-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On Fri, 2017-03-31 at 19:41 +0100, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > On 31 March 2017 at 17:57, Michael Schwendt <mschwe...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > No, it's based on common experience several packagers have made > > over a > > period of several years. You seem to have missed that period. Non- > > versioned > > Obsoletes have caused problems before. > > > > OK. Could you please show me example? Best if it will be documented > for > example in bugzilla. > I'm almost sure that it is kind of mistake or results > misinterpretation. > > It is yet another possibility tat it may be result of using yum/dnf > which > are working not exactly the same as rpm. > > [..] > > > > What will happen if in 2.0 will be "Obsolete: A-static < 2.0-1" > > > and just > > > "Obsolete: A-static" when new 3.0 will arrive? > > > > > > What will happen on upgrade from 1.0 to 2.0 if A-static-1.0 was > > > installed > > > before? Of course A-static will be uninstalled. > > > > > > What will happen on upgrade from 1.0 to 3.0? Because A-3.0 no > > > longer > > > carries Obsolete rule -> A and A-static will be upgraded > > > together. > > > > No. The exact behaviour is implementation dependent. As long as the > > Obsoletes tag is seen by the dependency resolver when examining > > installed > > packages and available packages, the obsolete package is not taken > > into > > consideration when resolving dependencies. Its EVR is irrelevant > > then. > > It will not become an update or upgrade. It is obsolete. > > > > Below you added a wall of text once again. Your passion for this > > topic > > is admirable, but it won't lead to anything, if you refuse to be > > much more > > short and concise. > > > > I have no idea about what kind scenario you are talking about so I > made my > tests. > As I wrote engineering is about testing so here is my test case: > Four spec files and two scripts. > First one has: > > rm -f ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/test* > rpmbuild -ba --quiet test-1.0.spec test-2.0.spec test-3.0.spec > sudo rpm -Uvh ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/test*1.0* > rpm -qa | grep ^test > sudo rpm -Uvh ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/test*2.0* > rpm -qa | grep ^test > sudo rpm -Uvh ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/test*3.0* > rpm -qa | grep ^test > > Here is my result: > > $ sh ./test.sh > rpm: no packages given for erase > Preparing... ############################### > ## > [100%] > Updating / installing... > 1:test-1.0- > 1 ################################# [ > 33%] > 2:test-devel-1.0- > 1 ################################# [ > 67%] > 3:test-static-1.0- > 1 ################################# > [100%] > test-1.0-1.x86_64 > test-devel-1.0-1.x86_64 > test-static-1.0-1.x86_64 > Preparing... ############################### > ## > [100%] > Updating / installing... > 1:test-2.0- > 1 ################################# [ > 20%] > 2:test-devel-2.0- > 1 ################################# [ > 40%] > Cleaning up / removing... > 3:test-static-1.0- > 1 ################################# [ > 60%] > 4:test-devel-1.0- > 1 ################################# [ > 80%] > 5:test-1.0- > 1 ################################# > [100%] > test-2.0-1.x86_64 > test-devel-2.0-1.x86_64 > Preparing... ############################### > ## > [100%] > Updating / installing... > 1:test-3.0- > 1 ################################# [ > 20%] > 2:test-devel-3.0- > 1 ################################# [ > 40%] > 3:test-static-3.0- > 1 ################################# [ > 60%] > Cleaning up / removing... > 4:test-devel-2.0- > 1 ################################# [ > 80%] > 5:test-2.0- > 1 ################################# > [100%] > test-devel-3.0-1.x86_64 > test-static-3.0-1.x86_64 > test-3.0-1.x86_64 > > And second test on with test-2.0-ver.spec which has changed: > > --- test-2.0.spec 2017-03-31 18:55:05.986642900 +0100 > +++ test-2.0-ver.spec 2017-03-31 18:55:52.877882709 +0100 > @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ > Version: 2.0 > Release: 1 > License: Test > -Obsoletes: test-static > +Obsoletes: test-static < 2.0-1 > > %description > Test package. > > Result: > > $ sh ./test-ver.sh > Preparing... ############################### > ## > [100%] > Updating / installing... > 1:test-1.0- > 1 ################################# [ > 33%] > 2:test-devel-1.0- > 1 ################################# [ > 67%] > 3:test-static-1.0- > 1 ################################# > [100%] > test-static-1.0-1.x86_64 > test-devel-1.0-1.x86_64 > test-1.0-1.x86_64 > Preparing... ############################### > ## > [100%] > Updating / installing... > 1:test-2.0- > 1 ################################# [ > 20%] > 2:test-devel-2.0- > 1 ################################# [ > 40%] > Cleaning up / removing... > 3:test-static-1.0- > 1 ################################# [ > 60%] > 4:test-devel-1.0- > 1 ################################# [ > 80%] > 5:test-1.0- > 1 ################################# > [100%] > test-devel-2.0-1.x86_64 > test-2.0-1.x86_64 > Preparing... ############################### > ## > [100%] > Updating / installing... > 1:test-3.0- > 1 ################################# [ > 20%] > 2:test-devel-3.0- > 1 ################################# [ > 40%] > 3:test-static-3.0- > 1 ################################# [ > 60%] > Cleaning up / removing... > 4:test-devel-2.0- > 1 ################################# [ > 80%] > 5:test-2.0- > 1 ################################# > [100%] > test-3.0-1.x86_64 > test-devel-3.0-1.x86_64 > test-static-3.0-1.x86_64 > > As you see result is EXACTLY the same. > In attachment you have tar with 4 spec files and two test scripts. > It is some possibility that you may be right in some scenario which I > still > do not understand so please try to change test case to the form when > it > will start failing presenting exact scenario which is possible to > correct/avoid by using versioned Obsoletes. > PS ATM I'm ready to bet with at least 1:10 ratio that it is some > misunderstanding of some very simple case. > So I'm moving my words one step back and putting this case in WIP > state > asking for exact example implemented in test case. > > > > > BTW Epoch. Using Epoch is only for scenario when it is necessary > > > roll > > > > back > > > to earlier version of *the same package* when such package *is > > > > installed*. > > > > That's not true either. A package doesn't need to be installed at > > all, and > > it doesn't need to be the "same package". In repo metadata highest > > EVR > > wins version comparison. Again, depending on how the package tools > > and > > depsolvers are implemented, you would not even see a package due to > > its > > EVR. Also, there's the scenario of package splits, such as a > > library > > getting released as a separate project with an own versioning > > scheme, > > and Epoch is the only way to handle that, regardless of whether a > > package > > is installed already. > > > > If package is present in rpm database only in form of "Provides: > A-<version>-<release>" for resolver effectively it is like such > package is > really installed. Ergo: it changes nothing. In both cases will be > done > exactly the same operation o resolving packages dependencies and > write new > state of installed packages. Please provide libsolv testcases (something like https://github.com/ope nSUSE/libsolv/blob/master/test/testcases/yumobs/split.t), create FPC ticket, attach testcases, their results and proposal (new wiki page regarding guidelines), subscribe DNF developers and only after that we can talk about anything. > > kloczek > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
- -- - -Igor Gnatenko -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEhLFO09aHZVqO+CM6aVcUvRu8X0wFAljeqSYACgkQaVcUvRu8 X0xq0A//b9RBpFX7XVQDPKQw2K1vlefaZmr6/zwq4qURKnnf1yFRTa1noH1lY/kw jTa8azbXJuRN046AN3xhxmRhl6wsx5rpmAUl+s2Kvy2r3XF9oJqPPfLOObke85tL f5WnOdAsHfFaAJlAv1H/YCpF8kfxoc3hhDWPZp0YmVwOyQOVdLh+b0hRKvXgPKQz dO9v+FQAcA/PuHvNcJDTs3zHbsBJv7QHQ2E9Bi4IAO9oJEaW8o/ObHj7dkM6NFrU 2C5PPRAE+dnqDO7NGUA5jY/MXDeiXTgU0HJTvaqinQYmrGueSwYfzUauUlVDbSLN ndl9oaBnPJPsB/53ovviMgSKg4EbAL4P7NRcUgbLwJjQ1eH4DwNifK9oh7sCuea8 u59QXnN97rEQH7rW3UpxhSeJQTO2sE32/Ug8QC8Zb4WOn3cljVeHrcqH6BO8Xn1n eN0yaaIjbWyXlwX88uR/wZu80M0Gy3GdvtxZ8hoQDiO0X0iRs050QCP5Rb9uS2mF EDKgcAjdNsXHBiEGcDXWKDF/70FnspZFRKvEhNkH9vZpzJ+47hkTXPmH52EJQYoW 0tJ2TN1pUvuCWX9M5uKmqNX1qD/pQG+kW+CwvWb2eLXyss6BI0wpWOoSONTo7siY qEXqhWYuOeKFtn461G+mMktJ2ESmRfg768EQQaVNSeh+7b53hDM= =TxfK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
