[opensuse] yum, python 2.6 and Suse 11.1 - A sad tale
Hi Guys, I would like to use yum on 11.1 - specifically yum-utils and the ability to use yum localinstall, which I find extremely handy and which zypper does not support. (Yes, I know "You should just use zypper!" and "smart is better" and "why would you ever want to use yum on Suse?" and all those wonder things, but the bottom line is that there is still no way for zypper to install a local rpm and handle the dependencies from the repos. Plus, I like yum.) yum is not in 11.1 repo, and seems to have been removed due to python being updated to 2.6 which does not play well with yum. You can still get yum from the 11.0 repo, but there are the below issues trying to get it to work with python 11.0 repo: http://download.opensuse.org/distribution/11.0/repo/oss/suse/i586/yum-3.2.14... Errors when installing as it needs Python < 2.4 and 2.6 is installed with Suse 11.1 I tried a later version of Yum (3.2.22), for RHEL 5.0 from Pbone, but it still required Python < 2.4 and had other dependency isssue as well. No problem, let's just have both Python 2.4 and 2.6 installed right? I downloaded Python and built Python 2.4 from http://www.python.org/download/releases/2.4.6/ ./configure ./make I normally try to run checkinstall to make an rpm rather than 'make install' - but this had a bug too, it just need a directory to be manually created. (What the heck is up with checkinstall having these issues lately?) mkdir -p /usr/local/lib/python2.4/config checkinstall You now have a Python 2.4 RPM - yeah! And it looks good: Callandor:~ # rpm -qpl Python-2.4.6-1.i386.rpm | less Callandor:~ # rpm -Uvh yum-3.2.14-15.1.i586.rpm error: Failed dependencies: python-gpgme is needed by yum-3.2.14-15.1.i586 python < 2.6 is needed by yum-3.2.14-15.1.i586 I installed python-gpgme which resolved that dependency and then just forced the install as Python 2.4 exists: rpm -ivh --nodeps yum-3.2.14-15.1.i586.rpm Callandor:~ #ln -s /usr/local/bin/python2.4 /usr/bin/python2.4 Callandor:~ # python -V Python 2.4.6 Callandor:~ # python2.6 -V Python 2.6 I edited /usr/bin/yum to specify using 2.4.6, which it is. However, yum is still not working with python: Callandor:~ # yum There was a problem importing one of the Python modules required to run yum. The error leading to this problem was: No module named yum Please install a package which provides this module, or verify that the module is installed correctly. It's possible that the above module doesn't match the current version of Python, which is: 2.4.6 (#1, Apr 25 2009, 08:25:54) [GCC 4.3.2 [gcc-4_3-branch revision 141291]] If you cannot solve this problem yourself, please go to the yum faq at: http://wiki.linux.duke.edu/YumFaq I found this there, but honestly it is not too helpful http://wiki.linux.duke.edu/YumFaq#Q7 I tried importing yum in python, no errors but the same issue exists. Any suggestions on how to finish this off and get yum working on 11.1? Thanks! Pete Eby -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday, 2009-04-25 at 09:44 -0400, peby@sagonet.com wrote:
I normally try to run checkinstall to make an rpm rather than 'make install' - but this had a bug too, it just need a directory to be manually created.
I wrote a bugzilla about that problem time ago.
(What the heck is up with checkinstall having these issues lately?)
The devs do not want to repair it, they prefer us to create a spec file by hand, for which you need to be an expert, or worse, use the buildservice, for which you need to be an even better expert. For them it is easy, so they don't repair checkinstall. Impossible! My hack for the above is: - create each directory it wants, by hand, and rerun checkinstall. Maybe a hundred cycles. Boresome. - or install the previous rpm from the same package, which creates the directories. Then run checkinstall (without install), remove the previous rpm, install the new one. - or first run a make install, then a checkinstall. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAknzKOYACgkQtTMYHG2NR9UvVwCggcq8XFe2NCpNdpvF1QrG7Uv9 k7kAn0T1fSaKadZKmDhjj6J2sUpS0gAU =n1Wn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Saturday, 2009-04-25 at 09:44 -0400, peby@sagonet.com wrote:
I normally try to run checkinstall to make an rpm rather than 'make install' - but this had a bug too, it just need a directory to be manually created.
I wrote a bugzilla about that problem time ago.
(What the heck is up with checkinstall having these issues lately?)
The devs do not want to repair it, they prefer us to create a spec file by hand, for which you need to be an expert, or worse, use the buildservice, for which you need to be an even better expert. For them it is easy, so they don't repair checkinstall. Impossible!
Wow - amazing the devs on checkinstall don't address it. What a pain. It is such a great tool too. . .
My hack for the above is:
- create each directory it wants, by hand, and rerun checkinstall. Maybe a hundred cycles. Boresome. - or install the previous rpm from the same package, which creates the directories. Then run checkinstall (without install), remove the previous rpm, install the new one. - or first run a make install, then a checkinstall. Cheers,
Those are some good idea, especially the last - simple, but will accomplish the result. Who wants to make tons of directories by hand? Thanks Carlos, Pete -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Saturday 25 April 2009 17:56:53 peby@sagonet.com wrote:
My hack for the above is:
- create each directory it wants, by hand, and rerun checkinstall.
This is a bug in the makefile, not a problem with checkinstall. If you're creating an rpm, you don't want to put files in the real file system. Instead, you pass an installation root directory to the makefile, using an environment variable, and all directories are then supposed to be relative to it. So if the installation wants to have a directory in the real file system, then the makefile needs to be fixed. This would have tripped up rpm too Incidentally, I don't see how it could ever be checkinstall's problem that a directory doesn't get created. This is always the job of the makefile Anders -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Saturday 25 April 2009 17:14:44 Carlos E. R. wrote:
On Saturday, 2009-04-25 at 09:44 -0400, peby@sagonet.com wrote:
I normally try to run checkinstall to make an rpm rather than 'make install' - but this had a bug too, it just need a directory to be manually created.
I wrote a bugzilla about that problem time ago.
My guess is that the makefile creates the directory relative to the installation root, but then tries to install not relative to it, into the real file system Anders -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday, 2009-04-25 at 18:20 +0200, Anders Johansson wrote:
On Saturday 25 April 2009 17:14:44 Carlos E. R. wrote:
On Saturday, 2009-04-25 at 09:44 -0400, peby@sagonet.com wrote:
I normally try to run checkinstall to make an rpm rather than 'make install' - but this had a bug too, it just need a directory to be manually created.
I wrote a bugzilla about that problem time ago.
My guess is that the makefile creates the directory relative to the installation root, but then tries to install not relative to it, into the real file system
It happens with many Makefile files I have tried, I have no idea why. A project would compile on openSUSE 10.3, then it failed in 11.0. Example: /usr/bin/install -c .libs/libdvdcss.a /usr/local/lib/libdvdcss.a chmod 644 /usr/local/lib/libdvdcss.a chmod: changing permissions of `/usr/local/lib/libdvdcss.a': No such file or directory make[3]: *** [install-libLTLIBRARIES] Error 1 make[3]: Leaving directory This is Bug 432497, if you are interested. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAknzQKcACgkQtTMYHG2NR9WqbgCfSDQVosXz46TTzjvwqQTwj6O3 5QkAn2FzR+txWupDmyP0XAjRorhcV3Xj =NYt8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Saturday 25 April 2009 18:56:01 Carlos E. R. wrote:
On Saturday, 2009-04-25 at 18:20 +0200, Anders Johansson wrote:
On Saturday 25 April 2009 17:14:44 Carlos E. R. wrote:
On Saturday, 2009-04-25 at 09:44 -0400, peby@sagonet.com wrote:
I normally try to run checkinstall to make an rpm rather than 'make install' - but this had a bug too, it just need a directory to be manually created.
I wrote a bugzilla about that problem time ago.
My guess is that the makefile creates the directory relative to the installation root, but then tries to install not relative to it, into the real file system
It happens with many Makefile files I have tried, I have no idea why. A project would compile on openSUSE 10.3, then it failed in 11.0.
Example:
/usr/bin/install -c .libs/libdvdcss.a /usr/local/lib/libdvdcss.a chmod 644 /usr/local/lib/libdvdcss.a
Exactly. A hard coded path directly into the file system. This doesn't work when you want to create an rpm, everything has to be relative to the installation root. This is a very common bug in makefiles
chmod: changing permissions of `/usr/local/lib/libdvdcss.a': No such file or directory make[3]: *** [install-libLTLIBRARIES] Error 1 make[3]: Leaving directory
This is Bug 432497, if you are interested.
I am, but it is still a problem with the makefiles Anders -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Saturday 25 April 2009 18:56:01 Carlos E. R. wrote:
/usr/bin/install -c .libs/libdvdcss.a /usr/local/lib/libdvdcss.a chmod 644 /usr/local/lib/libdvdcss.a chmod: changing permissions of `/usr/local/lib/libdvdcss.a': No such file or directory make[3]: *** [install-libLTLIBRARIES] Error 1 make[3]: Leaving directory
This is Bug 432497, if you are interested.
OK, I was wrong. checkinstall doesn't work like rpm, it seems. Now that I look at it, I see that it preloads a library called installwatch, which intercepts calls to syscalls like chmod and redirects them to its temporary directory. The bug here is that chmod doesn't actually use the syscall chmod, it uses something called fchmodat, which the installwatch lib doesn't intercept, it only does chmod and fchmod. It seems it needs to be updated with all the newer calls Anders -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday, 2009-04-25 at 19:29 +0200, Anders Johansson wrote:
This is Bug 432497, if you are interested.
OK, I was wrong. checkinstall doesn't work like rpm, it seems. Now that I look at it, I see that it preloads a library called installwatch, which intercepts calls to syscalls like chmod and redirects them to its temporary directory.
Yes, I remember it uses a temporary directory and then removes it on exit; one never sees it.
The bug here is that chmod doesn't actually use the syscall chmod, it uses something called fchmodat, which the installwatch lib doesn't intercept, it only does chmod and fchmod. It seems it needs to be updated with all the newer calls
Argh! Well, at least I have now an idea of what is happening. Thanks for giving it a thought :-) - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAknzaIAACgkQtTMYHG2NR9VUwwCfYRWADQwQmijpaCixCmj5AUET XqYAn1PxeFQsEjhtAaShyWjx26+hkadz =pSy3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 17:14:44 +0200 (CEST), you wrote:
The devs do not want to repair it,
Oh, I do want to repair it, but I won't invest weeks of coding time for something that nobody inside suse is using! If you want something working, check out the code from the checkinstall git repository ande compile it for yourself. *If* you want to complain to anyone do it upstreams to those that create and maintain checkinstall. Ask them why they haven't yet released code that works with newer glibc versions.
they prefer us to create a spec file by hand, for which you need to be an expert,
No, you don't need to be an expert to create a spec, there are literally thousands of examples to go from.
or worse, use the buildservice, for which you need to be an even better expert. For them it is easy, so they don't repair checkinstall. Impossible!
If fixing checkinstall would be so easy I would have done so long ago! The point is that I would have to invest roughly at least a complete week to get the code from the checkinstall git and integrate that into our version. And that is much more time then I can invest in a package such as checkinstall. It's really time to drop checkinstall from the distribution, move it to the buildservice and let someone else maintain the package! I put checkinstall into the distribution because I thought it would be a service to the users of back then SuSE Linux and would need little work to maintain. Now that we have the buildservice there isn't any need anymore to have it maintained inside Novell. If the community wants the package, someone from that community ought to step up and maintain it. Checkinstall is a gross hack and does not really fit into openSUSE as it will happily create packages that defy all rules for this distribution. Hmm, there's a project there, now that I think about it! How about having checkinstall additionally call rpmlint like its done for openSUSE packages? This would reject the packages based on the same rules that apply to all openSUSE packages. Yes, I like that idea! I guess I'll spend a bit of my scarce free time on that after I've returned from my holiday. Philipp -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Content-ID:
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 17:14:44 +0200 (CEST), you wrote:
The devs do not want to repair it,
Oh, I do want to repair it, but I won't invest weeks of coding time for something that nobody inside suse is using!
But YOUR users are using it. There is no alternative. Are we openSUSE members part of openSUSE or not?
If you want something working, check out the code from the checkinstall git repository ande compile it for yourself.
*If* you want to complain to anyone do it upstreams to those that create and maintain checkinstall. Ask them why they haven't yet released code that works with newer glibc versions.
I'd prefer somebody from SUSE/Novell doing that, as you know what is wrong, and I don't.
they prefer us to create a spec file by hand, for which you need to be an expert,
No, you don't need to be an expert to create a spec, there are literally thousands of examples to go from.
Examples that are from experts and for experts, and very much more difficult than having it done automatically. I just searched for "create spec file" in the openSUSE site, and only found "http://en.opensuse.org/SUSE_Build_Tutorial". It starts with: You should have a good understanding about the creation of RPMs. This document is not aimed to be a replacement for RPM documentation. There are already many HOWTOs, Guides and Books for this see the resources paragraph for RPM related links. Well, I have none. So, what do I do? I want to create an rpm as fast as checkinstall does. I don't want to really do a seminar on creating them. I don't really want to understand their insides in order to create a private one.
of back then SuSE Linux and would need little work to maintain. Now that we have the buildservice there isn't any need anymore to have it maintained inside Novell. If the community wants the package, someone from that community ought to step up and maintain it.
Again with the buildservice! Can you tell me what good is the buildservice for a single build that is going to be used for a single computer? I have no idea how to create an spec. How on earth would I use the buildservice to build any package for my private use, under half an hour, automatically? The users of checkinstall do not want to distribute. We simply want to keep the rpm database happy (in ignorance if need be). And... would you allow us to build, say, libdvdcs in your buildservice? I guess not.
Checkinstall is a gross hack and does not really fit into openSUSE as it will happily create packages that defy all rules for this distribution.
I don't care. It fits our uses. Not yours, because you are a dev. Ours. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkn3mbsACgkQtTMYHG2NR9X5LgCfUPPwlqB1CWzbIT72cTshAlaN voEAnRsASj0vfWMtwDbTsBmGb7UKuJEf =tdy8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Wed, 29 Apr 2009 02:05:08 +0200 (CEST), you wrote:
Again with the buildservice! Can you tell me what good is the buildservice for a single build that is going to be used for a single computer?
You misunderstood me. I meant someone from the community should step up to maintain checkinstall as with the existance of the BS it's not necessary to maintain checkinstall inside Novell.
I don't care.
If you don't care, why do you use openSUSE? Part of the work we did in the past was ensuring that packages in the distribution stick to the rules defined for the distribution, including the rules which compiler warnings are unacceptable and which paths have to be used. I really think I'll make checkinstall obey those rules as much as I can. This would reject an rpm package based on the same rules every package in openSUSE has to obey (including packages in the BS).
It fits our uses. Not yours, because you are a dev. Ours.
I really don't think that a package that ignores all the rules really fits your uses. What about compiler warnings that we treat like errors because most often it's a sign of broken coding that can lead to all kinds of problems including silent data corruption? Building such packages in our internal build system or in the OBS will fail because of such errors. Building with checkinstall will succeed and you will have code that may silently and unnoticed corrupts your system. Do you really want that? Philipp -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Carlos E. R. wrote:
Checkinstall is a gross hack and does not really fit into openSUSE as it will happily create packages that defy all rules for this distribution.
I don't care. It fits our uses. Not yours, because you are a dev. Ours.
Carlos, if you don't care, why not just compile into a home directory and put that directory into your path? That way you don't risk corrupting the rest of the system, and you don't need checkinstall. John Perry -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On 28 April 09, John E. Perry wrote:
Carlos E. R. wrote:
Checkinstall is a gross hack and does not really fit into openSUSE as it will happily create packages that defy all rules for this distribution.
I don't care. It fits our uses. Not yours, because you are a dev. Ours.
Carlos, if you don't care, why not just compile into a home directory and put that directory into your path? That way you don't risk corrupting the rest of the system, and you don't need checkinstall.
That defeats the purpose of the simplicity (and most of Carlos's post) of checkinstall. Even suggesting this 'path' ad nausea makes for dulled over eyes on new users to linux. Yes, cli is good to know, but if it has to be *that* complicated to know how to change path and such! -- There are two types of motorcycles...Harleys and not Harleys. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
JB2 wrote:
On 28 April 09, John E. Perry wrote:
I don't care. It fits our uses. Not yours, because you are a dev. Ours. Carlos, if you don't care, why not just compile into a home directory and put that directory into your path? That way you don't risk corrupting the rest of the system, and you don't need checkinstall.
That defeats the purpose of the simplicity (and most of Carlos's post) of checkinstall. Even suggesting this 'path' ad nausea makes for dulled over eyes on new users to linux. Yes, cli is good to know, but if it has to be *that* complicated to know how to change path and such!
Oops. Forgot that there was more to checkinstall (which I've never used) than just compiling and installing into system directories. Sorry. jp -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday, 2009-04-28 at 22:28 -0400, John E. Perry wrote:
Carlos E. R. wrote:
Checkinstall is a gross hack and does not really fit into openSUSE as it will happily create packages that defy all rules for this distribution.
I don't care. It fits our uses. Not yours, because you are a dev. Ours.
Carlos, if you don't care, why not just compile into a home directory and put that directory into your path? That way you don't risk corrupting the rest of the system, and you don't need checkinstall.
You can do that only if it is a package not already available to Yast. For example, if you want to use your own compilation of "xinelib", you want yours to replace the system one, so you remove the existing xinelib: and then a bunch of apps complain there is no xinelib, even if you put your compiled version, because the rpm database is not happy, and Yast will want to remove those apps, too. So you need to create an rpm of your local xinelib so that rpm knows there is something named xinelib in the system. - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkn33qoACgkQtTMYHG2NR9UzoQCgjXdNy5uGTOqEa6XeKp+oT93v HU0AoIkXYkuTim2xMg8v4T06082D6SCI =od4P -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Saturday 25 April 2009 08:44:45 am peby@sagonet.com wrote:
Hi Guys,
I would like to use yum on 11.1 - specifically yum-utils and the ability to use yum localinstall, which I find extremely handy and which zypper does not support.
This should work:
zypper in
(Yes, I know "You should just use zypper!" and "smart is better" and "why would you ever want to use yum on Suse?" and all those wonder things, but the bottom line is that there is still no way for zypper to install a local rpm and handle the dependencies from the repos. Plus, I like yum.)
Let force be with you :-) -- Regards, Rajko http://news.opensuse.org/category/people-of-opensuse/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Saturday 25 April 2009 08:44:45 am peby@sagonet.com wrote:
Hi Guys,
I would like to use yum on 11.1 - specifically yum-utils and the ability to use yum localinstall, which I find extremely handy and which zypper does not support.
This should work:
zypper in
Regards, Rajko
Argh - I see that does work (installing deps from repos) - last time I tried that with zypper (some time ago) it was not supported. This works and seems a good replacement for yum localinstall - thanks. I would still like to resolve the issue with yum and the python < 2.4 issue though - why not. Do you have any idea about that? Thanks, Pete -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Saturday 25 April 2009 18:07:29 peby@sagonet.com wrote:
I would still like to resolve the issue with yum and the python < 2.4 issue though - why not. Do you have any idea about that?
This is an rpm dependency, and it can never be resolved without downgrading python. The best you can hope to achieve is to install a python version that yum likes and then tell rpm to ignore that particular dependency On the other hand, you could try to use the yum in http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/openSUSE:/Tools:/Devel/openSUSE_11... and see if it works without messing around with older versions of python You can use zypper to install it :) Anders -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Saturday 25 April 2009 11:07:29 am peby@sagonet.com wrote:
I would still like to resolve the issue with yum and the python < 2.4 issue though - why not. Do you have any idea about that?
I'm not sure about yum details, and I would be cautious. I'm not sure how compatible is yum that you are trying to install with zypper. You don't want 2 package management systems that store metadata in different places, ie. have no idea what the other one installed. It is recipe for problems. Maybe yum that Anders pointed can help you. It should be compatible with 11.1. That is why I ended last post with Star Wars line "Let force be with you", which highly probably will be the case if you check what is already in the openSUSE Build Service: http://software.opensuse.org/search and http://packages.opensuse-community.org/ before you resort to www search. -- Regards, Rajko http://news.opensuse.org/category/people-of-opensuse/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Am Samstag, 25. April 2009 schrieb Rajko M.:
On Saturday 25 April 2009 11:07:29 am peby@sagonet.com wrote:
I would still like to resolve the issue with yum and the python < 2.4 issue though - why not. Do you have any idea about that?
I'm not sure about yum details, and I would be cautious.
I'm not sure how compatible is yum that you are trying to install with zypper. You don't want 2 package management systems that store metadata in different places, ie. have no idea what the other one installed. It is recipe for problems.
Well, I haven't tested yum lately, but your claim doesn't hold true, because zypper, smart and yum are all frontends to rpm... The repo management "upwards" differ, the backend remains the same. BTW, yum has a record and is designed for minimum risk package mgmt, for this reason, there're no --force nor --nodeps options. OTOH, I even bootstrapped some SuSE installations (for diskless clients) with it, a custom script, and the rpms.. Pete -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 01:35:54AM +0200, Hans-Peter Jansen wrote:
BTW, yum has a record and is designed for minimum risk package mgmt, for this reason, there're no --force nor --nodeps options.
There's no need for those options in dependency solving package managers like yum/smart/zypper. M. -- Michael Schroeder mls@suse.de SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF Markus Rex, HRB 16746 AG Nuernberg main(_){while(_=~getchar())putchar(~_-1/(~(_|32)/13*2-11)*13);} -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 09:44:45 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:
(What the heck is up with checkinstall having these issues lately?)
Most probably because newer software uses functions in glibc that installwatch (part of the checkinstall package) doesn't know about and thus doesn't redirect to its own versions before calling the glibc versions (mostly all those *at functions. There is code in the checkinstall git that adds these calls but that hasn't been released yet. Besides, I'm rather determined to move checkinstall over to the openSUSE buildservice and let someone from the community maintain it, but that's a totally different story and would deserve an own thread. Philipp -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
participants (10)
-
Anders Johansson -
Carlos E. R. -
Carlos E. R. -
Hans-Peter Jansen -
JB2 -
John E. Perry -
Michael Schroeder -
peby＠sagonet.com -
Philipp Thomas -
Rajko M.