as a matter of design.
synaptic requires libapt-pkg-libc6.3-6.so.0, which is only provided by apt-0.5.15cnc6-12.r362 in Phil's configured set of repositories. yum decides to take that one, but then realises that a higher version of apt is installed already and does not come from the enabled repositories. That's not a conflict, but an inconsistent repository configuration.
Deliberately disabled 3rd party repos to test new yum and new Extras repo. Seems yum should ideally notice the conflict in apt versions earlier in the process, before asking the user to confirm the upgrade (or should I say downgrade?).
Again, there is no immediate conflict, _if_ your already installed version of apt provides libapt-pkg-libc6.3-6.so.0, regardless of where it comes from.
In that case, the installed apt package would suffice, and yum need not add a different version from the enabled repositories into the transaction set.
Depending on where and how the other apt package was built, it can be fully compatible. It's an inconsistency, though, in which packages you have installed and run, and which enabled repositories you fetch software from. There is no guarantee that the package is compatible. Generally, package dependencies on package capabilities and package contents would need to be much more strict to really assure when another package would be equivalent or compatible, respectively (you can sometimes see this with dependencies on virtual provides and path names, for instance).
Dunno whether it's feasible to make Yum offer a downgrade as in "You have newer versions of packages installed which are not from the enabled set of repositories. To fix this inconsistency, do you want to replace them (y/n)?" ;o)
I get the same failure with ATrpms, FreshRPMS, Dag, NR, NewRPMS, locally-built and Macromedia (my usual [excessive?] set of 3rd party repos) added to the mix. Only way to avoid the conflict/error seems to be to remove Extras - in which case, result is "No Packages marked for Update/Obsoletion".
Looks like Extras does not play nicely with ATrpms, FreshRPMS, ... any more than Fedora.US did - or vice versa. Perhaps the situation will improve now that Extras is on the Red Hat server. Otherwise, will just stick with the "compatible" set of repos plus home-built where required.
The solution is simple and just like it's done with Fedora Core. If there's something in Fedora Core which should change, try to get the changes applied in Fedora Core. Replacing packages and forking development can turn out to be interesting for testing purposes, but is no long-term solution.
On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 04:24:43PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 09:34:52 -0500, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 09:20:06 -0500, Phil Schaffner P.R.Schaffner@ieee.org wrote:
<snip> > Update: synaptic.i386 0:0.55.3-2 - extras <snip> > Transaction Check Error: package apt-0.5.15cnc6-53.4.rhfc3.at (which is newer than apt-0.5.15cnc6-12.r362) is already installed <snip>
Check the requirements of the synaptic yum wants to update check the provides of the apt you currently have installed. you have apt from atrpms installed... you dont have atrpms in the yum repository information that you loaded....
Looks like a packaging conflict from using multiple repositories to me. I don't see how this qualifies as a yum problem considering that yum isn't going to downgrade packages as a matter of design.
synaptic requires libapt-pkg-libc6.3-6.so.0, which is only provided by apt-0.5.15cnc6-12.r362 in Phil's configured set of repositories.
What makes you think so?
$ rpm -q apt ; rpm -ql apt | grep libapt-pkg-libc6.3-6.so.0 apt-0.5.15cnc6-53.4.rhfc3.at /usr/lib/libapt-pkg-libc6.3-6.so.0 /usr/lib/libapt-pkg-libc6.3-6.so.0.1.1
The same is probably true of all other repos as well.
IMO there is some other explicit dependency between fedora.us's synaptic and apt.
On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 16:20:25 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
Update: synaptic.i386 0:0.55.3-2 - extras
<snip> > Transaction Check Error: package apt-0.5.15cnc6-53.4.rhfc3.at (which is newer than apt-0.5.15cnc6-12.r362) is already installed <snip>
Check the requirements of the synaptic yum wants to update check the provides of the apt you currently have installed. you have apt from atrpms installed... you dont have atrpms in the yum repository information that you loaded....
Looks like a packaging conflict from using multiple repositories to me. I don't see how this qualifies as a yum problem considering that yum isn't going to downgrade packages as a matter of design.
synaptic requires libapt-pkg-libc6.3-6.so.0, which is only provided by apt-0.5.15cnc6-12.r362 in Phil's configured set of repositories.
What makes you think so?
Two things make me think that: 1) In the set of enabled repositories, only the apt package in "extras" provides 'libapt-pkg-libc6.3-6.so.2'. 2) Yum seems to ignore the installed apt package and its provides, which in this thread has been described as a bug.
I hope we agree that it should see the installed apt package *if* it provides libapt-pkg-libc6.3-6.so.2 already.
$ rpm -q apt ; rpm -ql apt | grep libapt-pkg-libc6.3-6.so.0 apt-0.5.15cnc6-53.4.rhfc3.at /usr/lib/libapt-pkg-libc6.3-6.so.0 /usr/lib/libapt-pkg-libc6.3-6.so.0.1.1
The query is only half the truth as it is only lists actual files, not the provided virtual capabilities:
$ rpm -q apt ; rpm -q --provides apt apt-0.5.15cnc6-12.r362 apt-mirrorselect config(apt) = 0:0.5.15cnc6-12.r362 libapt-pkg-libc6.3-6.so.2 apt = 0:0.5.15cnc6-12.r362
The same is probably true of all other repos as well.
IMO there is some other explicit dependency between fedora.us's synaptic and apt.
$ rpm -qR synaptic | grep -i apt config(synaptic) = 0.55.3-2 libapt-pkg-libc6.3-6.so.2
On Sun, Feb 06, 2005 at 05:00:17PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 16:20:25 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
Update: synaptic.i386 0:0.55.3-2 - extras
<snip> > Transaction Check Error: package apt-0.5.15cnc6-53.4.rhfc3.at (which is newer than apt-0.5.15cnc6-12.r362) is already installed <snip>
Check the requirements of the synaptic yum wants to update check the provides of the apt you currently have installed. you have apt from atrpms installed... you dont have atrpms in the yum repository information that you loaded....
Looks like a packaging conflict from using multiple repositories to me. I don't see how this qualifies as a yum problem considering that yum isn't going to downgrade packages as a matter of design.
synaptic requires libapt-pkg-libc6.3-6.so.0, which is only provided by apt-0.5.15cnc6-12.r362 in Phil's configured set of repositories.
What makes you think so?
Two things make me think that: 1) In the set of enabled repositories, only the apt package in "extras" provides 'libapt-pkg-libc6.3-6.so.2'.
You originally mentioned libapt-pkg-libc6.3-6.so.0, now it's suddenly libapt-pkg-libc6.3-6.so.2?
The latest official upstream release has a major of 0. Probably fedora.us has a development version. Which brings up the old question of how to ensure proper rpm ordering of in-between releases snapshots.
And BTW what happened to fedora.us' standpoint of avoiding snapshots like the devil (a good standpoint IMHO)? Not only from a packaging POV.
On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 17:12:46 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
You originally mentioned libapt-pkg-libc6.3-6.so.0, now it's suddenly libapt-pkg-libc6.3-6.so.2?
Yes, queried the older one of two packages and ignored yum cache. But from the yum output in Phil's original posting, major 2 is what is referred to:
--> Processing Dependency: libapt-pkg-libc6.3-6.so.2 for package: synaptic
And BTW what happened to fedora.us' standpoint of avoiding snapshots like the devil (a good standpoint IMHO)? Not only from a packaging POV.
Have never seen that being documented or implemented anywhere. Have you?
With a classification of packages into stable/testing/unstable, nearly everything was possible, and the package naming guidelines explicitly covered a versioning scheme for pre-releases or snapshots.
Btw, this thread is about Fedora Extras, so we can get the naming right and not refer to the old fedora.us domain name when we mean Fedora Extras. ;)
On Sun, 2005-02-06 at 17:12 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
On Sun, Feb 06, 2005 at 05:00:17PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Sun, 6 Feb 2005 16:20:25 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
Update: synaptic.i386 0:0.55.3-2 - extras
<snip> > Transaction Check Error: package apt-0.5.15cnc6-53.4.rhfc3.at (which is newer than apt-0.5.15cnc6-12.r362) is already installed <snip>
Check the requirements of the synaptic yum wants to update check the provides of the apt you currently have installed. you have apt from atrpms installed... you dont have atrpms in the yum repository information that you loaded....
Looks like a packaging conflict from using multiple repositories to me. I don't see how this qualifies as a yum problem considering that yum isn't going to downgrade packages as a matter of design.
synaptic requires libapt-pkg-libc6.3-6.so.0, which is only provided by apt-0.5.15cnc6-12.r362 in Phil's configured set of repositories.
What makes you think so?
Two things make me think that: 1) In the set of enabled repositories, only the apt package in "extras" provides 'libapt-pkg-libc6.3-6.so.2'.
You originally mentioned libapt-pkg-libc6.3-6.so.0, now it's suddenly libapt-pkg-libc6.3-6.so.2?
The latest official upstream release has a major of 0. Probably fedora.us has a development version. Which brings up the old question of how to ensure proper rpm ordering of in-between releases snapshots.
And BTW what happened to fedora.us' standpoint of avoiding snapshots like the devil (a good standpoint IMHO)? Not only from a packaging POV.
In apt's case there are good reasons for using the svn-head version, biggest reason perhaps being proper SELinux support. Sure, you could take just that patch and apply to cnc6 .. but I just happen to know svn- head is stable and has bunch of other nice stuff besides just selinux- support. :)
Too bad Gustavo hasn't gotten around to releasing cnc7 :( I've been thinking of making an unofficial release out of the current tree but probably that would just confuse matters even more. :-/
- Panu -
On Sun, Feb 06, 2005 at 11:36:37PM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
On Sun, 2005-02-06 at 17:12 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
The latest official upstream release has a major of 0. Probably fedora.us has a development version.
In apt's case there are good reasons for using the svn-head version, biggest reason perhaps being proper SELinux support. Sure, you could take just that patch and apply to cnc6 .. but I just happen to know svn- head is stable and has bunch of other nice stuff besides just selinux- support. :)
Too bad Gustavo hasn't gotten around to releasing cnc7 :( I've been thinking of making an unofficial release out of the current tree but probably that would just confuse matters even more. :-/
The fact that the svn server is down doesn't make it easier :(
I launched a request for a final release at apt-rpm.
On Sat, 2005-02-05 at 09:20 -0500, Phil Schaffner wrote:
On Sat, 2005-02-05 at 01:10 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
hey folks, Can some of you test out yum 2.1.13 in updates-testing? I'd like to know if there are any other problems found. I've gotten 2 reports that have been fixed now but I'm looking for more issues.
OK - here's one:
Performing the following to resolve dependencies: Install: wxGTK-common.i386 0:2.4.2-7 - extras Update: apt.i386 0:0.5.15cnc6-12.r362 - extras Total download size: 6.4 M Is this ok [y/N]: y Downloading Packages: Running Transaction Test Finished Transaction Test Transaction Check Error: package apt-0.5.15cnc6-53.4.rhfc3.at (which is newer than apt-0.5.15cnc6-12.r362) is already installed
Phil, If you could - open a bug on this one.
thanks -sv
On Sat, 2005-02-05 at 11:08 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
Phil, If you could - open a bug on this one.
You got it - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=147275
Phil
-
Axel Thimm -
Jef Spaleta -
Michael Schwendt -
Panu Matilainen -
Phil Schaffner -
seth vidal