[opensuse-ruby] bug in rubygems dependency strategy
I think I found a bug in our current rubygems automatic dependency system[0]. It's similar to the problem darix mentioned almost 3 years ago[1], and I can demonstrate with the real world example I just found ... vagrant's upstream .gemspec file contains this dependency range: s.add_dependency "net-ssh", ">= 2.6.6", "< 2.8.0" This translates to the following rpm Requires: auto: rubygem(1.9.1:net-ssh) >= 2.6.6 auto: rubygem(1.9.1:net-ssh) < 2.8.0 Unfortunately the only versions available on 12.3 from d:l:r:e and the base OS are as follows: S | Name | Type | Version | Arch | Repository --+---------------------+---------+-------------+--------+-------------------------------- i | rubygem-net-ssh | package | 2.8.0-26.1 | x86_64 | Ruby Extensions (openSUSE_12.3) v | rubygem-net-ssh | package | 2.6.1-2.1.1 | x86_64 | openSUSE-12.3-Oss | rubygem-net-ssh-2_1 | package | 2.1.4-2.7 | x86_64 | Ruby Extensions (openSUSE_12.3) | rubygem-net-ssh-2_2 | package | 2.2.2-3.7 | x86_64 | Ruby Extensions (openSUSE_12.3) So in this situation, if I zypper install my vagrant package, I end up with the following simultaneously installed: rubygem-net-ssh-2_1-2.1.4-2.7.x86_64 rubygem-net-ssh-2.8.0-26.1.x86_64 The first satisfies the < 2.8.0 requirement, and the second satisfies the >= 2.6.6 requirement, but neither of them give vagrant what it really wants. So when I run it, I get: /usr/lib64/ruby/1.9.1/rubygems/dependency.rb:247:in `to_specs': Could not find net-ssh (< 2.8.0, >= 2.6.6) amongst [RedCloth-4.2.9, [...snipped...], net-ssh-2.8.0, net-ssh-2.1.4, [...snipped...], vagrant-1.5.4, [...snipped...]] (Gem::LoadError) from /usr/lib64/ruby/1.9.1/rubygems/specification.rb:777:in `block in activate_dependencies' from /usr/lib64/ruby/1.9.1/rubygems/specification.rb:766:in `each' from /usr/lib64/ruby/1.9.1/rubygems/specification.rb:766:in `activate_dependencies' from /usr/lib64/ruby/1.9.1/rubygems/specification.rb:750:in `activate' from /usr/lib64/ruby/1.9.1/rubygems.rb:1232:in `gem' from /usr/bin/vagrant:22:in `<main>' This looks like a fundamental limitation of rpm's version requirement system, and I can't think of a good workaround right now :-/ Does anyone have a good idea how to fix this? The upstream docs seem blissfully unaware of the problem[2]. [0] as described by https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_Ruby#How_gem_dependencies_are_aut... [1] http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-ruby/2011-07/msg00000.html [2] http://www.rpm.org/wiki/PackagerDocs/MultipleVersions -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-ruby+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-ruby+owner@opensuse.org
Adam Spiers (aspiers@suse.com) wrote:
This looks like a fundamental limitation of rpm's version requirement system, and I can't think of a good workaround right now :-/
Well, s/workaround/solution/ - installing rubygem-net-ssh-2.6.6 from systemsmanagement:chef:10 is a valid workaround in this particular case. But I'm looking for something which applies generally to this problem class. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-ruby+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-ruby+owner@opensuse.org
Am 30.04.2014 00:49, schrieb Adam Spiers:
Adam Spiers (aspiers@suse.com) wrote:
This looks like a fundamental limitation of rpm's version requirement system, and I can't think of a good workaround right now :-/
Well, s/workaround/solution/ - installing rubygem-net-ssh-2.6.6 from systemsmanagement:chef:10 is a valid workaround in this particular case. But I'm looking for something which applies generally to this problem class.
If you had this problem while writing a spec file, you would write: Requires: foo >= 2.6.0 Conflicts: foo >= 2.8 Unfortunately we can't generate conflicts. Greetings, Stephan -- Ma muaß weiterkämpfen, kämpfen bis zum Umfalln, a wenn die ganze Welt an Arsch offen hat, oder grad deswegn. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-ruby+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-ruby+owner@opensuse.org
On second thought: gem2rpm *can* generate conflicts in this very situation. Stephan On 30. April 2014 07:04:44 MESZ, Stephan Kulow <coolo@suse.de> wrote:
Am 30.04.2014 00:49, schrieb Adam Spiers:
Adam Spiers (aspiers@suse.com) wrote:
This looks like a fundamental limitation of rpm's version requirement system, and I can't think of a good workaround right now :-/
Well, s/workaround/solution/ - installing rubygem-net-ssh-2.6.6 from systemsmanagement:chef:10 is a valid workaround in this particular case. But I'm looking for something which applies generally to this problem class.
If you had this problem while writing a spec file, you would write: Requires: foo >= 2.6.0 Conflicts: foo >= 2.8
Unfortunately we can't generate conflicts.
Greetings, Stephan
-- Ma muaß weiterkämpfen, kämpfen bis zum Umfalln, a wenn die ganze Welt an Arsch offen hat, oder grad deswegn. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-ruby+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-ruby+owner@opensuse.org
-- Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet.
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 08:49:58 +0200 Stephan Kulow <coolo@suse.de> wrote:
On second thought: gem2rpm *can* generate conflicts in this very situation.
Stephan
Yes, it is right, It should not be problem to add it to gem2rpm. If you do not have time, feel free to open bug and assign it to me, but I worry that due to high load for SLE12 I do not have time for it for whole month ( maybe in RC phase ) Josef
On 30. April 2014 07:04:44 MESZ, Stephan Kulow <coolo@suse.de> wrote:
Am 30.04.2014 00:49, schrieb Adam Spiers:
Adam Spiers (aspiers@suse.com) wrote:
This looks like a fundamental limitation of rpm's version requirement system, and I can't think of a good workaround right now :-/
Well, s/workaround/solution/ - installing rubygem-net-ssh-2.6.6 from systemsmanagement:chef:10 is a valid workaround in this particular case. But I'm looking for something which applies generally to this problem class.
If you had this problem while writing a spec file, you would write: Requires: foo >= 2.6.0 Conflicts: foo >= 2.8
Unfortunately we can't generate conflicts.
Greetings, Stephan
-- Ma muaß weiterkämpfen, kämpfen bis zum Umfalln, a wenn die ganze Welt an Arsch offen hat, oder grad deswegn. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-ruby+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-ruby+owner@opensuse.org
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-ruby+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-ruby+owner@opensuse.org
Josef Reidinger (jreidinger@suse.cz) wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 08:49:58 +0200 Stephan Kulow <coolo@suse.de> wrote:
On second thought: gem2rpm *can* generate conflicts in this very situation.
Stephan
Yes, it is right, It should not be problem to add it to gem2rpm. If you do not have time, feel free to open bug and assign it to me, but I worry that due to high load for SLE12 I do not have time for it for whole month ( maybe in RC phase )
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=875814 I would love to fix it but I am also currently under very high load :-/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-ruby+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-ruby+owner@opensuse.org
* Adam Spiers <aspiers@suse.com> [Apr 30. 2014 00:41]:
This looks like a fundamental limitation of rpm's version requirement system, and I can't think of a good workaround right now :-/
A proper fix has to wait for the next version of rpm which is supposed to support boolean expressions in dependencies. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fz4GJnFokso Klaus -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-ruby+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-ruby+owner@opensuse.org
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 08:38:26 +0200 Klaus Kaempf <kkaempf@suse.de> wrote:
* Adam Spiers <aspiers@suse.com> [Apr 30. 2014 00:41]:
This looks like a fundamental limitation of rpm's version requirement system, and I can't think of a good workaround right now :-/
A proper fix has to wait for the next version of rpm which is supposed to support boolean expressions in dependencies.
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fz4GJnFokso
Klaus
Well, it is teoretically correct, but practically not. I think version with conflict is fine, just result is that you cannot have simulatneous installed more gems, which is drawback. So when new rpm is released and we know in which version, then gem2rpm can create conditional conflict. Josef -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-ruby+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-ruby+owner@opensuse.org
Josef Reidinger (jreidinger@suse.cz) wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 08:38:26 +0200 Klaus Kaempf <kkaempf@suse.de> wrote:
* Adam Spiers <aspiers@suse.com> [Apr 30. 2014 00:41]:
This looks like a fundamental limitation of rpm's version requirement system, and I can't think of a good workaround right now :-/
A proper fix has to wait for the next version of rpm which is supposed to support boolean expressions in dependencies.
For those in a hurry, start watching from 6'52".
Well, it is teoretically correct, but practically not.
I don't follow; please could you explain this in more detail?
I think version with conflict is fine, just result is that you cannot have simulatneous installed more gems, which is drawback. So when new rpm is released and we know in which version, then gem2rpm can create conditional conflict.
Agreed. Using "Conflicts:" is a kind of evil workaround. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-ruby+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-ruby+owner@opensuse.org
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 12:01:41 +0100 Adam Spiers <aspiers@suse.com> wrote:
Josef Reidinger (jreidinger@suse.cz) wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 08:38:26 +0200 Klaus Kaempf <kkaempf@suse.de> wrote:
* Adam Spiers <aspiers@suse.com> [Apr 30. 2014 00:41]:
This looks like a fundamental limitation of rpm's version requirement system, and I can't think of a good workaround right now :-/
A proper fix has to wait for the next version of rpm which is supposed to support boolean expressions in dependencies.
For those in a hurry, start watching from 6'52".
Well, it is teoretically correct, but practically not.
I don't follow; please could you explain this in more detail?
OK, probably I am not fully clear. I wanna to say something like it will work in future, but we need to solve it now.
I think version with conflict is fine, just result is that you cannot have simulatneous installed more gems, which is drawback. So when new rpm is released and we know in which version, then gem2rpm can create conditional conflict.
Agreed. Using "Conflicts:" is a kind of evil workaround.
Yes, it also have drawbacks, so we need to decide if current problem is bigger then problems from conflicts or not, so we live with current problems until new rpm will be released. Josef -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-ruby+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-ruby+owner@opensuse.org
Josef Reidinger (jreidinger@suse.cz) wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 12:01:41 +0100 Adam Spiers <aspiers@suse.com> wrote:
Josef Reidinger (jreidinger@suse.cz) wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014 08:38:26 +0200 Klaus Kaempf <kkaempf@suse.de> wrote:
* Adam Spiers <aspiers@suse.com> [Apr 30. 2014 00:41]:
This looks like a fundamental limitation of rpm's version requirement system, and I can't think of a good workaround right now :-/
A proper fix has to wait for the next version of rpm which is supposed to support boolean expressions in dependencies.
For those in a hurry, start watching from 6'52".
Well, it is teoretically correct, but practically not.
I don't follow; please could you explain this in more detail?
OK, probably I am not fully clear. I wanna to say something like it will work in future, but we need to solve it now.
Oh OK :)
I think version with conflict is fine, just result is that you cannot have simulatneous installed more gems, which is drawback. So when new rpm is released and we know in which version, then gem2rpm can create conditional conflict.
Agreed. Using "Conflicts:" is a kind of evil workaround.
Yes, it also have drawbacks, so we need to decide if current problem is bigger then problems from conflicts or not, so we live with current problems until new rpm will be released.
I agree. My hunch is that introducing Conflicts is better than leaving the status quo, but I'm not 100% sure. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-ruby+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-ruby+owner@opensuse.org
participants (4)
-
Adam Spiers -
Josef Reidinger -
Klaus Kaempf -
Stephan Kulow