On 2006-07-24 17:06:24 +0200, Joerg Mayer wrote:

Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 17:06:24 +0200 From: Joerg Mayer <jmayer@loplof.de> Subject: Re: [opensuse-factory] updating m4 package from factory To: opensuse-factory@opensuse.org

On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 04:43:59PM +0200, Chema Ollés wrote:

...

I try to upgrade my system and see that if I update m4 from 1.4.4-12@i586 to 1.4.5-2@i586,smart delete my autoconf 2.60-2@i586 because is related with the old m4 version.I can't see any new autoconf on factory directory... Is it normal this lack?

I asked the same question on #opensuse a week or so ago but got no answer. The underlying question goes much further though: Is it intentional that it is possible to have missing dependencies in the published factory tree: When the system smart-updated directfb, several other packages got removed as well. What was even better was a while ago, when udev was split into udev + somelib, and somelib wasn't published for one more week or so. So the core question is: Is it a valid state, that packages in factory can be inconsistend?

smart tries by design to get the very latest of everything. Even if it means to remove some packages that rely on older versions. Imho this design is stupid. but you can use: smart --shell upgrade and than issue "keep package" for all packages you want to keep darix -- openSUSE - SUSE Linux is my linux openSUSE is good for you www.opensuse.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory-unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory-help@opensuse.org

On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 05:09:06PM +0200, Marcus Rueckert wrote:

...

... So the core question is: Is it a valid state, that packages in factory can be inconsistend?

smart tries by design to get the very latest of everything. Even if it means to remove some packages that rely on older versions.

You are pointing fingers to *symptoms*, while I try to find out about the underlying cause. The core problem is not that smart handles some things in a suboptimal way (your opinion) *in the case the repo is inconsistent*. ciao Joerg -- Joerg Mayer <jmayer@loplof.de> We are stuck with technology when what we really want is just stuff that works. Some say that should read Microsoft instead of technology. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory-unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory-help@opensuse.org

On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 05:27:33AM +0200, Andreas Hanke wrote:

To answer your question: Factory is not guaranteed to be always consistent.

Good.

See also: http://en.opensuse.org/Factory

For example, it can happen that a package is updated in such a way that dependent packages have to be updated as well, but the updated packages of the dependent packages don't build.

Well, that's fine if it really is just a build problem. But that's not always the case. Sometimes (as in the udev split) providing the new packages is just forgotten.

This will probably always happen from time to time and disappear again shortly afterwards.

Well, if "shortly" covers an interval of more thant one week, ok. I have one (small/not-so-small) wish regarding these inconsistencies: Could the repo be checked automatically after new packages have been posted or packages have been replaced and the result be posted to this list? ciao Joerg -- Joerg Mayer <jmayer@loplof.de> We are stuck with technology when what we really want is just stuff that works. Some say that should read Microsoft instead of technology. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory-unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory-help@opensuse.org

On Mon, Jul 24, 2006 at 05:09:06PM +0200, Marcus Rueckert wrote:

smart tries by design to get the very latest of everything. Even if it means to remove some packages that rely on older versions.

Imho this design is stupid. but you can use:

This is the same behaviour you see with YaST installer. No wait --- YaST does remove the packages depending on the old version even when it leaves other packages on the system depending on the removed ones thus leaving the system in an inconsistent state. BTW, the m4 vs. autoconf bug is still present in factory tree. Seems autobuild does not handle this dependency correctly. Robert -- Robert Schiele Tel.: +49-621-181-2214 Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker mailto:rschiele@uni-mannheim.de "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur."

On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 01:02:48PM +0200, Michael Schroeder wrote:

On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 08:27:07PM +0200, Robert Schiele wrote:

...

This is the same behaviour you see with YaST installer. No wait --- YaST does remove the packages depending on the old version even when it leaves other packages on the system depending on the removed ones thus leaving the system in an inconsistent state.

Not true as far as I know. You'll get an error in the solving pass in this case.

It is true. This is not a strange idea of me but what I have seen multiple times since the integration of libzypp. Last time I saw this was shortly before I wrote the above mail with exactly the packages that were mentioned originally in this thread. I did some bugreports to similar bugs in the past but they were canceled in most cases by either the argumentation that factory isn't supported anyway or because YaST did log rotation in that a fast manner that even the log data from one update sessions couldn't be hold. Robert -- Robert Schiele Tel.: +49-621-181-2214 Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker mailto:rschiele@uni-mannheim.de "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur."