Stephan Kulow napsal(a):

Am Mittwoch 19 März 2008 schrieb Lukas Ocilka:

...

What do you think of that? Is there a better way than check against PDB? Webpin?

Well, you can add all these packages as either requires or build requires to yast2-build-test.spec (remember arch specifics) and you end up in the same list that the packagers get complains from.

And yes, it's only against STABLE, but we don't drop or rename packages in released products, so it doesn't matter.

Now that extra-packages is machine readable, we could automate the change on every edit. But at first we need to cleanup the current mess, as every maintainer will have to check if the module really tries to install autofs4.

Well, first it should be said why we have different RPM Requires and BuildRequires. * Some packages are in BR but not in R - They are needed just to build the package because ... hmm, that sounds rather like an error, doesn't it :)? * Some packages are in R but not in BR - Of course, you don't need to install all packages when building the YaST package. It makes the build faster. Of course, if you don't care that BuildRequires will contain 'ALL' packages listed in Requires, we would just simply change the 'make package' command to add everything from 'Requires' to 'BuildRequires'. It would be 'Fast but Furious (II.)' ;) Lukas

Stephan Kulow napsal(a):

Am Mittwoch 19 März 2008 schrieb Lukas Ocilka:

...

Of course, if you don't care that BuildRequires will contain 'ALL' packages listed in Requires, we would just simply change the 'make package' command to add everything from 'Requires' to 'BuildRequires'. It would be 'Fast but Furious (II.)' ;)

I don't follow. You can BuildRequire autofs4 and you will get notice when it's dropped. Is this what you're saying?

The Requires of yast2-printer should stay untouched.

OK, sorry, I'll write it for human beings (sometimes I forget I'm a YaST developer ;)) * YaST packages define 'BuildRequires' and 'Requires' when creating the RPM. * 'BuildRequires' often contain only those packages that are really needed for the package to get build, on the other hand, 'Requires' contain packages that are needed for the particular YaST package to run properly. * We often don't define packages needed only for run in the 'BuildRequires' because we thought the faster we build a package, the best for us. I'm offering you to take all 'Requires' and merge them with 'BuildRequires' when we use our special 'make package' command that creates the real spec file, tar.bz2 file etc. What would be the ouptut? * Slower build (more packages in BuildRequires than now) * More reliable RPM 'Requires' because we'll find out that they are wrong already in the build time. Actually build won't pass at all with wrong 'Requires' in such case. Hmm, reading this mail from top to bottom doesn't make the feeling better, yes, I'm still a YaST developer :) L.

Dne Wednesday 19 of March 2008 11:34:49 Lukas Ocilka napsal(a):

Lukas Ocilka napsal(a):

...

Stephan Kulow napsal(a):

...

Am Mittwoch 19 März 2008 schrieb Lukas Ocilka:

Ah, hmm, on the other hand ... it seems I'm trying to solve something else. The file extra-packages should be dropped and this list solved by another RPM dependencies.

Let's wait for jsrain to write it :)

;-) My idea is that every YaST module which (additionally) installs any packages would have weak dependency on such package. This would have following benefits: - the package would be (by default) dragged in by the solver and user would not be bothered with installation later - the one who needs minimal installation is free to remove it - the list would be with each package, hopefully more on the maintainer's eyes (I know, I'm optimist :-) ) The question is whether we could generate the list of such packages any automated way, ideally via similar check as (I hope) are done for strong dependencies. Stephan? However, the problem to update the list would persist. I can imagine some script which would check most of the cases, but it would never be 100%. Jiri -- Regards, Jiri Srain YaST Team Leader --------------------------------------------------------------------- SUSE LINUX, s.r.o. e-mail: jsrain@suse.cz Lihovarska 1060/12 tel: +420 284 028 959 190 00 Praha 9 fax: +420 284 028 951 Czech Republic http://www.suse.cz

My idea is that every YaST module which (additionally) installs any packages would have weak dependency on such package. This would have following benefits: - the package would be (by default) dragged in by the solver and user would not be bothered with installation later This would increase the default installation for the sake of lazy

Am Mittwoch 19 März 2008 schrieb Jiri Srain: maintainers ;(

- the one who needs minimal installation is free to remove it - the list would be with each package, hopefully more on the maintainer's eyes (I know, I'm optimist :-) )

The question is whether we could generate the list of such packages any automated way, ideally via similar check as (I hope) are done for strong dependencies. Stephan? Well, shall I sent out the list of missing packages every day? But autofs4 is dropped since 2005, so I kind of doubt this code is still in place.

Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: yast-devel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: yast-devel+help@opensuse.org

Am Mittwoch 19 März 2008 schrieb Lukas Ocilka:

Stephan Kulow napsal(a):

...

Am Mittwoch 19 März 2008 schrieb Jiri Srain:

...

The question is whether we could generate the list of such packages any automated way, ideally via similar check as (I hope) are done for strong dependencies. Stephan?

Well, shall I sent out the list of missing packages every day? But autofs4 is dropped since 2005, so I kind of doubt this code is still in place.

Actually the list doesn't seem to maintained anymore.

About the missing packages, well, why not :)? If you have enough information (more than developers) you have better either fix it yourself ;) or (better) make developer fix it.

That's why I sent out this mail Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: yast-devel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: yast-devel+help@opensuse.org

Hi,

...

...

On 3/19/2008 at 15:57, Johannes Meixner wrote:

Hello, I.e. with "weak dependency" you actually only mean "Recommends" but not "Suggests"?

I'm not sure, but I think zypper does not handle suggests yet, so it's a very weak dependency... Dominique -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: yast-devel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: yast-devel+help@opensuse.org

* Johannes Meixner [Mar 19. 2008 14:57]:

I.e. with "weak dependency" you actually only mean "Recommends" but not "Suggests"?

I think "Recommends" is often too strong and "Suggests" is often better.

'Suggests' is never evaluated by the dependency solver. Its purely for consumption by the package management application (i.e. yast or zypper) to present a list to the user like Amazons 'Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought'. 'Recommends' is probably the right choice if you want to ensure a 'reasonable' set of packages installed on a typical system. Klaus --- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: yast-devel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: yast-devel+help@opensuse.org

* Lukas Ocilka [Mar 19. 2008 15:56]:

'Recommends' fits only in case a minimal system will not select them by default. In this case 'Suggests' sound better because we actually don't need (and typically don't want) to have these packages installed by default.

Yes, if these packages are neither needed nor wanted by default, 'suggests' is the right dependency. Klaus --- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: yast-devel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: yast-devel+help@opensuse.org

Lukas Ocilka writes:

Klaus Kaempf napsal(a):

...

* Lukas Ocilka [Mar 19. 2008 15:56]:

...

'Recommends' fits only in case a minimal system will not select them by default. In this case 'Suggests' sound better because we actually don't need (and typically don't want) to have these packages installed by default.

Yes, if these packages are neither needed nor wanted by default, 'suggests' is the right dependency.

I'm afraid there is one more problem with moving extra-packages to something else.

I wanted to write a simple script that would get a package name and grep the extra-packages file for its existence. After that all matching lines should have been transformed to "Suggests: $package".

But finally I've found that some currently NOARCH packages use several "#if defined(__$arch__)" in that extra-packages file. So moving the content to "Suggests: $package" would mean transforming some NOARCH packages to architecture-dependent just because of suggested packages :(

Are those requirements still current and correct? Could you give us the list, please?

These packages are currently: * yast2-installation (noarch) * yast2-bootloader * yast2-samba-client (noarch) * yast2-fingerprint-reader * yast2-kerberos-client (noarch) * yast2-kdump

/Those NOARCH are marked (noarch)/

What do you think of changing them from NOARCH? Isn't there any better solution?

Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, Director Platform / openSUSE, aj@suse.de SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126

Lukas Ocilka napsal(a):

Andreas Jaeger napsal(a):

...

...

But finally I've found that some currently NOARCH packages use several "#if defined(__$arch__)" in that extra-packages file. So moving the content to "Suggests: $package" would mean transforming some NOARCH packages to architecture-dependent just because of suggested packages :( Are those requirements still current and correct? Could you give us the

Lukas Ocilka writes: list, please?

File attached.

For simplicity only those "Suggested:$packagename" that are marked architecture-dependent are listed there. For instance yast2-installation has some more but they appear to be NOARCH, so they don't change anything.

NOARCH YaST packages affected: * yast2-installation * yast2-samba-client * yast2-kerberos-client

Hmm, while checking the list ... I've realized that, for instance, those packages listed for yast2-installation should go somewhere else. * Bootloader (milo, aboot, cpml_ev5, cpml_ev6) * Base pattern (sudo) * Enhanced base PPC patterm (ibmsis, scsi, mouseemu, pbbuttonsd, powerprefs, mol, powerpc-utils) * ... no idea for (fpswa, numactl) L.

Am Freitag 21 März 2008 schrieb Michal Svec:

Does this actually matter? What would happen if we have Suggests to a package which is not available?

I mean to have Suggests:milo in bootloader despite it's noarch could possibly have no harm on architectures which do not have that package (in a theoretical situation we actually use Suggests for anything).

It's great that everyone tries to solve so many problems, but can we please remember for a short moment the problem that extra-packages tries to solve? The goal is to have a way to check if all packages possibly dragged in by yast2-bootloader _on that arch_ on the medium _of that arch_. So yes, you can suggest everything and we would not be able to do any kind of medium afterwards. So the goals: 1. (mandatory) we need a list of requirements somewhere that media can be checked against 2. (desirable) it should be easy for yast maintainers to ignore it. Making packages arch-specific for the sake of moving the information into the spec file makes this basically a killer. If you think extra-packages as file "somewhere" is to be ignored, then please add the information in yast/trunk/bootloader/EXTRA_DEPS or something. Suggests are pointless and hard to parse and you never know if the suggests is a real one or one of the "represents weak yast deps" kind. Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: yast-devel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: yast-devel+help@opensuse.org

Am Mittwoch 19 März 2008 schrieb Klaus Kaempf:

* Johannes Meixner [Mar 19. 2008 14:57]:

...

I.e. with "weak dependency" you actually only mean "Recommends" but not "Suggests"?

I think "Recommends" is often too strong and "Suggests" is often better.

'Suggests' is never evaluated by the dependency solver. Its purely for consumption by the package management application (i.e. yast or zypper) to present a list to the user like Amazons 'Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought'.

'Recommends' is probably the right choice if you want to ensure a 'reasonable' set of packages installed on a typical system.

But we don't. The feature behind this is that all yast modules are installed, but only if you configure LDAP you also get all ldap services installed. So recommending LDAP from yast2-ldap would imply that we also will not have LDAP offering in second stage. Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: yast-devel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: yast-devel+help@opensuse.org

Lukas Ocilka writes:

Stephan Kulow napsal(a):

...

Am Mittwoch 19 März 2008 schrieb Lukas Ocilka:

...

Of course, if you don't care that BuildRequires will contain 'ALL' packages listed in Requires, we would just simply change the 'make package' command to add everything from 'Requires' to 'BuildRequires'. It would be 'Fast but Furious (II.)' ;)

I don't follow. You can BuildRequire autofs4 and you will get notice when it's dropped. Is this what you're saying?

The Requires of yast2-printer should stay untouched.

OK, sorry, I'll write it for human beings (sometimes I forget I'm a YaST developer ;))

* YaST packages define 'BuildRequires' and 'Requires' when creating the RPM. * 'BuildRequires' often contain only those packages that are really needed for the package to get build, on the other hand, 'Requires' contain packages that are needed for the particular YaST package to run properly. * We often don't define packages needed only for run in the 'BuildRequires' because we thought the faster we build a package, the best for us.

We have checks in the BuildSystem and during CD making that check for all the requires. This happens at a later time. But if you have e.g. a package that BuildRequires all yast-packages - like yast2-build-test does - it will install all the Requires of the BuildRequires. This should be enough IMO - if somebody checks failures of yast2-build-test and changes then the packages with wrong Requires, Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger, Director Platform/openSUSE, aj@suse.de SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126

On Wednesday 19 March 2008 10:53, Lukas Ocilka wrote:

* We might enhance our `make package` to check whether packages defined   in RPM 'Requires' exist. PDB commandline tool could do that ("but only   for STABLE", said nadvornik+anosek). Of course, you need to be   authenticated against iChain in PDB.

Please don't. "make check" already does a lot more things that are healthy to do at this point. If we add even more, it keeps failing, and YaST2 package maintainers will be forced to use "make package-local" which bypasses almost all checks. Plus, pdb-commandline and its authentication would make our development environment even more fragile (there have been times when this didn't work for me at all for a long time). Checking for those dependency problems is a good thing. But this is something that can and should be done with a separate tool every once in a while. CU -- Stefan Hundhammer Penguin by conviction. YaST2 Development SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) Nürnberg, Germany -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: yast-devel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: yast-devel+help@opensuse.org