11:55 p.m.
Hi All,
What is wrong with my wine dnf excludes?
# grep -i wine /etc/dnf/dnf.conf
excludepkgs=wine*
excludepkgs=wine-*
dnf still tried to upgrade wine!!!!
And wine 8 IS EVEN WORSE THAN WINE 7!!!!
Wine 8.0.1 cannot print to a local printer, but can to a network printer
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=54428
I need to stay on wine 6 and also be able to
update everything else.
Many thanks,
-T
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If I had a dime every time I didn't know
what was going on, I'd be like, "Why is
everyone giving me all these dimes?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
12:01 a.m.
On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 12:55 AM ToddAndMargo via users
<users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
What is wrong with my wine dnf excludes?
# grep -i wine /etc/dnf/dnf.conf
excludepkgs=wine*
excludepkgs=wine-*
dnf still tried to upgrade wine!!!!
And wine 8 IS EVEN WORSE THAN WINE 7!!!!
Wine 8.0.1 cannot print to a local printer, but can to a network printer
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=54428
I need to stay on wine 6 and also be able to
update everything else.
It seems like you want to versionlock, and not exclude, wine.
Maybe something like https://unix.stackexchange.com/a/606854 ?
Jeff
12:39 a.m.
On 2/1/23 22:01, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 at 12:55 AM ToddAndMargo via users
<users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>
> What is wrong with my wine dnf excludes?
>
> # grep -i wine /etc/dnf/dnf.conf
> excludepkgs=wine*
> excludepkgs=wine-*
>
> dnf still tried to upgrade wine!!!!
>
>
> And wine 8 IS EVEN WORSE THAN WINE 7!!!!
>
> Wine 8.0.1 cannot print to a local printer, but can to a network printer
> https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=54428
>
> I need to stay on wine 6 and also be able to
> update everything else.
It seems like you want to versionlock, and not exclude, wine.
Maybe something like https://unix.stackexchange.com/a/606854 ?
Jeff
I never had any trouble with my excludes under Fedora 36.
This occurred since Fedora 37. Hmmmmm.........
12:26 a.m.
On 2/1/23 23:05, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 02/01/2023 10:55 PM, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
> # grep -i wine /etc/dnf/dnf.conf
> excludepkgs=wine*
> excludepkgs=wine-*
The second exclude should be redundant, as it's already covered by the
first one. That doesn't explain what's going on, but I did want to
mention it.
I think the second one *replaces* the first one. There's no indication
that it would accumulate.
8:05 p.m.
On 2/2/23 22:26, Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 2/1/23 23:05, Joe Zeff wrote:
> On 02/01/2023 10:55 PM, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
>> # grep -i wine /etc/dnf/dnf.conf
>> excludepkgs=wine*
>> excludepkgs=wine-*
>
> The second exclude should be redundant, as it's already covered by the
> first one. That doesn't explain what's going on, but I did want to
> mention it.
I think the second one *replaces* the first one. There's no indication
that it would accumulate.
I have tried to with and without
2:58 a.m.
On Wed, 2023-02-01 at 21:55 -0800, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
What is wrong with my wine dnf excludes?
# grep -i wine /etc/dnf/dnf.conf
excludepkgs=wine*
excludepkgs=wine-*
dnf still tried to upgrade wine!!!!
Does the asterisk need escaping, there?
e.g. wine\*
I didn't think it did, just on the command line.
--
uname -rsvp
Linux 3.10.0-1160.83.1.el7.x86_64 #1 SMP Wed Jan 25 16:41:43 UTC 2023 x86_64
Boilerplate: All unexpected mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted.
I will only get to see the messages that are posted to the mailing list.
12:29 a.m.
On 2/1/23 21:55, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
What is wrong with my wine dnf excludes?
# grep -i wine /etc/dnf/dnf.conf
excludepkgs=wine*
excludepkgs=wine-*
dnf still tried to upgrade wine!!!!
I bet you have some other excludepkgs lines after that. Only the last
one takes effect. I just tested it and "excludepkgs=wine*" stops even
"dnf upgrade wine*".
8:13 p.m.
On 2/2/23 22:29, Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 2/1/23 21:55, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
> What is wrong with my wine dnf excludes?
>
> # grep -i wine /etc/dnf/dnf.conf
> excludepkgs=wine*
> excludepkgs=wine-*
>
> dnf still tried to upgrade wine!!!!
I bet you have some other excludepkgs lines after that. Only the last
one takes effect. I just tested it and "excludepkgs=wine*" stops even
"dnf upgrade wine*".
Here is the whole thing, which worked under fc36:
$ cat /etc/dnf/dnf.conf
[main]
gpgcheck=1
installonly_limit=3
clean_requirements_on_remove=True
excludepkgs=metasploit-framework
# excludepkgs=metasploit-framework wine*
# excludepkgs=thunderbird* metasploit-framework wine*
# excludepkgs=thunderbird* metasploit-framework
excludepkgs=wine*
# excludepkgs=wine-*
excludepkgs=resolvconf
excludepkgs=systemd-resolved
OH GET A LOAD OF THIS!!!!
# dnf upgrade --excludepkgs=wine*
Works!!!
AAAAAAHHHHHH !!!!!!
8:25 p.m.
On 2/3/23 18:13, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
On 2/2/23 22:29, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On 2/1/23 21:55, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
>> What is wrong with my wine dnf excludes?
>>
>> # grep -i wine /etc/dnf/dnf.conf
>> excludepkgs=wine*
>> excludepkgs=wine-*
>>
>> dnf still tried to upgrade wine!!!!
>
> I bet you have some other excludepkgs lines after that. Only the last
> one takes effect. I just tested it and "excludepkgs=wine*" stops even
> "dnf upgrade wine*".
Here is the whole thing, which worked under fc36:
$ cat /etc/dnf/dnf.conf
[main]
gpgcheck=1
installonly_limit=3
clean_requirements_on_remove=True
excludepkgs=metasploit-framework
# excludepkgs=metasploit-framework wine*
# excludepkgs=thunderbird* metasploit-framework wine*
# excludepkgs=thunderbird* metasploit-framework
excludepkgs=wine*
# excludepkgs=wine-*
excludepkgs=resolvconf
excludepkgs=systemd-resolved
OH GET A LOAD OF THIS!!!!
# dnf upgrade --excludepkgs=wine*
Works!!!
AAAAAAHHHHHH !!!!!!
I just enter the following bug report:
dnf.conf excludepkgs=wine* no longer works
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2167036
9:11 p.m.
ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
On 2/2/23 22:29, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On 2/1/23 21:55, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
>> What is wrong with my wine dnf excludes?
>>
>> # grep -i wine /etc/dnf/dnf.conf
>> excludepkgs=wine*
>> excludepkgs=wine-*
>>
>> dnf still tried to upgrade wine!!!!
>
> I bet you have some other excludepkgs lines after that. Only the last
> one takes effect.
You should take heed of Samuel's words above.
Here is the whole thing, which worked under fc36:
I don't find this to be true. Testing it locally, it fails
just as I'd expect and as the documentation suggests.
$ cat /etc/dnf/dnf.conf
[main]
gpgcheck=1
installonly_limit=3
clean_requirements_on_remove=True
excludepkgs=metasploit-framework
# excludepkgs=metasploit-framework wine*
# excludepkgs=thunderbird* metasploit-framework wine*
# excludepkgs=thunderbird* metasploit-framework
excludepkgs=wine*
# excludepkgs=wine-*
excludepkgs=resolvconf
excludepkgs=systemd-resolved
This is not the way I've ever seen excludepkgs used or
documented. The man page states:
excludepkgs
list
Exclude packages of this repository, speci‐
fied by a name or a glob and separated by a
comma, from all operations. Can be disabled
using --disableexcludes command line switch.
Defaults to [].
Put them all together, not a bunch of different definitions.
--
Todd
10:10 p.m.
On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 10:11 PM Todd Zullinger <tmz(a)pobox.com> wrote:
ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
> On 2/2/23 22:29, Samuel Sieb wrote:
>> On 2/1/23 21:55, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
> $ cat /etc/dnf/dnf.conf
> [main]
> gpgcheck=1
> installonly_limit=3
> clean_requirements_on_remove=True
> excludepkgs=metasploit-framework
> # excludepkgs=metasploit-framework wine*
> # excludepkgs=thunderbird* metasploit-framework wine*
> # excludepkgs=thunderbird* metasploit-framework
> excludepkgs=wine*
> # excludepkgs=wine-*
> excludepkgs=resolvconf
> excludepkgs=systemd-resolved
This is not the way I've ever seen excludepkgs used or
documented. The man page states:
excludepkgs
list
Exclude packages of this repository, speci‐
fied by a name or a glob and separated by a
comma, from all operations. Can be disabled
using --disableexcludes command line switch.
Defaults to [].
Put them all together, not a bunch of different definitions.
Note: "separated by a comma" - the commented-out lines were separated
by spaces (I assume these were failed attempts).
11:32 p.m.
On 2/3/23 20:10, Go Canes wrote:
On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 10:11 PM Todd Zullinger <tmz(a)pobox.com>
wrote:
>
> ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
>> On 2/2/23 22:29, Samuel Sieb wrote:
>>> On 2/1/23 21:55, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
>> $ cat /etc/dnf/dnf.conf
>> [main]
>> gpgcheck=1
>> installonly_limit=3
>> clean_requirements_on_remove=True
>> excludepkgs=metasploit-framework
>> # excludepkgs=metasploit-framework wine*
>> # excludepkgs=thunderbird* metasploit-framework wine*
>> # excludepkgs=thunderbird* metasploit-framework
>> excludepkgs=wine*
>> # excludepkgs=wine-*
>> excludepkgs=resolvconf
>> excludepkgs=systemd-resolved
>
> This is not the way I've ever seen excludepkgs used or
> documented. The man page states:
>
> excludepkgs
> list
>
> Exclude packages of this repository, speci‐
> fied by a name or a glob and separated by a
> comma, from all operations. Can be disabled
> using --disableexcludes command line switch.
> Defaults to [].
>
> Put them all together, not a bunch of different definitions.
Note: "separated by a comma" - the commented-out lines were separated
by spaces (I assume these were failed attempts).
excludepkgs=wine*,resolvconf,systemd-resolved
Did work. I missed what Samuel's said.
This is a regression from Fedora 36. I updates
the bug report.
2:05 a.m.
On 2/3/23 21:32, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
On 2/3/23 20:10, Go Canes wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 10:11 PM Todd Zullinger <tmz(a)pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> This is not the way I've ever seen excludepkgs used or
>> documented. The man page states:
>>
>> excludepkgs
>> list
>>
>> Exclude packages of this repository, speci‐
>> fied by a name or a glob and separated by a
>> comma, from all operations. Can be disabled
>> using --disableexcludes command line switch.
>> Defaults to [].
>>
>> Put them all together, not a bunch of different definitions.
>
> Note: "separated by a comma" - the commented-out lines were separated
> by spaces (I assume these were failed attempts).
excludepkgs=wine*,resolvconf,systemd-resolved
Did work. I missed what Samuel's said.
This is a regression from Fedora 36. I updates
the bug report.
It might be a change, but it's not a regression. It's clearly
documented in the man page.
2:32 a.m.
On 2/4/23 00:05, Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 2/3/23 21:32, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
> On 2/3/23 20:10, Go Canes wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 10:11 PM Todd Zullinger <tmz(a)pobox.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> This is not the way I've ever seen excludepkgs used or
>>> documented. The man page states:
>>>
>>> excludepkgs
>>> list
>>>
>>> Exclude packages of this repository, speci‐
>>> fied by a name or a glob and separated by a
>>> comma, from all operations. Can be disabled
>>> using --disableexcludes command line switch.
>>> Defaults to [].
>>>
>>> Put them all together, not a bunch of different definitions.
>>
>> Note: "separated by a comma" - the commented-out lines were separated
>> by spaces (I assume these were failed attempts).
>
> excludepkgs=wine*,resolvconf,systemd-resolved
>
> Did work. I missed what Samuel's said.
>
> This is a regression from Fedora 36. I updates
> the bug report.
It might be a change, but it's not a regression. It's clearly
documented in the man page.
Where in the man page does it say you can
only have one entry, so cram it all on
the same line?
2:39 a.m.
On 4 Feb 2023, at 08:33, ToddAndMargo via users
<users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
On 2/4/23 00:05, Samuel Sieb wrote:
>> On 2/3/23 21:32, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
>> On 2/3/23 20:10, Go Canes wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 10:11 PM Todd Zullinger <tmz(a)pobox.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This is not the way I've ever seen excludepkgs used or
>>>> documented. The man page states:
>>>>
>>>> excludepkgs
>>>> list
>>>>
>>>> Exclude packages of this repository, speci‐
>>>> fied by a name or a glob and separated by a
>>>> comma, from all operations. Can be disabled
>>>> using --disableexcludes command line switch.
>>>> Defaults to [].
>>>>
>>>> Put them all together, not a bunch of different definitions.
>>>
>>> Note: "separated by a comma" - the commented-out lines were
separated
>>> by spaces (I assume these were failed attempts).
>>
>> excludepkgs=wine*,resolvconf,systemd-resolved
>>
>> Did work. I missed what Samuel's said.
>>
>> This is a regression from Fedora 36. I updates
>> the bug report.
> It might be a change, but it's not a regression. It's clearly documented in
the man page.
Where in the man page does it say you can
only have one entry, so cram it all on
the same line?
Where does it say you can repeat lines?
I always understood that each tag can only appear once.
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
3:44 a.m.
On 2/4/23 00:39, Barry wrote:
> On 4 Feb 2023, at 08:33, ToddAndMargo via users <users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
wrote:
>
> On 2/4/23 00:05, Samuel Sieb wrote:
>>> On 2/3/23 21:32, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
>>> On 2/3/23 20:10, Go Canes wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 10:11 PM Todd Zullinger <tmz(a)pobox.com>
wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> This is not the way I've ever seen excludepkgs used or
>>>>> documented. The man page states:
>>>>>
>>>>> excludepkgs
>>>>> list
>>>>>
>>>>> Exclude packages of this repository, speci‐
>>>>> fied by a name or a glob and separated by a
>>>>> comma, from all operations. Can be disabled
>>>>> using --disableexcludes command line switch.
>>>>> Defaults to [].
>>>>>
>>>>> Put them all together, not a bunch of different definitions.
>>>>
>>>> Note: "separated by a comma" - the commented-out lines were
separated
>>>> by spaces (I assume these were failed attempts).
>>>
>>> excludepkgs=wine*,resolvconf,systemd-resolved
>>>
>>> Did work. I missed what Samuel's said.
>>>
>>> This is a regression from Fedora 36. I updates
>>> the bug report.
>> It might be a change, but it's not a regression. It's clearly documented
in the man page.
>
> Where in the man page does it say you can
> only have one entry, so cram it all on
> the same line?
Where does it say you can repeat lines?
I always understood that each tag can only appear once.
Seems I got away with it a lot
10:59 a.m.
ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
On 2/4/23 00:39, Barry wrote:
>
> I always understood that each tag can only appear once.
Seems I got away with it a lot
Multiple excludepkgs entries in dnf.conf don't work in f36
either. Only the last one is used.
# rpm -q dnf
dnf-4.14.0-1.fc36.noarch
# printf 'excludepkgs=%s\n' 'wine*' 'git*'
>>/etc/dnf/dnf.conf
# dnf -qq list wine | cat
Available Packages
wine.i686 8.0-1.fc36 updates
wine.x86_64 8.0-1.fc36 updates
# sed -i '/^excludepkgs=/d' /etc/dnf/dnf.conf
# printf 'excludepkgs=%s\n' 'git*' 'wine*'
>>/etc/dnf/dnf.conf
# dnf -qq list wine
Error: No matching Packages to list
# dnf -qq list git | cat
Available Packages
git.x86_64 2.39.1-1.fc36 updates
I'm not sure you got away with anything. You may not have
noticed it wasn't working as you had hoped. :)
--
Todd
5:14 p.m.
On 2/4/23 08:59, Todd Zullinger wrote:
ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
> On 2/4/23 00:39, Barry wrote:
>>
>> I always understood that each tag can only appear once.
>
> Seems I got away with it a lot
Multiple excludepkgs entries in dnf.conf don't work in f36
either. Only the last one is used.
# rpm -q dnf
dnf-4.14.0-1.fc36.noarch
# printf 'excludepkgs=%s\n' 'wine*' 'git*'
>>/etc/dnf/dnf.conf
# dnf -qq list wine | cat
Available Packages
wine.i686 8.0-1.fc36 updates
wine.x86_64 8.0-1.fc36 updates
# sed -i '/^excludepkgs=/d' /etc/dnf/dnf.conf
# printf 'excludepkgs=%s\n' 'git*' 'wine*'
>>/etc/dnf/dnf.conf
# dnf -qq list wine
Error: No matching Packages to list
# dnf -qq list git | cat
Available Packages
git.x86_64 2.39.1-1.fc36 updates
I'm not sure you got away with anything. You may not have
noticed it wasn't working as you had hoped. :)
Oh I would have noticed instantly. Wine 7 was
a total DISASTER and did a number on my business!
I wonder if it was a dnf update I had yet to
install. Hmmmmm...
5:37 p.m.
ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
On 2/4/23 08:59, Todd Zullinger wrote:
> I'm not sure you got away with anything. You may not have
> noticed it wasn't working as you had hoped. :)
Oh I would have noticed instantly.
[...]
I wonder if it was a dnf update I had yet to
install. Hmmmmm...
The last dnf update in f36 was 5 months ago. The one before
that was 9 months ago. It's unlikely.
--
Todd
8:55 p.m.
On Feb 5, 2023, at 18:38, Todd Zullinger <tmz(a)pobox.com>
wrote:
ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
>> On 2/4/23 08:59, Todd Zullinger wrote:
>> I'm not sure you got away with anything. You may not have
>> noticed it wasn't working as you had hoped. :)
>
> Oh I would have noticed instantly.
[...]
>
> I wonder if it was a dnf update I had yet to
> install. Hmmmmm...
The last dnf update in f36 was 5 months ago. The one before
that was 9 months ago.
I poked around the source for dnf on GitHub, and I do see a commit from 2021 which kinda
backs up the multiple lines argument:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf/pull/1779
However, best I understand it was so you could append excludes in a *repo* file, not
multiple appending lines in the main dnf.conf.
Trying to read the code on my phone is giving me a headache so I will leave it up to
smarter people here.
--
Jonathan Billings
5:23 p.m.
On 2/4/23 08:59, Todd Zullinger wrote:
Multiple excludepkgs entries in dnf.conf don't work in f36
either. Only the last one is used.
I wonder if they are reading in dnf.conf file
with a bash script.
# Source network variables
. /etc/sysconfig/network
Would certainly over write all but the last one.
And if so, my memory of it working in
FC36 must be really bad. On the other hand
if dnf had upgraded wine to 7 on me, I would
have know instantly and had been furious.
When I write programs (Raku), I read the whole
thing in and parse through what I want. If
I did not realize that their were multiple
instances, then on the first one would be
be the only one read.
But, then again, I print out the .conf file
in another shell and examine what is in it
before starting coding
12:55 p.m.
On Sat, Feb 4, 2023 at 3:33 AM ToddAndMargo via users
<users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
On 2/4/23 00:05, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On 2/3/23 21:32, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
>> On 2/3/23 20:10, Go Canes wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 3, 2023 at 10:11 PM Todd Zullinger <tmz(a)pobox.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This is not the way I've ever seen excludepkgs used or
>>>> documented. The man page states:
>>>>
>>>> excludepkgs
>>>> list
>>>>
>>>> Exclude packages of this repository, speci‐
>>>> fied by a name or a glob and separated by a
>>>> comma, from all operations. Can be disabled
>>>> using --disableexcludes command line switch.
>>>> Defaults to [].
>>>>
>>>> Put them all together, not a bunch of different definitions.
>>>
>>> Note: "separated by a comma" - the commented-out lines were
separated
>>> by spaces (I assume these were failed attempts).
>>
>> excludepkgs=wine*,resolvconf,systemd-resolved
>>
>> Did work. I missed what Samuel's said.
>>
>> This is a regression from Fedora 36. I updates
>> the bug report.
>
> It might be a change, but it's not a regression. It's clearly
> documented in the man page.
Where in the man page does it say you can
only have one entry, so cram it all on
the same line?
I don't see the discussion in the dnf(8) man page after a quick read.
And in particular, the discussion under PACKAGE FILTERING.[1]
I think the use of multiple excludepkgs is intuitive. Each time you
want to pin a package, you add an excludepkgs. When you no longer want
to pin a package, you delete the particular excludepkgs. I also
understand the usage may be one excludepkgs with commas separating a
list of package names. That makes sense, too.
I think this is probably a documentation bug. You should file a bug
report at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/ .
Jeff
[1] https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man8/dnf.8.html
10:33 p.m.
On Sat, 2023-02-04 at 13:55 -0500, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
I think the use of multiple excludepkgs is intuitive. Each time you
want to pin a package, you add an excludepkgs.
I don't. It flies in the face of many other configuration files that
I've adjusted. If I do something like the following in one file:
setting=this
setting=that
setting=something
The setting gets changed on each iteration, and finally becomes just:
setting=something
Sure, there are *some* exceptions, but *there* the documentation tells
that multiple statements can be used. e.g. Various servers let you do:
listen 127.0.0.1:80
listen 192.168.0.1:8080
So it'll listen on more than one interface and port.
Trying to be logical about it you might want to pick on the absence or
presence of the equals sign, but I highly doubt that's consistent
behaviour.
Sure it could be somewhat of a documentation problem, that it says
nothing about this, though I'm never inclined to do things that docs
don't suggest are possible. Certainly not without some experimenting,
and always being mindful that undocumented features can never be relied
upon, now or later on.
Back in the days of when we had no compilers and had to program the CPU
directly in op-codes, there were a few undocumented commands that were
nick-named HCF codes (for Halt and Catch Fire). They worked on some
CPUs and not others.
--
uname -rsvp
Linux 3.10.0-1160.83.1.el7.x86_64 #1 SMP Wed Jan 25 16:41:43 UTC 2023 x86_64
Boilerplate: All unexpected mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted.
I will only get to see the messages that are posted to the mailing list.
11:42 p.m.
On Sat, Feb 4, 2023 at 11:33 PM Tim <ignored_mailbox(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
On Sat, 2023-02-04 at 13:55 -0500, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> I think the use of multiple excludepkgs is intuitive. Each time you
> want to pin a package, you add an excludepkgs.
I don't. It flies in the face of many other configuration files that
I've adjusted. If I do something like the following in one file:
I hope multiple configuration files in config.d/ directories don't
offend your delicate sensibilities.
Jeff
10:08 a.m.
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 00:42:28 -0500
Jeffrey Walton <noloader(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Feb 4, 2023 at 11:33 PM Tim
<ignored_mailbox(a)yahoo.com.au>
wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2023-02-04 at 13:55 -0500, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> > I think the use of multiple excludepkgs is intuitive. Each time
> > you want to pin a package, you add an excludepkgs.
>
> I don't. It flies in the face of many other configuration files
> that I've adjusted. If I do something like the following in one
> file:
I hope multiple configuration files in config.d/ directories don't
offend your delicate sensibilities.
That isn't the same thing. Config.d directories are designated as
places where multiple configuration files are placed. Tim is talking
about historical convention for a single configuration file.
And the way you phrased your response comes across as sarcastic and
demeaning, almost as a personal attack. Maybe you didn't mean it that
way, but that's how I would interpret it. You could have said something
like,
"What about multiple configuration files in config.d directories?
Doesn't that contradict what you are saying?"
10:28 a.m.
On Sun, Feb 5, 2023 at 11:08 AM stan <upaitag(a)zoho.com> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2023 00:42:28 -0500
Jeffrey Walton <noloader(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 4, 2023 at 11:33 PM Tim <ignored_mailbox(a)yahoo.com.au>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 2023-02-04 at 13:55 -0500, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> > > I think the use of multiple excludepkgs is intuitive. Each time
> > > you want to pin a package, you add an excludepkgs.
> >
> > I don't. It flies in the face of many other configuration files
> > that I've adjusted. If I do something like the following in one
> > file:
>
> I hope multiple configuration files in config.d/ directories don't
> offend your delicate sensibilities.
That isn't the same thing. Config.d directories are designated as
places where multiple configuration files are placed. Tim is talking
about historical convention for a single configuration file.
And the way you phrased your response comes across as sarcastic and
demeaning, almost as a personal attack. Maybe you didn't mean it that
way, but that's how I would interpret it. You could have said something
like,
"What about multiple configuration files in config.d directories?
Doesn't that contradict what you are saying?"
No, I did.
I don't feel like engaging in another endless debate the same folks
seem to engage in on this list.
The thrust of my post was the documentation bug, not his personal
opinion of me being incorrect.
Jeff
6:52 a.m.
On Sun, 2023-02-05 at 09:08 -0700, stan via users wrote:
And the way you phrased your response comes across as sarcastic and
demeaning, almost as a personal attack. Maybe you didn't mean it that
way, but that's how I would interpret it.
That's how I took it.
I gave a reasoned response about why I didn't think it was
"intuitive" and got a rude hissy fit in response.
I don't *expect* that setting the same variable several times over
would anything other than re-set it each time, that's actually
*contrary* to what I'd *expect*.
Sure, that is an "opinion," but not an unreasonable one, nor a rude
one, nor different from historical experience of how variables are set
in programs. Hence how I came to that conclusion. Thus far I've not
seen a configuration file where I could set a variable to different
things, and have them all accumulate. It's counter to my experience.
Just off the top of my head, out of the services I've made use of over
the years, I wouldn't expect it work in BIND, DHCP, Apache, sendmail,
postfix, Dovecot, NTPD, CUPS, Samba, yum, dnf. Nor any of the
programming languages I've used since the 1980s. Sure, a person's
experience is only ever going to be a subset of *everything*, but it
gives you a fair idea of what to expect when configuring things.
I only *expect* one of two things to happen:
1. The last time the variable is set, is what it will be.
2. The program to error-out and complain that a variable has been set
twice.
Yes, it *could* work *otherwise*, but the man file doesn't suggest so,
I'd be surprised if it did, and *I* wouldn't rely on undocumented
features or quirks. I pointed out the historical aspect of doing
things like that (using undocumented features), they became know as
"HCF codes."
I also pointed out the clue in the configuration file that would lead
me to *expect* that kind of behaviour:
variable-name = adjustable-values
The equal sign implies this is that, it doesn't imply anything else.
The really odd thing is they want to argue strongly against the case of
what it appears to do (work how I expected it to) for a behaviour that
would be programmatically peculiar, that the manual doesn't even
slightly suggest, but does quite clearly explain how you're expected to
use it.
Why would you expect it to work in some way that's different from the
instructions?
--
uname -rsvp
Linux 3.10.0-1160.83.1.el7.x86_64 #1 SMP Wed Jan 25 16:41:43 UTC 2023 x86_64
Boilerplate: All unexpected mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted.
I will only get to see the messages that are posted to the mailing list.
3:39 p.m.
On 2/6/23 04:52, Tim via users wrote:
The really odd thing is they want to argue strongly against the case
of
what it appears to do (work how I expected it to) for a behaviour that
would be programmatically peculiar, that the manual doesn't even
slightly suggest, but does quite clearly explain how you're expected to
use it.
Why would you expect it to work in some way that's different from the
instructions?
Hi Tim,
If dnf is using bash "source", each instance of the
variable would erase the previous.
I also saw nowhere in the instructions (man page) to
only use them once. I could have missed it.
And if you look at the now closed bug report, the
annalist went all the way back to FC26 and found
the behavior consistent with the last instance model.
So, although I still am scratching my head as to
why I ever go it to work and what I though I was
really seeing, I am clearly the one at fault.
-T
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Computers are like air conditioners.
They malfunction when you open windows
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
7:14 p.m.
On 2/6/23 13:39, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
I also saw nowhere in the instructions (man page) to
only use them once. I could have missed it.
Because that's the normal way config files work. If you can have the
same option multiple times, that's a rare exception and would be
documented as such.
7:50 p.m.
On Mon, 2023-02-06 at 13:39 -0800, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
So, although I still am scratching my head as to
why I ever go it to work and what I though I was
really seeing, I am clearly the one at fault.
My only guess could be, that at the time you added a line, that issue
was the thing that concerned you at the time.
--
NB: All unexpected mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted.
I will only get to see the messages that are posted to the list.
8:58 p.m.
On 2/6/23 17:50, Tim via users wrote:
On Mon, 2023-02-06 at 13:39 -0800, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
> So, although I still am scratching my head as to
> why I ever go it to work and what I though I was
> really seeing, I am clearly the one at fault.
My only guess could be, that at the time you added a line, that issue
was the thing that concerned you at the time.
And it was at the bottom of the file at the time.
That all makes sense.
488
days inactive
493
days old
32 comments
10 participants
participants (10)
-
Barry -
Go Canes -
Jeffrey Walton -
Joe Zeff -
Jonathan Billings -
Samuel Sieb -
stan -
Tim -
Todd Zullinger -
ToddAndMargo