Thomas,
Dependency resolution can only be performed at the rpm level if the rpms
enumerate their dependencies. As I explained, pfilter is an example
(oda with its need for mysql, perl-DBD-MySql and perl-DBI is another) of
an rpm that doesn't make explicit rpm dependencies. We could argue if
the particular packages should, e.g., an OSCARized package should, while
perhaps a generic package need not, etc), but the reality is that some
don't. Given that reality, update-rpms has no basis to ensure
dependencies that are not enumerated.
In the case of pfilter, it just so happens that the distros that I'm
aware of all include iptables in their base; as long as that, ipchains,
or even ipfwadm are included, pfilter will work. So, there's a
circumstantial reason why pfilter doesn't actually need to <rpmlist>
iptables.
oda, on the other hand, does need to somehow indicate a requirement for
mysql, as there are no explicit rpm dependencies for it (or the other
two I listed above).
The current state of the config.xml files is, well, sloppy. In some
cases, the only <rpmlist> items are those that must be explicitly listed
to satisfy dependencies that are otherwise not enumerated. In other
cases, though, many dependencies were listed, needed or not.
At the end of the day, we have overloaded <rpmlist>; to address this we
either need to remove the need for the overload, or remove the overload
with another mechanism.
The latter may be easier, and I would suggest a
<rpmlist>
...
<rpm>fred</rpm>
<requires>barney</requires>
...
</rpmlist>
where the new <requires> rpms are listed as to-be-installed, but never
listed as to-be-deleted.
--
David N. Lombard
My comments represent my opinions, not those of Intel Corporation.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Thomas Naughton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 7:04 AM
>To: Lombard, David N
>Cc: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: [Oscar-devel] config.xml <rpmlist>
>
>Dave,
>
>I think this is what John & I were poorly explaining previously.
>
>We neglected to mention that the <require> element, which in theory
could
>have different <type> subelements (e.g., <type>package</type>,
><type>rpm</type>, etc.) In practice this functionality never extended
>beyond the single <type> of "package" (oscar packages), as you
mentioned.
>
>So, the ad hoc approach thus far has been to add additional <rpm> items
in
>order to inject those entries into the mondo 'rpm -ivh' line that oscar
>builds.
>
>With your additions to v4.0, we could handle the dependence on the
server
>via PackMan/Depman (since the additional <rpm> entries were already
inside
>the RPMs themselves...or should be).
>
>The only missing piece was the image build, which didn't use
>PackMan/Depman, thus we had to keep the ad hoc fix of extraneous <rpm>
>entries.
>
>So, are you saying that there are cases where PackMan/Depman is not
>sufficient for determining "required" or dependant packages (RPMs) for
a
>given OSCAR Package without using the ad hoc extra <rpm> trick?
>
>And we won't be able to do the 'auto-uninstall all RPMs' (by having a
clean
>opkg rpmlist in DB) for the v4.1 release?
>
>--tjn
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
_
> Thomas Naughton
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Research Associate (865) 576-4184
>
>
>On Tue, 15 Feb 2005, Lombard, David N wrote:
>
>> I've noticed two usages in <rpmlist>
>>
>> 1) Specify packages provided by OSCAR
>> 2) Specify rpm dependencies.
>>
>> For example, pfilter has
>>
>> <rpmlist>
>> <rpm>pfilter</rpm>
>> <rpm>iptables</rpm>
>> </rpmlist>
>>
>> Note, the second is different from the <requires> tag, which, AFAICT,
>> only refers to OSCAR packages.
>>
>> Now, the problem is that the pfilter rpm does not require iptables
(it
>> works with iptables, ipchains, and even ipfwadm). So, the only way
to
>> currently express the requirement, that OSCAR wants satisfied via
>> iptables, is via <rpmlist>. The problem arises when OSCAR goes to
>> delete the package, where iptables is generally provided as a base
part
>> of the OS (does any distro not provide iptables by default now?).
>>
>> Post 4.1, we need to separate these two usages, e.g., the
rpm-dependency
>> can be expressed in an alternate way.
-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_ide95&alloc_id396&op=click
_______________________________________________
Oscar-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oscar-devel
