openSUSE Software Management January 2009

softwaremgmt@lists.opensuse.org

3 participants
2 discussions

[softwaremgmt] [jw+debian@jameswestby.net: Stable update procedures]
by Klaus Kaempf 30 Jan '09

30 Jan '09

This looks interesting, esp. in the light of recent discussions on 'live' upgrading. Klaus ----- Forwarded message from James Westby <jw+debian(a)jameswestby.net> ----- Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 23:50:08 +0000 From: James Westby <jw+debian(a)jameswestby.net> To: distributions <distributions(a)lists.freedesktop.org> Subject: Stable update procedures Hi all, I've just got round to reading this week's LWN and it has an interesting article entitled "Fedora looks to prevent upgrade disasters" http://lwn.net/Articles/316194/ It's subscriber-only for a week, if you can't see it then mail me privately for a subscriber-link, or better yet subscribe to LWN, it's worth it. I was actually thinking of sending this mail the other day, but the appearance of this article sealed it for me. I'm interested in the procedures that other distributions have for making changes to "stable" releases, whatever that means for you. I'm especially interested what parts you find work well, and what problems you find. I'm not particularly interested in the procedure for security updates, more for bug fixes/new versions, obviously except for the cases where the procedures are the same. What are the rules for what is allowed? What is the process for doing it? What QA is done on the updates? How are regressions caught? How are regressions handled? I expect there will be a large variance here, but I hope it can be instructive. I'll write a reply with the details for Ubuntu when I'm not supposed to the packing to leave the country in a few hours, unless someone else beats me to it. Thanks, James _______________________________________________ Distributions mailing list Distributions(a)lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/distributions ----- End forwarded message ----- --- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-softwaremgmt+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-softwaremgmt+help(a)opensuse.org

1 0

[softwaremgmt] Identifying a package in rpm-md
by Benji Weber 28 Jan '09

28 Jan '09

Greetings All, In our rpm-md metadata at the moment we are using the package checksum as an identifier (pkgid). This leads to a problem when importing data into the software portal. When a repository has changed we could: * Simply delete all repository content and re-add the new content. This is rather slow and has other problems associated with it when we have hundreds of repositories changing per day (which we do, thanks to the buildservice). * Update the details of only the changed packages. The problem with the latter is that it's difficult to tie the packages in the new repository metadata to the packages in the old repository metadata. The checksum of a package changes every time it's rebuilt, so we can't use that as an identifier to match the old state to the new. There can be multiple packages with the same name+version. The buildid changes every build. If we can't match up the current packages with the old packages we can't just update the details. We also can't determine which packages have been removed or added. So my question is: Is there a set of attributes in the rpm-md that would uniquely identify a package that is build independent and allow diffing of the metadata? -- Benjamin Weber -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-softwaremgmt+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-softwaremgmt+help(a)opensuse.org

2 4

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

openSUSE Software Management January 2009