tumbleweed snapshot download. is it mandatory?
I am on tumbleweed. I regularly use # zypper update. But today when i tried zypper update, it suggested zypper dup. Even i regularly do zypper up, i still need to zypper dup for every release of snapshot? Regards, jindam
Op zaterdag 10 juni 2023 15:53:55 CEST schreef vani jindam via openSUSE Factory:
I am on tumbleweed. I regularly use # zypper update. But today when i tried zypper update, it suggested zypper dup. Even i regularly do zypper up, i still need to zypper dup for every release of snapshot?
Regards, jindam You should not use 'up' at all. Every snapshot is a new release in TW, so always use 'dup'.
-- Gertjan Lettink a.k.a. Knurpht openSUSE Board openSUSE Forums Team
On 6/10/23 15:59, Knurpht-openSUSE wrote:
You should not use 'up' at all. Every snapshot is a new release in TW, so always use 'dup'.
That same question has already come already up quite some times. Just a thought: Is there _any_ use of 'zypper up' on TW? If not, then zypper could maybe learn to automagically switch to 'dup' internally, or otherwise to issue an error diagnostic for 'up' on TW. Have a nice day, Berny
On 2023-06-14 17:11, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
On 6/10/23 15:59, Knurpht-openSUSE wrote:
You should not use 'up' at all. Every snapshot is a new release in TW, so always use 'dup'.
That same question has already come already up quite some times. Just a thought:
Is there _any_ use of 'zypper up' on TW? If not, then zypper could maybe learn to automagically switch to 'dup' internally, or otherwise to issue an error diagnostic for 'up' on TW.
Have a nice day, Berny
We planned on doing that, but some (very wrong, but very loud) people complained on this very list and so you see the current behaviour, where, if you use up, you get a nice big purple warning: "Consider to cancel:" "Product 'openSUSE Tumbleweed' requires to be updated by calling 'zypper dup'!" If people ignore that warning on every single `zypper up` call..that is their loss, and well, obviously ours also because there's yet another thread about this issue..but if people don't read, I don't think any solution will ever be good enough. -- Richard Brown Distributions Architect SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Frankenstraße 146, D-90461 Nuremberg, Germany (HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg) Managing Directors/Geschäftsführer: Ivo Totev, Andrew Myers, Andrew McDonald, Martje Boudien Moerman
On 6/14/23 11:58, Richard Brown wrote:
We planned on doing that, but some (very wrong, but very loud) people complained on this very list
and so you see the current behaviour, where, if you use up, you get a nice big purple warning:
"Consider to cancel:" "Product 'openSUSE Tumbleweed' requires to be updated by calling 'zypper dup'!"
If people ignore that warning on every single `zypper up` call..that is their loss, and well, obviously ours also because there's yet another thread about this issue..but if people don't read, I don't think any solution will ever be good enough.
Any chance to make those 2 lines in a larger font, or bold? I just did a test, and they were not entirely noticeable. Larry
* Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net> [06-14-23 13:35]:
On 6/14/23 11:58, Richard Brown wrote:
We planned on doing that, but some (very wrong, but very loud) people complained on this very list
and so you see the current behaviour, where, if you use up, you get a nice big purple warning:
"Consider to cancel:" "Product 'openSUSE Tumbleweed' requires to be updated by calling 'zypper dup'!"
If people ignore that warning on every single `zypper up` call..that is their loss, and well, obviously ours also because there's yet another thread about this issue..but if people don't read, I don't think any solution will ever be good enough.
Any chance to make those 2 lines in a larger font, or bold? I just did a test, and they were not entirely noticeable.
and I cannot recall ever seeing that ?warning?. -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA @ptilopteri http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member facebook/ptilopteri Photos: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/piwigo paka @ IRCnet oftc
Patrick Shanahan composed on 2023-06-14 15:22 (UTC-0400):
and I cannot recall ever seeing that ?warning?.
I see it most days on which I do a TW upgrade: Welcome to openSUSE Tumbleweed 20230417 - Kernel 6.2.10-1-default (1). ... # cat /usr/local/bin/zypstart #!/bin/sh # /usr/local/zypstart zypper -v in --download-in-advance rpm zypper libzypp libsolv-tools libproxy1 openSUSE-release coreutils filesystem rm /etc/zypp/repos.d/repo*.repo 2> /dev/null zypper -v in --download-in-advance device-mapper glibc mdadm systemd udev aaa_base # zypstart ... The following 8 packages are going to be upgraded: coreutils 9.2-2.1 -> 9.3-1.1 libproxy1 0.4.18-1.3 -> 0.4.18-2.1 libsolv-tools 0.7.24-1.1 -> 0.7.24-1.2 libstdc++6 13.0.1+git7162-1.1 -> 13.1.1+git7364-1.1 libzypp 17.31.10-1.1 -> 17.31.13-1.1 openSUSE-release 20230417-2236.1 -> 20230613-2345.1 rpm 4.18.0-4.2 -> 4.18.0-5.1 zypper 1.14.60-1.1 -> 1.14.60-1.2 The following product is going to be upgraded: openSUSE Tumbleweed 20230417-0 -> 20230613-0 Product 'openSUSE Tumbleweed' requires to be updated by calling 'zypper dup'! The following 2 NEW packages are going to be installed: boost-license1_82_0 1.82.0-1.2 libboost_thread1_82_0 1.82.0-1.2 8 packages to upgrade, 2 new. Overall download size: 0 B. Already cached: 9.8 MiB. After the operation, additional 202.2 KiB will be used. Consider to cancel: Product 'openSUSE Tumbleweed' requires to be updated by calling 'zypper dup'! Continue? [y/n/v/...? shows all options] (y): -- Evolution as taught in public schools is, like religion, based on faith, not based on science. Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata
* Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> [06-14-23 16:02]:
Patrick Shanahan composed on 2023-06-14 15:22 (UTC-0400):
and I cannot recall ever seeing that ?warning?.
I see it most days on which I do a TW upgrade: Welcome to openSUSE Tumbleweed 20230417 - Kernel 6.2.10-1-default (1). .. # cat /usr/local/bin/zypstart #!/bin/sh # /usr/local/zypstart zypper -v in --download-in-advance rpm zypper libzypp libsolv-tools libproxy1 openSUSE-release coreutils filesystem rm /etc/zypp/repos.d/repo*.repo 2> /dev/null zypper -v in --download-in-advance device-mapper glibc mdadm systemd udev aaa_base # zypstart .. The following 8 packages are going to be upgraded: coreutils 9.2-2.1 -> 9.3-1.1 libproxy1 0.4.18-1.3 -> 0.4.18-2.1 libsolv-tools 0.7.24-1.1 -> 0.7.24-1.2 libstdc++6 13.0.1+git7162-1.1 -> 13.1.1+git7364-1.1 libzypp 17.31.10-1.1 -> 17.31.13-1.1 openSUSE-release 20230417-2236.1 -> 20230613-2345.1 rpm 4.18.0-4.2 -> 4.18.0-5.1 zypper 1.14.60-1.1 -> 1.14.60-1.2
The following product is going to be upgraded: openSUSE Tumbleweed 20230417-0 -> 20230613-0 Product 'openSUSE Tumbleweed' requires to be updated by calling 'zypper dup'!
The following 2 NEW packages are going to be installed: boost-license1_82_0 1.82.0-1.2 libboost_thread1_82_0 1.82.0-1.2
8 packages to upgrade, 2 new. Overall download size: 0 B. Already cached: 9.8 MiB. After the operation, additional 202.2 KiB will be used.
Consider to cancel: Product 'openSUSE Tumbleweed' requires to be updated by calling 'zypper dup'! Continue? [y/n/v/...? shows all options] (y):
and I see: Computing distribution upgrade... Force resolution: No Computing upgrade... The following 5 packages are going to be upgraded: gegl-0_4 0.4.44-158.98 -> 0.4.44-158.99 libcamera-base0_0_4 0.0.4-42.96 -> 0.0.4-42.97 libcamera-tools 0.0.4-42.96 -> 0.0.4-42.97 libcamera0_0_4 0.0.4-42.96 -> 0.0.4-42.97 libgegl-0_4-0 0.4.44-158.98 -> 0.4.44-158.99 5 packages to upgrade. Overall download size: 0 B. Already cached: 3.0 MiB. No additional space will be used or freed after the operation. Continue? [y/n/v/...? shows all options] (y): y but maybe because I do: zypper -v ref ; zypper -v dup -d -l && zypper -v dup -l -y -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA @ptilopteri http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member facebook/ptilopteri Photos: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/piwigo paka @ IRCnet oftc
On 15/06/2023 00.10, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> [06-14-23 16:02]:
Patrick Shanahan composed on 2023-06-14 15:22 (UTC-0400):
but maybe because I do: zypper -v ref ; zypper -v dup -d -l && zypper -v dup -l -y
But of course, you are doing it correctly, so you get no warning :-) -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from openSUSE 15.4 (Legolas))
* Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net> [06-14-23 13:35]:
On 6/14/23 11:58, Richard Brown wrote:
We planned on doing that, but some (very wrong, but very loud) people complained on this very list
and so you see the current behaviour, where, if you use up, you get a nice big purple warning:
"Consider to cancel:" "Product 'openSUSE Tumbleweed' requires to be updated by calling 'zypper dup'!"
If people ignore that warning on every single `zypper up` call..that is their loss, and well, obviously ours also because there's yet another thread about this issue..but if people don't read, I don't think any solution will ever be good enough.
Any chance to make those 2 lines in a larger font, or bold? I just did a test, and they were not entirely noticeable.
and I cannot recall ever seeing that ?warning?. Give it a try, instead of telling us you don't recall. Here's a recent
Op woensdag 14 juni 2023 21:22:13 CEST schreef Patrick Shanahan: pastebin from a reddit user: ========== The following product is going to be upgraded: openSUSE Tumbleweed 20230610-0 -> 20230612-0 Product 'openSUSE Tumbleweed' requires to be updated by calling 'zypper dup'! The following 2 packages are going to be REMOVED: libfreebl3-hmac libsoftokn3-hmac 207 packages to upgrade, 2 to remove. Overall download size: 286.8 MiB. Already cached: 0 B. After the operation, additional 3.5 MiB will be used. Consider to cancel: Product 'openSUSE Tumbleweed' requires to be updated by calling 'zypper dup'! ============ I have no idea why this discussion is even going on. Documentation is clear, release manager(s) has/have been clear. Why not trust that and create non- documented systems? On our support platforms we regularly see people that ignore all this and do break their systems. But, again, why be opiniated about this ? -- Gertjan Lettink a.k.a. Knurpht openSUSE Board openSUSE Forums Team
* Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net> [06-14-23 13:35]:
On 6/14/23 11:58, Richard Brown wrote:
We planned on doing that, but some (very wrong, but very loud) people complained on this very list
and so you see the current behaviour, where, if you use up, you get a nice big purple warning:
"Consider to cancel:" "Product 'openSUSE Tumbleweed' requires to be updated by calling 'zypper dup'!"
If people ignore that warning on every single `zypper up` call..that is their loss, and well, obviously ours also because there's yet another thread about this issue..but if people don't read, I don't think any solution will ever be good enough.
Any chance to make those 2 lines in a larger font, or bold? I just did a test, and they were not entirely noticeable.
and I cannot recall ever seeing that ?warning?. Give it a try, instead of telling us you don't recall. Here's a recent
It’s even weird that this goes into a debate. I mean, if you are a very skilful driver, you can certainly drive your car backward without hitting anyone or anything. But that’s not a car supposed or designed to do (parking is certainly not counted as “driving”, in case someone challenges this) When someone telling you about this, then you said “don’t instruct me, I know what I am doing, I have a situation XYZ that I need to drive backward time to time”. That’s really puzzling isn’t it? ________________________________ From: Knurpht-openSUSE <knurpht@opensuse.org> Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2023 6:01:17 AM To: factory@lists.opensuse.org <factory@lists.opensuse.org> Subject: Re: tumbleweed snapshot download. is it mandatory? Op woensdag 14 juni 2023 21:22:13 CEST schreef Patrick Shanahan: pastebin from a reddit user: ========== The following product is going to be upgraded: openSUSE Tumbleweed 20230610-0 -> 20230612-0 Product 'openSUSE Tumbleweed' requires to be updated by calling 'zypper dup'! The following 2 packages are going to be REMOVED: libfreebl3-hmac libsoftokn3-hmac 207 packages to upgrade, 2 to remove. Overall download size: 286.8 MiB. Already cached: 0 B. After the operation, additional 3.5 MiB will be used. Consider to cancel: Product 'openSUSE Tumbleweed' requires to be updated by calling 'zypper dup'! ============ I have no idea why this discussion is even going on. Documentation is clear, release manager(s) has/have been clear. Why not trust that and create non- documented systems? On our support platforms we regularly see people that ignore all this and do break their systems. But, again, why be opiniated about this ? -- Gertjan Lettink a.k.a. Knurpht openSUSE Board openSUSE Forums Team
Richard Brown composed on 2023-06-14 18:58 (UTC+0200):
Bernhard Voelker wrote:
Is there _any_ use of 'zypper up' on TW? If not, then zypper could maybe learn to automagically switch to 'dup' internally, or otherwise to issue an error diagnostic for 'up' on TW.
We planned on doing that, but some (very wrong
Not always wrong. An upgrade is simply incomplete when up has been run without a dup follow-up. For various reasons, a complete upgrade may be undesirable at least for a limited time. , but very loud) people
complained on this very list
and so you see the current behaviour, where, if you use up, you get a nice big purple warning:
"Consider to cancel:" "Product 'openSUSE Tumbleweed' requires to be updated by calling 'zypper dup'!"
That also pops up by trying to upgrade _A_ package, or a small group of packages, (e.g. *zypp* & its deps). Forcing fully upgrading everything every time _A_ package is upgraded would be rude, particularly toward those bandwidth limited. It's quite reasonable to up before, dup after. I've been doing it the whole life of TW, on more than 40 installations, virtually always. -- Evolution as taught in public schools is, like religion, based on faith, not based on science. Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata
On 2023-06-14 20:10, Felix Miata wrote:
Richard Brown composed on 2023-06-14 18:58 (UTC+0200):
Bernhard Voelker wrote:
Is there _any_ use of 'zypper up' on TW? If not, then zypper could maybe learn to automagically switch to 'dup' internally, or otherwise to issue an error diagnostic for 'up' on TW.
We planned on doing that, but some (very wrong
Not always wrong. An upgrade is simply incomplete when up has been run without a dup follow-up. For various reasons, a complete upgrade may be undesirable at least for a limited time.
Hello Mr "Very Wrong but Very Loud"; Nice of you to appear even when I tried to avoid summoning you by name A zypper up is _ALWAYS_ wrong on Tumbleweed If a zypper dup is undesirable for a limited time, then don't dup, don't up, just leave the system as it is. An zypper up on Tumbleweed is NEVER correct.
On 14.06.23 20:45, Richard Brown wrote:
A zypper up is _ALWAYS_ wrong on Tumbleweed
I have to disagree.
An zypper up on Tumbleweed is NEVER correct.
Obviously, I have to disagree here, too. without additional arguments, you might have a point. But I use it often like zypper -v up --no-recommends -r 23 zypper -v up --no-recommends "texlive*" ... without issues. -- Stefan Seyfried "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Richard Feynman
On 2023-06-14 20:49, Stefan Seyfried via openSUSE Factory wrote:
On 14.06.23 20:45, Richard Brown wrote:
A zypper up is _ALWAYS_ wrong on Tumbleweed
I have to disagree.
Damn, I forgot there was more than one of you ;)
An zypper up on Tumbleweed is NEVER correct.
Obviously, I have to disagree here, too.
without additional arguments, you might have a point. But I use it often like
zypper -v up --no-recommends -r 23 zypper -v up --no-recommends "texlive*" ... without issues.
Doesn't matter if you make it work 'without issues'. It's not how Tumbleweed is designed to be used. It's not how it's ever going to be tested to be used. anyone reporting issues found while doing things that way will not find many willing fools to support them, and they should be advised the correct way of updating their Tumbleweed machine. Maybe we should implement Bernhard's suggestion just to kill off any chance this invalid use continues, you're making it obvious the error message isn't effective, and that's a bug that needs to be fixed.
* Richard Brown <rbrown@suse.de> [06-14-23 14:57]:
On 2023-06-14 20:49, Stefan Seyfried via openSUSE Factory wrote:
On 14.06.23 20:45, Richard Brown wrote:
A zypper up is _ALWAYS_ wrong on Tumbleweed
I have to disagree.
Damn, I forgot there was more than one of you ;)
An zypper up on Tumbleweed is NEVER correct.
Obviously, I have to disagree here, too.
without additional arguments, you might have a point. But I use it often like
zypper -v up --no-recommends -r 23 zypper -v up --no-recommends "texlive*" ... without issues.
Doesn't matter if you make it work 'without issues'.
It's not how Tumbleweed is designed to be used. It's not how it's ever going to be tested to be used. anyone reporting issues found while doing things that way will not find many willing fools to support them, and they should be advised the correct way of updating their Tumbleweed machine.
Maybe we should implement Bernhard's suggestion just to kill off any chance this invalid use continues, you're making it obvious the error message isn't effective, and that's a bug that needs to be fixed.
while you deal in absolutes, but only when it suits you, you are absolutely incorrect. zypper up may be used to upgrade a specific package even to another vendor when the rest of zypper dup is not wanted. from perhaps another LOUD voice. you may want to refrain to characterizing particular poster just because you have less respect for their existance. it is very annoying and disrespectful. and I have used Tumbleweed since it's inception and Evergreen befor that, and probably before you came to openSUSE/SuSe/SUSE. -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA @ptilopteri http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member facebook/ptilopteri Photos: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/piwigo paka @ IRCnet oftc
On 2023-06-14 21:21, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
and I have used Tumbleweed since it's inception and Evergreen befor that, and probably before you came to openSUSE/SuSe/SUSE.
Being wrong for a long time doesn't make you right. https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1061384 - written by the Release Manager of Tumbleweed "The only valid way to keep TW up-to-date is 'zypper dup'" Warning implimented in zypper-1.13.37 Warning made active on everyones Tumbleweed by line 50 in the openSUSE-release package https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file/openSUSE:Factory/000release-pac... "Provides: product-update() = dup" When you make your own Tumbleweed you can have it support whatever update mechanisms you want, but the Tumbleweed that is built today is built by folk who've expressed in both words and code that 'dup' is the only way to update your system. Disagree with the words if you want, but the code is right there for you all to see too.
* Richard Brown <rbrown@suse.de> [06-14-23 15:54]:
On 2023-06-14 21:21, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
and I have used Tumbleweed since it's inception and Evergreen befor that, and probably before you came to openSUSE/SuSe/SUSE.
Being wrong for a long time doesn't make you right.
you are adding invalid conditions, wrong.
https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1061384 - written by the Release Manager of Tumbleweed "The only valid way to keep TW up-to-date is 'zypper dup'"
which doesn't preculde the use of "up" for particular circumstances.
Warning implimented in zypper-1.13.37
zypper --version zypper 1.14.60 and still cannot say I *ever* saw the warning.
Warning made active on everyones Tumbleweed by line 50 in the openSUSE-release package https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file/openSUSE:Factory/000release-pac...
"Provides: product-update() = dup"
When you make your own Tumbleweed you can have it support whatever update mechanisms you want, but the Tumbleweed that is built today is built by folk who've expressed in both words and code that 'dup' is the only way to update your system.
Disagree with the words if you want, but the code is right there for you all to see too.
the "warning" is not present on the six local boxes I have employing Tumbleweed. but may be related to my methods: zypper -v ref ; zypper -v dup -d -l && zypper -v dup -l -y -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA @ptilopteri http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member facebook/ptilopteri Photos: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/piwigo paka @ IRCnet oftc
Patrick Shanahan composed on 2023-06-14 18:15 (UTC-0400):
and still cannot say I *ever* saw the warning. but may be related to my methods: zypper -v ref ; zypper -v dup -d -l && zypper -v dup -l -y
Why would anyone using dup need to be warned they need to use dup? The warning results from /using/ up, and sometimes from /using/ in. -- Evolution as taught in public schools is, like religion, based on faith, not based on science. Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata
Patrick Shanahan wrote: but may be related to my methods: zypper -v ref ; zypper -v dup -d -l && zypper -v dup -l -y Ummm. I'm sorry. Why? -- Emily Gonyer
* Emily Gonyer <emilyyrose@gmail.com> [06-15-23 19:31]:
Patrick Shanahan wrote:
but may be related to my methods: zypper -v ref ; zypper -v dup -d -l && zypper -v dup -l -y
Ummm. I'm sorry. Why?
as I cannot recall ever seeing the warning, it may be because I apply zypper correctly, or what I assume is correctly. -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA @ptilopteri http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member facebook/ptilopteri Photos: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/piwigo paka @ IRCnet oftc
On 14.06.23 20:55, Richard Brown wrote:
On 2023-06-14 20:49, Stefan Seyfried via openSUSE Factory wrote:
On 14.06.23 20:45, Richard Brown wrote:
A zypper up is _ALWAYS_ wrong on Tumbleweed
I have to disagree.
Damn, I forgot there was more than one of you ;)
Yes, but -- different from you -- we are not only dealing out absolutes.
An zypper up on Tumbleweed is NEVER correct.
Obviously, I have to disagree here, too.
without additional arguments, you might have a point. But I use it often like
zypper -v up --no-recommends -r 23 zypper -v up --no-recommends "texlive*" ... without issues.
Doesn't matter if you make it work 'without issues'.
Yes it does. There is usecases for tumbleweed beyond your -- obviusly very limited -- horizon or -- even more limited -- interest in use cases.
It's not how Tumbleweed is designed to be used. It's not how it's ever going to be tested to be used.
It's tested like this almost every day (by me, and many others). The tumbleweed advertising reads, amongst other things: "Tumbleweed appeals to Power Users, Software Developers and openSUSE Contributors." And these have certainly use cases beyond your comprehension.
anyone reporting issues found while doing things that way will not find many willing fools to support them, and they should be advised the correct way of updating their Tumbleweed machine.
I don't object to the polite warning. I'm totally fine with that. What I object to is...
Maybe we should implement Bernhard's suggestion just to kill off any chance this invalid use continues, you're making it obvious the error message isn't effective, and that's a bug that needs to be fixed.
... this. If you want to forcefully impose on how people have to use Tumbleweed, then this is probably going to be yet another occurence of "Richard drives away openSUSE users" as we are seeing oh so often lately. Oh, and from your later mail ... "but the Tumbleweed that is built today is built by folk who've expressed in both words and code that 'dup' is the only way to update your system."... I am (well, mostly was, partly because of your always-unfriendly-drive-away-people behaviour) one of the folks who built tumbleweed. But yes, almost every mail of yours in discussions like this bites a little bit off my motivation to help. Which is probably what you want to achieve. So if you are going to remove "up" from zypper, go ahead and do this on your MicroOS Desktop toy thing, which I could not care less about. But leave Tumbleweed alone. It's not your business at all. smh -- Stefan Seyfried "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Richard Feynman
I am a longtime openSUSE user (since SUSE 5.3 in 1999) who is now experimenting with Tumbleweed after shying away from it for years, in large part due to the issue being discussed in this thread. And I may be going back to Leap (or another distro entirely) for the same reason. All the opinions I'm going to state are my own. Everyone should free to consider or ignore them, as they see fit. On 10 Jun 2023 at 20:24, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-06-10 15:53, vani jindam via openSUSE Factory wrote:
You should only use "zypper dup" on Tumbleweed, and never "zypper up". I don't understand why is it that some Tumbleweed users still don't know this :-(
Because every time it comes up -- which has been hundreds of times, on dozens of forums, with thousands of posts -- a large number of seemingly authoritative experts reply with conflicting answers: "Always use `dup`" ... "No, sometimes `up`" ... "Add `--no-allow-vendor-change" ...
Possibly, documenting TW is considering impossible, it moves too fast. But how to update it has been unchanged for a decade at least, so it should be documented.
Or if the architecture behind this important task is so fundamentally flawed that there is no "right" answer -- or there are multiple answers that are so complex that they can't be adequately documented -- maybe it should be redesigned. Or abandoned. (Or I should go back to Leap or another distro.) On 14 Jun 2023 at 20:25, Jim Henderson wrote:
... I would write it more like this: The product 'openSUSE Tumbleweed' should ONLY be updated using 'zypper dup'! ("requires to be updated" is awkward English usage that is potentially difficult for ESL users to parse)
It's even difficult for native speakers of English. I know that openSUSE has continental European roots and am grateful that the many contributors for whom English is a second language provide translations. The wording of the documentation and messages has improved over time, but suggestions like the above should be incorporated whenever and as soon as possible. As far as `zypper` itself goes, I've never used a Debian-based distro, but every time I read an article with instructions on how to do something using `apt` I'm struck by how much simpler and clearer its syntax is. The `dup` abbreviation -- which is universally used in threads such as this one -- is terrible. "Dup" (i.e. "duplicate") what? The verbose `dist-upgrade` makes sense and should be used when instructing the likely "newbie" users who are asking this question. (This is a common mistake experts make when offering help. Users shouldn't be told the opaque, "Do `CTRL-A` followed by `ALT-D`, but rather the descriptive "Use the `Edit` menu's "Select All" option followed by `File` -> "Delete". They'll find and use the hot-key accelerators -- or the `dup` abbreviation -- as they get more experienced with the software.) But the most important question in this whole `dup` vs `up` discussion (oops, I mean `dist-upgrade` vs `update`) is: Why can't YaST2 Software Management (at least on Tumbleweed) do both? Or either, or the "right" one, or ... Or can it? Most of these threads (not this one) start off with "Never use YaST 'Online Update' on Tumbleweed. Only `zypper dup`". (Or one of the hotly-debated counter-arguments for `up`/`update`.) Is there some fundamental reason why it can't? Aren't `zypper` and YaST2 "Software Update" (and "Repositories") both just front end applications for `libzypp`? If `zypper dup` can call one or more entry points in the library, why can't YaST2 do the same? Or is it just some residual bit of old-school Linux snobbery? "If you're too stupid or lazy to learn how to use `zypper` on the commandline then you don't deserve to use our advanced Tumbleweed distro." Sorry, but YaST2 is the crown jewel of SUSE/openSUSE. I know how to edit `/etc/passwd` and `/etc/fstab`, and can configure networking using the `ip` commands (and `ifconfig` et. al. before them). But I do such tasks so infrequently that it's easier and safer to use YaST. (Believe me, `ls -AlRF`, `df -hT`, and `egrep -i 'pattern|pattern2'` are hardwired into my fingers, along with dozens of others I use all the time. Not to mention my `.zshrc` file full of `alias` commands.) The best thing about YaST is that it works with the true, original/underlying UNIX configuration files rather than a new, duplicate/superfluous/conflicting database system of its own. (I'm looking at you, `dbus`, `systemd`, `cmake`, and all the rest.) So one can use either the commandline and text files, or the GUIs. YaST and zypper access and modify the same configuration data (right?). Why shouldn't users be able to choose between them, preferably with inline help in YaST to aid their decisions on when to use its `dup` vs `up` analogues. Then maybe there wouldn't need to be another hundred repeats of this thread as time continues onward.
On Do, Jun 15 2023 at 07:50:40 -0000, Mark Rubin via openSUSE Factory <factory@lists.opensuse.org> wrote:
Because every time it comes up -- which has been hundreds of times, on dozens of forums, with thousands of posts -- a large number of seemingly authoritative experts reply with conflicting answers:
"Always use `dup`" ... "No, sometimes `up`" ... "Add `--no-allow-vendor-change" ...
--no-allow-vendor-change was made the default on Tumbleweed a while back, so there's no longer a need to use it with dup. It was left from how dup is done on Leap.
Possibly, documenting TW is considering impossible, it moves too fast. But how to update it has been unchanged for a decade at least, so it should be documented.
Or if the architecture behind this important task is so fundamentally flawed that there is no "right" answer -- or there are multiple answers that are so complex that they can't be adequately documented -- maybe it should be redesigned. Or abandoned. (Or I should go back to Leap or another distro.)
Hey, I think I saw somebody work on something called MicroOS and Aeon and Kalpa, since addressing architectural problems in TW is impossible due to excessive bickering on this very mailing list, it turns out creating a new and better distro based on the same repo is a faster idea to get it done!
Is there some fundamental reason why it can't? Aren't `zypper` and YaST2 "Software Update" (and "Repositories") both just front end applications for `libzypp`? If `zypper dup` can call one or more entry points in the library, why can't YaST2 do the same?
Somebody has to make YaST be able to do that, it's really as simple as that. I have done it with PackageKit before, but with how YaST software manager is structured, that task is more difficult to do there. And beyond that, somebody needs to also test if it works correctly. PackageKit distro updates are not tested to this day, so they are not a recommended way to upgrade. We do, as it turns out, have a standard of quality for things we do end up recommending.
Or is it just some residual bit of old-school Linux snobbery? "If you're too stupid or lazy to learn how to use `zypper` on the commandline then you don't deserve to use our advanced Tumbleweed distro."
Tumbleweed is not meant to be difficult to use, it's just very rough around the edges because we tend to argue about things on the mailing lists instead of fixing things. The amount of messages written in this thread by people who complained about this for years and have done nothing about it clearly show you have enough dedication to do something relentlessly, put that into learning how to fix things and fix them. I don't use YaST, and I did fix the PackageKit backend in order to help people with doing updates the wrong way. From my perspective a better way to deal with YaST software manager not doing the right thing is not fixing YaST, but not shipping it instead. If you feel strongly about having YaST software manager on the system, fix it, or submit a pull request to remove it from default Tumbleweed installs. Simple as. LCP [Jake] https://lcp.world/
On 2023-06-15 09:50, Mark Rubin via openSUSE Factory wrote:
I am a longtime openSUSE user (since SUSE 5.3 in 1999) who is now experimenting with Tumbleweed after shying away from it for years, in large part due to the issue being discussed in this thread. And I may be going back to Leap (or another distro entirely) for the same reason.
All the opinions I'm going to state are my own. Everyone should free to consider or ignore them, as they see fit.
On 10 Jun 2023 at 20:24, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2023-06-10 15:53, vani jindam via openSUSE Factory wrote:
You should only use "zypper dup" on Tumbleweed, and never "zypper up". I don't understand why is it that some Tumbleweed users still don't know this :-(
Because every time it comes up -- which has been hundreds of times, on dozens of forums, with thousands of posts -- a large number of seemingly authoritative experts reply with conflicting answers:
"Always use `dup`" ... "No, sometimes `up`" ... "Add `--no-allow-vendor-change" ...
True. ...
But the most important question in this whole `dup` vs `up` discussion (oops, I mean `dist-upgrade` vs `update`) is:
Why can't YaST2 Software Management (at least on Tumbleweed) do both? Or either, or the "right" one, or ...
Or can it? Most of these threads (not this one) start off with "Never use YaST 'Online Update' on Tumbleweed. Only `zypper dup`". (Or one of the hotly-debated counter-arguments for `up`/`update`.)
Good question.
Is there some fundamental reason why it can't? Aren't `zypper` and YaST2 "Software Update" (and "Repositories") both just front end applications for `libzypp`? If `zypper dup` can call one or more entry points in the library, why can't YaST2 do the same?
Or is it just some residual bit of old-school Linux snobbery? "If you're too stupid or lazy to learn how to use `zypper` on the commandline then you don't deserve to use our advanced Tumbleweed distro."
Maybe because, at least initially, it was recommended to use "zypper dup" in textmode (init 3). Yast (in GUI) was considered risky, the procedure could crash.
Sorry, but YaST2 is the crown jewel of SUSE/openSUSE. I know how to edit `/etc/passwd` and `/etc/fstab`, and can configure networking using the `ip` commands (and `ifconfig` et. al. before them). But I do such tasks so infrequently that it's easier and safer to use YaST. (Believe me, `ls -AlRF`, `df -hT`, and `egrep -i 'pattern|pattern2'` are hardwired into my fingers, along with dozens of others I use all the time. Not to mention my `.zshrc` file full of `alias` commands.)
The best thing about YaST is that it works with the true, original/underlying UNIX configuration files rather than a new, duplicate/superfluous/conflicting database system of its own. (I'm looking at you, `dbus`, `systemd`, `cmake`, and all the rest.) So one can use either the commandline and text files, or the GUIs. YaST and zypper access and modify the same configuration data (right?). Why shouldn't users be able to choose between them, preferably with inline help in YaST to aid their decisions on when to use its `dup` vs `up` analogues.
It is my feeling that yast is slowly losing functionality instead of gaining.
Then maybe there wouldn't need to be another hundred repeats of this thread as time continues onward.
-- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 15.4 x86_64 at Telcontar)
On 2023-06-15 07:10, Stefan Seyfried via openSUSE Factory wrote:
On 14.06.23 20:55, Richard Brown wrote:
On 2023-06-14 20:49, Stefan Seyfried via openSUSE Factory wrote:
On 14.06.23 20:45, Richard Brown wrote:
...
It's not how Tumbleweed is designed to be used. It's not how it's ever going to be tested to be used.
It's tested like this almost every day (by me, and many others). The tumbleweed advertising reads, amongst other things:
It means not tested by the automatic testing procedure https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:OpenQA
"Tumbleweed appeals to Power Users, Software Developers and openSUSE Contributors."
And these have certainly use cases beyond your comprehension.
-- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 15.4 x86_64 at Telcontar)
Hi Carlos, On 15.06.23 12:08, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2023-06-15 07:10, Stefan Seyfried via openSUSE Factory wrote:
It's tested like this almost every day (by me, and many others). The tumbleweed advertising reads, amongst other things:
It means not tested by the automatic testing procedure
IF we remove everything from Tumbleweed, that is not tested by the automatic testing procedure, not that much useful stuff will be left. It's not like anyone is suggesting to users to "use zypper up instead of dup!!!", not at all. The normal, supported and tested method is to use "zypper dup". Period. But the proposals to "let's remove the up option because it cannot be ever used for anyhting useful" are IMHO just plain stupid.
"Tumbleweed appeals to Power Users, Software Developers and openSUSE Contributors."
And these have certainly use cases beyond your comprehension.
-- Stefan Seyfried "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Richard Feynman
Richard Brown composed on 2023-06-14 20:45 (UTC+0200):
An zypper up on Tumbleweed is NEVER correct.
Must be your TWs are never used for _testing_, and no one else sharing your opinion tests either. cf. <https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=141443> 2006-01-04 <https://lists.opensuse.org/archives/list/project@lists.opensuse.org/message/NNRPP2KJ6TJ3QLLYJC2E62JADHT5GWMY/> 2010-11-30 <https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=854169> 2013-12-06 -- Evolution as taught in public schools is, like religion, based on faith, not based on science. Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata
On 2023-06-14 21:21, Felix Miata wrote:
Richard Brown composed on 2023-06-14 20:45 (UTC+0200):
An zypper up on Tumbleweed is NEVER correct.
Must be your TWs are never used for _testing_, and no one else sharing your opinion tests either.
cf. <https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=854169> 2013-12-06
You do understand what that bug shows right? 10 years ago I screwed up a test by doing a zypper up instead of a dup The solution was to use zypper dup I was wrong to do an up 10 years ago and anyone is wrong to do it today.
Richard Brown composed on 2023-06-14 21:30 (UTC+0200):
On 2023-06-14 21:21, Felix Miata wrote:
Richard Brown composed on 2023-06-14 20:45 (UTC+0200):
An zypper up on Tumbleweed is NEVER correct.
Must be your TWs are never used for _testing_, and no one else sharing your opinion tests either.
cf. <https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=854169> 2013-12-06
You do understand what that bug shows right?
I didn't read it. My interest was in who reported it, and particularly, when, same as the other bug.
10 years ago I screwed up a test by doing a zypper up instead of a dup
The solution was to use zypper dup
I was wrong to do an up 10 years ago and anyone is wrong to do it today.-- Evolution as taught in public schools is, like religion, based on faith, not based on science.
Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata
Hello, Am Mittwoch, 14. Juni 2023, 21:30:18 CEST schrieb Richard Brown:
On 2023-06-14 21:21, Felix Miata wrote:
<https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=854169> 2013-12-06
You do understand what that bug shows right?
Yes, I do - see below.
10 years ago I screwed up a test by doing a zypper up instead of a dup
The solution was to use zypper dup
I was wrong to do an up 10 years ago and anyone is wrong to do it today.
Just because you did something wrong some years ago doesn't mean that *everybody* who uses zypper up is doing it wrong. Sure, "dup" is the recommended way, and correct in 99% of the cases. That leaves 1% of special cases where "up" makes sense. For example, if someone really wants to update a specific package without upgrading the whole system - which is a very valid approach if you want to check if this package fixes a specific issue. In this case, you really don't want 142 more packages upgraded that might randomly influence the result. Maybe "up" should require a --i-know-what-i-am-doing switch, but claiming that it is _always_ wrong is just, well, wrong. BTW: Reading the bug mentioned above, you were wrong twice: You not only used "up", but you also used an additional repo, which is another thing you regularly state is wrong! So please slap yourself for doing that! Oh, and please stop thinking in binary mode. The world out there is not always true/false, but often something in between. Regards, Christian Boltz -- Actually the _real_ "minimal package set" is having no package at all because having no package at all resolves all dependencies of the packages and there is no package left someone might claim to be unneeded. [Robert Schiele in opensuse-factory]
On 14.06.2023 23:55, Christian Boltz wrote:
That leaves 1% of special cases where "up" makes sense. For example, if someone really wants to update a specific package without upgrading the whole system - which is a very valid approach if you want to check if this package fixes a specific issue. In this case, you really don't want 142 more packages upgraded that might randomly influence the result.
And this particular Tumbleweed snapshot may have rebuilt the whole distribution using new gcc/boost/openssl/whatever so you end up with weird mix of software using old and new binaries "randomly influencing the result". The problem is somewhat unique to SUSE. The whole workflow of SUSE upgrades depends on using out-of-band "zypper dup" actions instead of maintaining correct package dependencies. This was OK for infrequent upgrades between service packs/stable releases but it falls apart with Tumbleweed where "each snapshot is new release".
Hello, On 2023-06-15 07:05, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
On 14.06.2023 23:55, Christian Boltz wrote:
That leaves 1% of special cases where "up" makes sense. For example, if someone really wants to update a specific package without upgrading the whole system - which is a very valid approach if you want to check if this package fixes a specific issue. In this case, you really don't want 142 more packages upgraded that might randomly influence the result.
And this particular Tumbleweed snapshot may have rebuilt the whole distribution using new gcc/boost/openssl/whatever so you end up with weird mix of software using old and new binaries "randomly influencing the result".
As far as I understand it this proves that "zypper up" cannot work properly in general in Tumbleweed so only "zypper dup" can and must be used in Tumbleweed. If "zypper up" is used in Tumbleweed the result only works by chance which is usually the case when not "the whole distribution" was rebuilt in between so users report that "zypper up" works for them but actually it only worked for them by luck. This means Tumbleweed cannot be used by users who need to update only a specific package without also upgrading the whole system. Perhaps compartmentalization (e.g. via containers) is the only way out that will work properly in general in practice? Traditional distributions implement an extreme case of "all in one" compartmentalization: All is in one single compartment which is called "Distribution Version N" where an update of a specific (application) package gets built with the (rather) fixed versions of the basic system packages which means users can update only a specific package because the lower level packages are basiclly fixed. As far as I see Tumbleweed implements the same kind of "all in one" compartmentalization but here all packages can freely move forward which means users must also move forward in "all packages together at once" steps. In contrast ALP is meant to implement finer grained compartmentalization via whatever kind of containers so users can update one specific software with all its lower level stuff via one specific container update. Kind Regards Johannes Meixner -- SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH Frankenstr. 146 - 90461 Nuernberg - Germany GF: Ivo Totev, Andrew Myers, Andrew McDonald, Boudien Moerman (HRB 36809, AG Nuernberg)
On 6/15/23 19:02, Johannes Meixner wrote:
Hello,
On 2023-06-15 07:05, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
On 14.06.2023 23:55, Christian Boltz wrote:
That leaves 1% of special cases where "up" makes sense. For example, if someone really wants to update a specific package without upgrading the whole system - which is a very valid approach if you want to check if this package fixes a specific issue. In this case, you really don't want 142 more packages upgraded that might randomly influence the result.
And this particular Tumbleweed snapshot may have rebuilt the whole distribution using new gcc/boost/openssl/whatever so you end up with weird mix of software using old and new binaries "randomly influencing the result".
As far as I understand it this proves that "zypper up" cannot work properly in general in Tumbleweed so only "zypper dup" can and must be used in Tumbleweed.
If "zypper up" is used in Tumbleweed the result only works by chance which is usually the case when not "the whole distribution" was rebuilt in between so users report that "zypper up" works for them but actually it only worked for them by luck.
This means Tumbleweed cannot be used by users who need to update only a specific package without also upgrading the whole system.
Yes we as the community do not support only specific package updates, which is why we choose not to document it as being something you can do. It is also why the documentation that "zypper dup" is the only way is correct. Sure you can try and do something else but if it breaks its your fault and your on your own. SO to repeat the clear simple message should be (and as has been pointed out by the release engineers post) only telling people to use zypper dup. Yes zypper up may technically work sometimes yes you might get away with upgrading single packages but that's not what we as the community developing tumbleweed support. -- Simon Lees (Simotek) http://simotek.net Emergency Update Team keybase.io/simotek SUSE Linux Adelaide Australia, UTC+10:30 GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B
On 2023-06-15 07:05, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
On 14.06.2023 23:55, Christian Boltz wrote:
That leaves 1% of special cases where "up" makes sense. For example, if someone really wants to update a specific package without upgrading the whole system - which is a very valid approach if you want to check if this package fixes a specific issue. In this case, you really don't want 142 more packages upgraded that might randomly influence the result.
And this particular Tumbleweed snapshot may have rebuilt the whole distribution using new gcc/boost/openssl/whatever so you end up with weird mix of software using old and new binaries "randomly influencing the result".
The problem is somewhat unique to SUSE. The whole workflow of SUSE upgrades depends on using out-of-band "zypper dup" actions instead of maintaining correct package dependencies. This was OK for infrequent upgrades between service packs/stable releases but it falls apart with Tumbleweed where "each snapshot is new release".
Maybe if using tumbleweed snapshots (whatever the name is). Huh, but there would not be updates inside a single snapshot, and to change to another means a dup. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 15.4 x86_64 at Telcontar)
On 6/15/23 06:18, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2023-06-15 07:05, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
On 14.06.2023 23:55, Christian Boltz wrote:
That leaves 1% of special cases where "up" makes sense. For example, if someone really wants to update a specific package without upgrading the whole system - which is a very valid approach if you want to check if this package fixes a specific issue. In this case, you really don't want 142 more packages upgraded that might randomly influence the result.
And this particular Tumbleweed snapshot may have rebuilt the whole distribution using new gcc/boost/openssl/whatever so you end up with weird mix of software using old and new binaries "randomly influencing the result".
The problem is somewhat unique to SUSE. The whole workflow of SUSE upgrades depends on using out-of-band "zypper dup" actions instead of maintaining correct package dependencies. This was OK for infrequent upgrades between service packs/stable releases but it falls apart with Tumbleweed where "each snapshot is new release".
Maybe if using tumbleweed snapshots (whatever the name is). Huh, but there would not be updates inside a single snapshot, and to change to another means a dup.
And that is one of the reasons why I use the build history snapshots. That allows me to control which build I am on and not have to worry about these issues because the TW build does not change until I decided to change it. The main caveat is that there are only 20 history builds therefore, once #21 is published the oldest falls off so if you are on that, then you have to switch to one of the remaining 20 builds. Not a big deal as I generally update before that happens. -- Regards, Joe
On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 10:55:16PM +0200, Christian Boltz wrote:
Hello,
Am Mittwoch, 14. Juni 2023, 21:30:18 CEST schrieb Richard Brown:
On 2023-06-14 21:21, Felix Miata wrote:
<https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=854169> 2013-12-06
You do understand what that bug shows right?
Yes, I do - see below.
10 years ago I screwed up a test by doing a zypper up instead of a dup
The solution was to use zypper dup
I was wrong to do an up 10 years ago and anyone is wrong to do it today.
Just because you did something wrong some years ago doesn't mean that *everybody* who uses zypper up is doing it wrong.
Sure, "dup" is the recommended way, and correct in 99% of the cases.
That leaves 1% of special cases where "up" makes sense. For example, if someone really wants to update a specific package without upgrading the whole system - which is a very valid approach if you want to check if this package fixes a specific issue. In this case, you really don't want 142 more packages upgraded that might randomly influence the result.
So you probably wanted zypper in <package> This has nothing to do with dup/up, these are for upgrading *all* packages. The difference between up/dup is that up assumes package version always increases, and can take some shortcuts, and dup does not. Because package version does not always increaso on Tumbleweed taking the shortcut can get you into a bad place. Thanks Michal
Hello, Am Donnerstag, 15. Juni 2023, 11:09:41 CEST schrieb Michal Suchánek:
On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 10:55:16PM +0200, Christian Boltz wrote:
Sure, "dup" is the recommended way, and correct in 99% of the cases.
That leaves 1% of special cases where "up" makes sense. For example, if someone really wants to update a specific package without upgrading the whole system - which is a very valid approach if you want to check if this package fixes a specific issue. In this case, you really don't want 142 more packages upgraded that might randomly influence the result. So you probably wanted
zypper in <package>
This has nothing to do with dup/up, these are for upgrading *all* packages.
That's what I get for simplifying my usecase ;-) For updating a single package, you are right - that can easily be done with "zypper in $package" (even if using "install" for updating a package is not really intuitive, but - details ;-) Actually "zypper up $package" also works - and I hope that nobody will argue against such a usage of "up". When it comes to a set of packages (let's say from a source package that results in 5 binary packages, and that source package lives in a separate repo), zypper up -r $repo is much easier than typing or pasting 5 package names. Regards, Christian Boltz -- Pullmail? Ein POP Connector aus der Hölle? Reliable and inexpensive POP3 connector for Exchange servers Bruahahahahahahaha. Glaub ich nicht. Exchange und Reliable in einem Satz. [Ralf Hildebrandt in postfixbuch-users]
On 15.06.2023 22:43, Christian Boltz wrote:
When it comes to a set of packages (let's say from a source package that results in 5 binary packages, and that source package lives in a separate repo), zypper up -r $repo is much easier than typing or pasting 5 package names.
That is entirely different use case than what is being discussed in this topic. This discussion is about updating Tumbleweed, not installing something from third-party repository. Which was always rather grey area in Tumbleweed.
On 16.06.23 06:29, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
On 15.06.2023 22:43, Christian Boltz wrote:
When it comes to a set of packages (let's say from a source package that results in 5 binary packages, and that source package lives in a separate repo), zypper up -r $repo is much easier than typing or pasting 5 package names.
That is entirely different use case than what is being discussed in this topic. This discussion is about updating Tumbleweed, not installing something from third-party repository. Which was always rather grey area in Tumbleweed.
You were right, until Mr. Brown entered this thread with message-id 7a2bb0ef4a53bef851abf87e0d9842d8@suse.de and decreed that everyone using "up" for anyhting is "very wrong". It is 100% true that "up" is usually wrong for complete system updates. But there are use cases beyond that. -- Stefan Seyfried "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Richard Feynman
On 15.06.23 21:43, Christian Boltz wrote:
When it comes to a set of packages (let's say from a source package that results in 5 binary packages, and that source package lives in a separate repo), zypper up -r $repo is much easier than typing or pasting 5 package names.
zypper up foobar 'libfoobar*' also works for this, in case your $repo contains other packages which you might want to *not yet* update. Here "in" instead of "up" would not work the same, as it would install all possible matches of 'libfoobar*' -- Stefan Seyfried "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Richard Feynman
On Samstag, 10. Juni 2023 15:53:55 CEST vani jindam via openSUSE Factory wrote:
I am on tumbleweed. I regularly use # zypper update. But today when i tried zypper update, it suggested zypper dup. Even i regularly do zypper up, i still need to zypper dup for every release of snapshot?
the preferred wy to update Tumbleweed is zypper dup - always.
Regards, jindam
Bye. Michael.
vani jindam composed on 2023-06-10 13:53 (UTC):
I am on tumbleweed. I regularly use # zypper update. But today when i tried zypper update, it suggested zypper dup. Even i regularly do zypper up, i still need to zypper dup for every release of snapshot?
The need to use dup instead of up is well known and well published. Up may be used, but it is incapable of completing the process of completing an upgrade. If up is used, which I do routinely to segregate minor updates from major ones to better ID which major ones are occurring, it must at some point be followed by dup, else the upgrade will be incomplete, eventually if not immediately causing trouble on subsequent boots and/or upgrades. Each release of TW is a /Distribution UPgrade/. Upgrades are why dup exists. -- Evolution as taught in public schools is, like religion, based on faith, not based on science. Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata
On 10/6/23 16:53, vani jindam via openSUSE Factory wrote:
I am on tumbleweed. I regularly use # zypper update. But today when i tried zypper update, it suggested zypper dup. Even i regularly do zypper up, i still need to zypper dup for every release of snapshot?
Regards, jindam
You have to use `zypper dup` on Tumbleweed, because not all package updates have a higher version, some updates are actually downgrading a package to an older version (for whatever technical reasons); `zypper up` wouldn't work with downgrades, IIUC. Regards, Ahmad Samir
On 2023-06-10 15:53, vani jindam via openSUSE Factory wrote:
I am on tumbleweed. I regularly use # zypper update. But today when i tried zypper update, it suggested zypper dup. Even i regularly do zypper up, i still need to zypper dup for every release of snapshot?
You should only use "zypper dup" on Tumbleweed, and never "zypper up". I don't understand why is it that some Tumbleweed users still don't know this :-( -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 15.4 x86_64 at Telcontar)
On Sat, 10 Jun 2023 22:24:39 +0200, "Carlos E. R." <robin.listas@telefonica.net> wrote:
You should only use "zypper dup" on Tumbleweed, and never "zypper up".
I don't understand why is it that some Tumbleweed users still don't know this :-(
Maybe because the Welcome notes window shown when first booting Tumbleweed has a Documentation button that takes you to Leap docs. [1] [1] https://doc.opensuse.org/ [2] https://en.opensuse.org/Portal:Tumbleweed -- Robert Webb
On 2023-06-10 23:34, Robert Webb via openSUSE Factory wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jun 2023 22:24:39 +0200, "Carlos E. R." <robin.listas@telefonica.net> wrote:
You should only use "zypper dup" on Tumbleweed, and never "zypper up".
I don't understand why is it that some Tumbleweed users still don't know this :-(
Maybe because the Welcome notes window shown when first booting Tumbleweed has a Documentation button that takes you to Leap docs. [1]
[1] https://doc.opensuse.org/ [2] https://en.opensuse.org/Portal:Tumbleweed
Then report a documentation bug ;-) Possibly, documenting TW is considering impossible, it moves too fast. But how to update it has been unchanged for a decade at least, so it should be documented. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 15.4 x86_64 at Telcontar)
On Sat, 10 Jun 2023 22:24:39 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:
You should only use "zypper dup" on Tumbleweed, and never "zypper up".
I don't understand why is it that some Tumbleweed users still don't know this :-(
Agreed. What's more, having Packagekit installed (which does 'up' IIRC - or equivalent) on Tumbleweed just shouldn't happen by default. At the very least, the warning needs to be clearer that you may break your system if you use 'up' on TW without fully knowing what you're doing. I find the wording of the message to be difficult to read: Product 'openSUSE Tumbleweed' requires to be updated by calling 'zypper dup'! Not to bikeshed, but I would write it more like this: The product 'openSUSE Tumbleweed' should ONLY be updated using 'zypper dup'! ("requires to be updated" is awkward English usage that is potentially difficult for ESL users to parse) Ideally, on TW, I think it would be reasonable for 'up' to be disabled unless an extra switch is used by the user to indicate that they know what they're doing: zypper up --IKnowThisIsTumbleweedAndIKnowDupIsTheRightWay In all seriousness, the edge cases where 'up' needs to be used would appear to be extremely rare, so should be handled by zypper as if the user is asking for something unusual. -- Jim Henderson Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits
On 14/06/2023 22.25, Jim Henderson wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jun 2023 22:24:39 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:
You should only use "zypper dup" on Tumbleweed, and never "zypper up".
I don't understand why is it that some Tumbleweed users still don't know this :-(
Agreed. What's more, having Packagekit installed (which does 'up' IIRC - or equivalent) on Tumbleweed just shouldn't happen by default.
At the very least, the warning needs to be clearer that you may break your system if you use 'up' on TW without fully knowing what you're doing. I find the wording of the message to be difficult to read:
Product 'openSUSE Tumbleweed' requires to be updated by calling 'zypper dup'!
Not to bikeshed, but I would write it more like this:
The product 'openSUSE Tumbleweed' should ONLY be updated using 'zypper dup'!
The wording "product" confuses me. I would remove that word.
("requires to be updated" is awkward English usage that is potentially difficult for ESL users to parse)
Ideally, on TW, I think it would be reasonable for 'up' to be disabled unless an extra switch is used by the user to indicate that they know what they're doing:
zypper up --IKnowThisIsTumbleweedAndIKnowDupIsTheRightWay
Yep.
In all seriousness, the edge cases where 'up' needs to be used would appear to be extremely rare, so should be handled by zypper as if the user is asking for something unusual.
-- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from openSUSE 15.4 (Legolas))
On Thu, 15 Jun 2023 04:08:42 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:
The product 'openSUSE Tumbleweed' should ONLY be updated using 'zypper dup'!
The wording "product" confuses me. I would remove that word.
Reasonable - from a technical perspective, it makes sense, but from a usage perspective, perhaps just: openSUSE Tumbleweed should ONLY be updated using 'zypper dup'! -- Jim Henderson Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits
On 2023-06-15 12:07, Jim Henderson wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jun 2023 04:08:42 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:
The product 'openSUSE Tumbleweed' should ONLY be updated using 'zypper dup'! The wording "product" confuses me. I would remove that word. Reasonable - from a technical perspective, it makes sense, but from a usage perspective, perhaps just:
openSUSE Tumbleweed should ONLY be updated using 'zypper dup'!
*** Warning *** In nearly all cases openSUSE Tumbelweed is updated using 'zypper dup' Continue only if you know what you are doing. *** Warning *** -pablo
Pablo Sanchez composed on 2023-06-15 13:14 (UTC-0400):
Jim Henderson wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jun 2023 04:08:42 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:
The product 'openSUSE Tumbleweed' should ONLY be updated using 'zypper dup'!
The wording "product" confuses me. I would remove that word.
Reasonable - from a technical perspective, it makes sense, but from a usage perspective, perhaps just:
openSUSE Tumbleweed should ONLY be updated using 'zypper dup'!
*** Warning ***
In nearly all cases openSUSE Tumbelweed is updated using 'zypper dup'
Continue only if you know what you are doing.
*** Warning ***
zypper up is *updating*, and staying on the same release/product. zypper dup is *upgrading* to a new release/product version, which happens most days in conjunction with the release announcement Dimstar sends to the Factory mailing list. https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1212422 -- Evolution as taught in public schools is, like religion, based on faith, not based on science. Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata
Op donderdag 15 juni 2023 22:39:44 CEST schreef Felix Miata:
zypper up is *updating*, and staying on the same release/product.
zypper dup is *upgrading* to a new release/product version, which happens most days in conjunction with the release announcement Dimstar sends to the Factory mailing list. And if TW is supposed to be dealt with by release managers, devs, packagers and so on, why app;y own opiniated solutions.
-- Gertjan Lettink a.k.a. Knurpht openSUSE Board openSUSE Forums Teamand
* Knurpht-openSUSE <knurpht@opensuse.org> [06-15-23 18:52]:
Op donderdag 15 juni 2023 22:39:44 CEST schreef Felix Miata:
zypper up is *updating*, and staying on the same release/product.
zypper dup is *upgrading* to a new release/product version, which happens most days in conjunction with the release announcement Dimstar sends to the Factory mailing list. And if TW is supposed to be dealt with by release managers, devs, packagers and so on, why app;y own opiniated solutions.
and why are you attacking an honest are true answer? it apparently needs emphasizing or this thread would not exist. please refrain from attacking contributors. -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA @ptilopteri http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member facebook/ptilopteri Photos: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/piwigo paka @ IRCnet oftc
On 14.06.2023 23:25, Jim Henderson wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jun 2023 22:24:39 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:
You should only use "zypper dup" on Tumbleweed, and never "zypper up".
I don't understand why is it that some Tumbleweed users still don't know this :-(
Agreed. What's more, having Packagekit installed (which does 'up' IIRC - or equivalent)
You are wrong and PackageKit does "zypper dup" since years ago.
On Thu, 15 Jun 2023 08:08:11 +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
On 14.06.2023 23:25, Jim Henderson wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jun 2023 22:24:39 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:
You should only use "zypper dup" on Tumbleweed, and never "zypper up".
I don't understand why is it that some Tumbleweed users still don't know this :-(
Agreed. What's more, having Packagekit installed (which does 'up' IIRC - or equivalent)
You are wrong and PackageKit does "zypper dup" since years ago.
Thanks for clarifying that - I wasn't aware of that change. -- Jim Henderson Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits
Dear all, Can we please stop this back and forth listing corner cases of "zypper up" in Tumbleweed? The original question was:
I am on tumbleweed. I regularly use # zypper update. But today when i tried zypper update, it suggested zypper dup. Even i regularly do zypper up, i still need to zypper dup for every release of snapshot? Regards,
The helpful answer from the start should have been "yes you need to do zypper dup, always" There is only one officially supported Tumbleweed live update method via terminal: "zypper dup". It is documented here: https://en.opensuse.org/SDB:Upgrade_Tumbleweed Everything else is noise that may lead inexperienced users to make mistakes and break their systems. Also it does not help a user being less confused about Tumbleweed rolling upgrade nature. Best, Maurizio
participants (25)
-
Ahmad Samir -
Andrei Borzenkov -
Bernhard Voelker -
Carlos E. R. -
Charlie Chan -
Christian Boltz -
Emily Gonyer -
Felix Miata -
Jacob Michalskie -
Jim Henderson -
Joe Salmeri -
Johannes Meixner -
Knurpht-openSUSE -
Larry Finger -
Mark Rubin -
Maurizio Galli -
mh＠mike.franken.de -
Michal Suchánek -
Pablo Sanchez -
Patrick Shanahan -
Richard Brown -
Robert Webb -
Simon Lees -
Stefan Seyfried -
vani jindam