[Bug 736100] New: libzypp's patches application rules are flawed
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736100 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736100#c0 Summary: libzypp's patches application rules are flawed Classification: openSUSE Product: openSUSE 12.1 Version: Final Platform: Other OS/Version: Other Status: NEW Severity: Normal Priority: P5 - None Component: libzypp AssignedTo: zypp-maintainers@forge.provo.novell.com ReportedBy: cmorve69@yahoo.es QAContact: qa@suse.de Found By: Community User Blocker: --- Short version: libzypp should IMHO never offer to change the vendor to install a patch. Yes, the user changed the vendor, it is not an openSUSE package any more. Why it should be openSUSE responsibility to provide support for that package any more? Let's just suppose the user knew what he was doing, he trust the other vendor, let's him be happy with that decision and stop bothering him. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Long version: - http://forums.opensuse.org/english/get-technical-help-here/multimedia/468228... - http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-factory/2011-04/msg00007.html And if you search in Google for: "Patch:" "conflicts with" site:forums.opensuse.org - http://forums.opensuse.org/english/get-technical-help-here/64-bit/464451-moz... - http://forums.opensuse.org/english/get-technical-help-here/applications/4602... - http://forums.opensuse.org/english/get-technical-help-here/applications/4006... and the list continues... -------------------------------------------------------- The way it is decided if a patch should be applied is flawed and is causing real problems. It is OK if you only use the official repos, but it fails when you use any other repo. You can't make the decision using the release numbers because each repo has an independent "release numbers space". openSUSE is released with PACKAGE-32.2, Packman releases PACKAGE-3.4 with H.264 support and the user installs the Packman version. Now a PACKAGE-33.1 update is released and Packman does the same with PACKAGE-4.1. - zypper up -t package will correctly update to PACKAGE-4.1 since installing PACKAGE-32.2 or PACKAGE-33.1 would imply a vendor change. What it must do is 100% clear. - zypper up -t patch will complain because it will insist in installing something like "patch:openSUSE-2011-5-1.noarch", that conflicts with "PACKAGE < 33.1". The offered options will be to install PACKAGE-33.1 even if it implies a vendor change or not installing "patch:openSUSE-2011-5-1.noarch". Users have been confused by this for years. And since some update applets (they have been changing, no idea in 12.1) have no option to ignore an update they have been getting the message again and again and again... I never use "patches" and I don't know the details of how they work, but this should definitively be fixed. From the top of my head: - Never offer to change the vendor to install a patch as explained in the short version? - Provide in the metadata the hashes of the old packages and only apply the patch if those packages are installed? - ...? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736100 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736100#c1 --- Comment #1 from Michael Andres <ma@suse.com> 2011-12-13 09:26:07 CET --- I dragged this to the zypp-devel mailinglist for discussion. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736100 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736100#c2 --- Comment #2 from Cristian Morales Vega <christian.morales.vega@gmail.com> 2012-05-16 16:57:48 UTC --- For reference: http://lists.opensuse.org/zypp-devel/2011-12/msg00001.html Something was finally done? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736100 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736100#c3 Michael Andres <ma@suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |NEEDINFO InfoProvider| |mls@suse.com --- Comment #3 from Michael Andres <ma@suse.com> 2012-05-18 09:36:01 CEST --- Still open. @mls: Is it possible to solve this solely at solver level? Adding a 'vendor' tag to the patch has the drawback that every package in the patch needs to have the same vendor. But usually the repo providing the patch also provides the packages mentioned in the patchs. So we could use their vendor as target for the update. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736100 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736100#c4 Michael Schröder <mls@suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- InfoProvider|mls@suse.com |maintenance@opensuse.org --- Comment #4 from Michael Schröder <mls@suse.com> 2012-05-18 09:35:00 UTC --- Well, we certainly could, but it's not up for me to decide. As this is a maintenance issue the pros/cons have to be discussed with the opensuse maintenance guys. (Needinfo maintenance@opensuse.org for now) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736100 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736100#c6 Dirk Mueller <dmueller@suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |NEW CC| |dmueller@suse.com InfoProvider|maintenance@opensuse.org | --- Comment #6 from Dirk Mueller <dmueller@suse.com> 2012-05-29 13:43:14 CEST --- I agree that this is a problem that needs fixing. Is it correct that there would be no change in behavior with solver.allowVendorChange set to true? I'm not sure if adding a new vendor tag to the updateinfo is a good idea - what if it is not set (packages always have a vendor, for patches it should be an optional field to be backward compatible)? what if the patchinfo vendor disagrees with all packages that it conflicts with? that would be a nonsense situation then. A non-code solution would be that packman does not release packages with a lower %release number than the standard packages, but that they share the same release numbers (plus a suffix like pm or the like). In the end that is what they do anyway, so the %release number should be consistent. Following the discussion on the mailing list, I see no issue with adding a vendor field to updateinfos, as long as backward compatible behavior is preserved and the SLE case (where we want to force to our vendor) is still possible. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736100 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736100#c7 --- Comment #7 from Dirk Mueller <dmueller@suse.com> 2012-05-29 13:45:50 CEST --- I guess instead of adding the extra vendor field, one could also modify the logic to mark patches as "n/a" if _all_ the packages they conflict with are installed from a different vendor than those that it would consider as update candidates for satisfying this patch (not sure if that is algorithmically possible though). As long as the mixed-case causes a manual conflict, I'm fine with the proposed solution. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736100 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736100#c8 --- Comment #8 from Dirk Mueller <dmueller@suse.com> 2012-05-29 13:49:40 CEST --- Alternatively: determine the "patch vendor" based on the vendors of the listed packages (the updateinfo lists the exact package name evr, so one can find the vendor via primary.xml.gz easily). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736100 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736100#c11 Benjamin Brunner <bbrunner@suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |meissner@suse.com --- Comment #11 from Benjamin Brunner <bbrunner@suse.com> 2012-05-29 14:04:49 CEST --- Added Marcus Meissner to the CC List -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736100 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736100#c12 --- Comment #12 from Michael Andres <ma@suse.com> 2012-06-06 13:05:32 CEST --- (In reply to comment #8)
Alternatively: determine the "patch vendor" based on the vendors of the listed packages (the updateinfo lists the exact package name evr, so one can find the vendor via primary.xml.gz easily).
Yes, a patchs package should conflict with installed packages of the same (or compatible) vendor only. Different vendors packages would be treated as if they were not installed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736100 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736100#c13 Michael Andres <ma@suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |m.moeller@opensuse.org --- Comment #13 from Michael Andres <ma@suse.com> 2012-07-06 16:13:27 CEST --- *** Bug 705388 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=705388 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736100 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736100#c14 Michael Andres <ma@suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |NEEDINFO InfoProvider| |meissner@suse.com --- Comment #14 from Michael Andres <ma@suse.com> 2012-07-16 08:43:19 CEST --- Marcus: objections or comments? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736100 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736100#c15 Marcus Meissner <meissner@suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |NEW InfoProvider|meissner@suse.com | --- Comment #15 from Marcus Meissner <meissner@suse.com> 2012-07-17 07:41:36 UTC --- I can't add much more here. #c12 is good if implementable. As dirk said, if possible avoid adding new tags to updateinfo, the packages should all have the same RPM vendor usually within the patch. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736100 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736100#c16 Michael Andres <ma@suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Priority|P5 - None |P2 - High Status|NEW |NEEDINFO InfoProvider| |mls@suse.com --- Comment #16 from Michael Andres <ma@suse.com> 2012-07-17 10:32:18 CEST --- Michael, ready to start? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736100 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736100#c17 Michael Andres <ma@suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |sault.don@gmail.com --- Comment #17 from Michael Andres <ma@suse.com> 2012-09-13 12:24:27 CEST --- *** Bug 780074 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=780074 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736100 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736100#c18 Sven Burmeister <sven.burmeister@gmx.net> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |sven.burmeister@gmx.net --- Comment #18 from Sven Burmeister <sven.burmeister@gmx.net> 2012-09-13 11:35:40 UTC --- Is mls@suse.com not working for openSUSE anymore? Then the NEEDINFO has to be re-assigned. The bug is valid for 12.2 as well. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736100 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736100#c19 --- Comment #19 from Michael Schröder <mls@suse.com> 2012-09-13 11:56:38 UTC --- What? I can easily remove the needinfo, but that doesn't magically produce an implementation. (And we definitely won't change this for 12.2) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736100 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736100#c20 --- Comment #20 from Sven Burmeister <sven.burmeister@gmx.net> 2012-09-13 12:33:13 UTC --- Ok, so I misunderstood the NEEDINFO as asking somebody for info three months ago. So since this is a WONTFIX for 12.1 and 12.2, what's the commitment for 12.3? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736100 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736100#c21 --- Comment #21 from Michael Schröder <mls@suse.com> 2012-09-13 12:48:09 UTC --- We're committed to do the change ;) Just not ready to start right now. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736100 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736100#c22 --- Comment #22 from Sven Burmeister <sven.burmeister@gmx.net> 2012-09-15 10:25:33 UTC --- This issue makes the desktop updaters useless as they always want to downgrade e.g. KDE. Since there are more people reporting the problem what should we tell them in order to work around this bug? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736100 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736100#c23 Sven Burmeister <sven.burmeister@gmx.net> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |patrick.klatt@t-online.de --- Comment #23 from Sven Burmeister <sven.burmeister@gmx.net> 2012-09-15 14:42:03 UTC --- *** Bug 732311 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732311 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736100 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736100#c24 Sven Burmeister <sven.burmeister@gmx.net> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |malte.gell@gmx.de --- Comment #24 from Sven Burmeister <sven.burmeister@gmx.net> 2012-09-15 14:48:36 UTC --- *** Bug 751669 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** http://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=751669 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736100 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736100#c25 Frans Leerink <f.leerink@xs4all.nl> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |f.leerink@xs4all.nl --- Comment #25 from Frans Leerink <f.leerink@xs4all.nl> 2012-10-28 22:33:23 UTC --- Hello, I have the same problem on my openSUSE 12.1/KDE system,that is just upgraded to openSUSE 12.2/KDE via the Final openSUSE 12.2 DVD i586.iso. The upgrade went normal, but after the 1st boot-in the system want to update the just installed system with patches and 2 of them are reported to conlict. openSUSE-2012-588-1.noarch openSUSE-2012-705-1.noarch What should I do, since these 2 patches continues to show up in the Apper-Get, Remove and Update software. ----- My system is a netbook with: Processor (CPU): Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU N270 @ 1.60GHz Speed: 1.600,00 MHz Cores: 2 Total memory (RAM): 1,9 GiB Free memory: 879,2 MiB (+ 629,0 MiB Caches) Free swap: 2,0 GiB OS: Linux 3.4.11-2.16-desktop i686 Current user: frans@linux-qfa2.site System: openSUSE 12.2 (i586) KDE: 4.8.5 (4.8.5) "release 2" Vendor: Intel Corporation Model: 945 GME 2D driver: intel 3D driver: Unknown classic (8.0.4 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736100 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736100#c26 --- Comment #26 from Frans Leerink <f.leerink@xs4all.nl> 2012-10-28 22:35:50 UTC --- Created an attachment (id=511115) --> (http://bugzilla.novell.com/attachment.cgi?id=511115) The displayed error details -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736100 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736100#c27 --- Comment #27 from Marcus Meissner <meissner@suse.com> 2012-10-29 08:19:28 UTC --- frans, either deinstall the -debuginfo packages it mentions in the dialog, or try adding http://download.opensuse.org/debug/update/12.2/ as additional update repository. in any way, I think your problem is not related to this bugzilla. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736100 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736100#c28 Michael Schröder <mls@suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |CLOSED InfoProvider|mls@suse.com | Resolution| |FIXED --- Comment #28 from Michael Schröder <mls@suse.com> 2013-01-14 15:05:00 UTC --- Fixed in git. Will be in Factory the next days. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736100 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736100#c29 Raymond Wooninck <tittiatcoke@gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tittiatcoke@gmail.com --- Comment #29 from Raymond Wooninck <tittiatcoke@gmail.com> 2013-02-02 07:58:48 UTC --- Hi Michael, Can you indicate if this bug is now resolved and that the fix is in 12.3 and Factory ? I checked the libzypp packages, but couldn't find any indication regarding this bug in the ChangeLog. Thanks -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736100 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=736100#c30 --- Comment #30 from Michael Schröder <mls@suse.com> 2013-02-04 11:08:10 UTC --- As the fix is in libsolv and not libzypp, you won't find anything in libzypp's changelog. Check out the changelog of libsolv or libsolv-tools. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
participants (1)
-
bugzilla_noreply＠novell.com