Re: To distro-sync or not distro-sync?

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 30.10.2015 v 18:06 Will Woods napsal(a):
> On Thu, 2015-10-29 at 15:00 +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>> Dne 29.10.2015 v 13:24 Honza Šilhan napsal(a):
>>> You can exclude the conflicting packages to proceed the system
>>> -upgrade i.e.:
>>> "dnf system-upgrade download --releasever=23 --distro-sync -x
>>> rubygem-celluloid --allowerasing"
>>
>> Does the "-x" work actually? Last time I tried, the package I
>> excluded
>> was not downloaded (as expected), but after restart, the "-x" was not
>> used and my system-upgrade failed (this was unexpected). These flags
>> should be propagated and honored after restart, during the upgrade
>> phase.
> Actually, you're correct, the -x/--exclude settings are not currently
> propagated to the upgrade. I filed an issue on github to track that:
>
>   https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf-plugin-system-upgrade/
> issues/29

Wonderful, thx for that.


Vít

>
> I *can* add that to the State object that dnf system-upgrade uses to
> pass the --best/--allowerasing/etc. settings between the download and
> the upgrade, but I think the best long-term solution is for DNF to
> provide some .save()/.load() method(s) that will correctly save *all*
> the relevant configuration and transaction bits, rather than trying to
> figure all of this out on my own in an external plugin.
>
> -w

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: To distro-sync or not distro-sync?

[Nico Kadel-Garcia]

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:56 AM, Reindl Harald  wrote:
>
>
> Am 29.10.2015 um 10:09 schrieb Christopher Meng:
>>
>> You have a chance to get your rpmfusion softwares wiped after the sync.
>>
>> [1]---https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1263677
>
>
> unacceptable
>
> the software upgrade just have to mention the conflicting packages and stop
> until somebody enables a --force switch and in general DNF has to be much
> more verbose in case of dependency problems instead just saying "can't do
> anything because broken deps"
>
> in the past you saw *exactly* which package requires which so-version and so
> find out where the problem starts, which packages you may consider to remove
> and then try again
>
> currently we have some sort of blackbox with no output how to solve
> dependency problems

Is there any reason you can't put that in the actual Bugzilla thread?
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: To distro-sync or not distro-sync?

[Honza Šilhan]

> From: "Vít Ondruch" 
> 
> Dne 29.10.2015 v 13:24 Honza Šilhan napsal(a):
> > You can exclude the conflicting packages to proceed the system-upgrade
> > i.e.:
> > "dnf system-upgrade download --releasever=23 --distro-sync -x
> > rubygem-celluloid --allowerasing"
> 
> 
> Does the "-x" work actually? Last time I tried, the package I excluded
> was not downloaded (as expected), but after restart, the "-x" was not
> used and my system-upgrade failed (this was unexpected). These flags
> should be propagated and honored after restart, during the upgrade phase.

It should definitely honor excluded packages after restart. System-upgrade
should apply packages that were resolved and downloaded by DNF. I don't know
how exactly are packages installed / removed after restart (Will know).
If you encounter this problem, please, report a bug for 
dnf-plugin-system-upgrade
component.

Honza
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: To distro-sync or not distro-sync?

[Kamil Paral]

> > From: "Vít Ondruch" 
> > 
> > Dne 29.10.2015 v 13:24 Honza Šilhan napsal(a):
> > > You can exclude the conflicting packages to proceed the system-upgrade
> > > i.e.:
> > > "dnf system-upgrade download --releasever=23 --distro-sync -x
> > > rubygem-celluloid --allowerasing"
> > 
> > 
> > Does the "-x" work actually? Last time I tried, the package I excluded
> > was not downloaded (as expected), but after restart, the "-x" was not
> > used and my system-upgrade failed (this was unexpected). These flags
> > should be propagated and honored after restart, during the upgrade phase.
> 
> It should definitely honor excluded packages after restart. System-upgrade
> should apply packages that were resolved and downloaded by DNF. I don't know
> how exactly are packages installed / removed after restart (Will know).
> If you encounter this problem, please, report a bug for
> dnf-plugin-system-upgrade
> component.

To everyone who's experimenting with system-upgrade - please use the latest 
packages available in Bodhi:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?packages=dnf-plugin-system-upgrade

They contain number of fixes.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: To distro-sync or not distro-sync?

[Will Woods]

On Thu, 2015-10-29 at 14:20 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:

> just behave like "yum --releasever=XX distro-sync" all the years
> before 
> and just REFUSE to upgrade if there are conflicts

This is, in fact, the default behavior in dnf system-upgrade 0.5.x and
higher.

-w
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: To distro-sync or not distro-sync?

[Will Woods]

On Thu, 2015-10-29 at 15:00 +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Dne 29.10.2015 v 13:24 Honza Šilhan napsal(a):
> > You can exclude the conflicting packages to proceed the system
> > -upgrade i.e.:
> > "dnf system-upgrade download --releasever=23 --distro-sync -x
> > rubygem-celluloid --allowerasing"
> 
> 
> Does the "-x" work actually? Last time I tried, the package I
> excluded
> was not downloaded (as expected), but after restart, the "-x" was not
> used and my system-upgrade failed (this was unexpected). These flags
> should be propagated and honored after restart, during the upgrade
> phase.

Actually, you're correct, the -x/--exclude settings are not currently
propagated to the upgrade. I filed an issue on github to track that:

  https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf-plugin-system-upgrade/
issues/29

I *can* add that to the State object that dnf system-upgrade uses to
pass the --best/--allowerasing/etc. settings between the download and
the upgrade, but I think the best long-term solution is for DNF to
provide some .save()/.load() method(s) that will correctly save *all*
the relevant configuration and transaction bits, rather than trying to
figure all of this out on my own in an external plugin.

-w
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: To distro-sync or not distro-sync?

[Honza Šilhan]

> From: "Miroslav Suchý" <msu...@redhat.com>
> 
> >> # dnf system-upgrade download --releasever=23 --distro-sync --best
> >> --allowerasing
> >> Error: package rubygem-celluloid-0.15.2-2.fc22.noarch requires
> >> rubygem(timers) < 1.2, but none of the providers can be
> >> installed.
> >> package fedup-dracut-0.9.2-1.fc22.x86_64 requires librpm.so.3()(64bit),
> >> but none of the providers can be installed
> > 
> > What version of dnf/libsolv are you using? The last update
> > (libsolv-0.6.14-2.fc22,dnf-1.1.3-1.fc22) solved a bunch of
> > upgrade problems.
> 
> Exactly dnf-1.1.3-1.fc22

The distro-sync changes happened in libsolv-0.6.14-2 - it should be a 
requirement of 
dnf-plugin-system-upgrade-0.7.0.

You can exclude the conflicting packages to proceed the system-upgrade i.e.:
"dnf system-upgrade download --releasever=23 --distro-sync -x rubygem-celluloid 
--allowerasing"

> From: "Reindl Harald" <h.rei...@thelounge.net>
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 10:56:47 AM
> Subject: Re: To distro-sync or not distro-sync?
> 
> From: "Reindl Harald" <h.rei...@thelounge.net>
> the software upgrade just have to mention the conflicting packages and
> stop until somebody enables a --force switch and in general DNF has to
> be much more verbose in case of dependency problems instead just saying
> "can't do anything because broken deps"

dnf has `--allowerasing switch - it will resolve the conflicts by uninstallation
of conflicting packages. Installing the packages regardless the dependencies by
`--force` is really dangerous and will not be supported by DNF.

> currently we have some sort of blackbox with no output how to solve
> dependency problems

It outputs the last package conflict found by depsolver. The improvement is on
the agenda [1].


Honza

[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1148627
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: To distro-sync or not distro-sync?

[Reindl Harald]

Am 29.10.2015 um 13:24 schrieb Honza Šilhan:

From: "Miroslav Suchý" 
From: "Reindl Harald" 
the software upgrade just have to mention the conflicting packages and
stop until somebody enables a --force switch and in general DNF has to
be much more verbose in case of dependency problems instead just saying
"can't do anything because broken deps"


dnf has `--allowerasing switch - it will resolve the conflicts by uninstallation
of conflicting packages. Installing the packages regardless the dependencies by
`--force` is really dangerous and will not be supported by DNF.


removing random packages is also really dangerous and *not* acceptable

frankly if there are problems and i need a hammer then i need a hammer 
in case i know what i am doing - i have solved yum distrupgrade troubles 
hundrets of times by "rpm -e --nodeps" for packages where i am 100% sure 
that they are not system critical and guess what - after that the deps 
where solved and even the correct dependencies installed without any 
cleanup needed after the upgrade



currently we have some sort of blackbox with no output how to solve
dependency problems


It outputs the last package conflict found by depsolver. The improvement is on
the agenda [1].

[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1148627


hopefully because 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1148627#c27 is the truth 
until now




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: To distro-sync or not distro-sync?

[Sérgio Basto]

On Qui, 2015-10-29 at 17:09 +0800, Christopher Meng wrote:
> You have a chance to get your rpmfusion softwares wiped after the sync.
> 
> [1]---https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1263677

yep, so not distro-sync


-- 
Sérgio M. B.

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: To distro-sync or not distro-sync?

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 29.10.2015 v 13:24 Honza Šilhan napsal(a):
> You can exclude the conflicting packages to proceed the system-upgrade i.e.:
> "dnf system-upgrade download --releasever=23 --distro-sync -x 
> rubygem-celluloid --allowerasing"


Does the "-x" work actually? Last time I tried, the package I excluded
was not downloaded (as expected), but after restart, the "-x" was not
used and my system-upgrade failed (this was unexpected). These flags
should be propagated and honored after restart, during the upgrade phase.


Vít

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: To distro-sync or not distro-sync?

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 01:33:45PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
> 
> Am 29.10.2015 um 13:24 schrieb Honza Šilhan:
> >>From: "Miroslav Suchý" 
> >>From: "Reindl Harald" 
> >>the software upgrade just have to mention the conflicting packages and
> >>stop until somebody enables a --force switch and in general DNF has to
> >>be much more verbose in case of dependency problems instead just saying
> >>"can't do anything because broken deps"
> >
> >dnf has `--allowerasing switch - it will resolve the conflicts by 
> >uninstallation
> >of conflicting packages. Installing the packages regardless the dependencies 
> >by
> >`--force` is really dangerous and will not be supported by DNF.
> 
> removing random packages is also really dangerous and *not* acceptable
> 
> frankly if there are problems and i need a hammer then i need a
> hammer in case i know what i am doing - i have solved yum
> distrupgrade troubles hundrets of times by "rpm -e --nodeps" for
> packages where i am 100% sure that they are not system critical and
> guess what - after that the deps where solved and even the correct
> dependencies installed without any cleanup needed after the upgrade

It asks for confirmation. The list of packages to remove is the last
thing before the prompt... Those prompts could be made more visible,
and/or we could make it easier to retrieve the list of removed packages
after the installation is done, but that's about it.

Zbyszek
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: To distro-sync or not distro-sync?

[Reindl Harald]

Am 29.10.2015 um 14:11 schrieb Sérgio Basto:

On Qui, 2015-10-29 at 13:44 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:


Am 29.10.2015 um 13:37 schrieb Sérgio Basto:

On Qui, 2015-10-29 at 17:09 +0800, Christopher Meng wrote:

You have a chance to get your rpmfusion softwares wiped after the sync.

[1]---https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1263677


yep, so not distro-sync


nonsense when i read the bugreport

* system-upgrade now uses dnf (standard "dnf update" approach)

THAT is the problem and i really wonder what somebody thinks by
implement it that way after *many years* of "yum --releasever=XX
distro-sync" works absolutely relieable

* change "dnf update" mode during system upgrade to
"dnf distro-sync --allowerasing"

THAT is the right direction but nonsense because --allowerasing is a
terrible idea, anyways "dnf --releasever=XX distro-sync" is not affected
by both wrong solutions as far as i see (expect DNF is intentionally or
unintenioally broken elsewhere there)


You need --allowerasing for updates which obsolete other packages, if
not you can't update


what??

that would be another regression compared to yum


distro-sync can downgrading packages which in upgrading is not the best
place . You can do it after upgrade the system .
dnf update --allowerasing  is what I want /need


the whole purpose of distro-sync is that it can downgrade - as exmaple 
you may have stuff from updates-testing installed and updates-testing 
not enabled due distro-sync and so the versions in the newer release can 
be lower


the only right thing to do in that case is downgrade them, also for 
packages where maintainers just forgot to rebuild for the next release 
which happened often enough in the past




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: To distro-sync or not distro-sync?

[Sérgio Basto]

On Qui, 2015-10-29 at 13:44 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
> 
> Am 29.10.2015 um 13:37 schrieb Sérgio Basto:
> > On Qui, 2015-10-29 at 17:09 +0800, Christopher Meng wrote:
> >> You have a chance to get your rpmfusion softwares wiped after the sync.
> >>
> >> [1]---https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1263677
> >
> > yep, so not distro-sync
> 
> nonsense when i read the bugreport
> 
> * system-upgrade now uses dnf (standard "dnf update" approach)
> 
> THAT is the problem and i really wonder what somebody thinks by 
> implement it that way after *many years* of "yum --releasever=XX 
> distro-sync" works absolutely relieable
> 
> * change "dnf update" mode during system upgrade to
>"dnf distro-sync --allowerasing"
> 
> THAT is the right direction but nonsense because --allowerasing is a 
> terrible idea, anyways "dnf --releasever=XX distro-sync" is not affected 
> by both wrong solutions as far as i see (expect DNF is intentionally or 
> unintenioally broken elsewhere there)

You need --allowerasing for updates which obsolete other packages, if
not you can't update.  
distro-sync can downgrading packages which in upgrading is not the best
place . You can do it after upgrade the system . 
dnf update --allowerasing  is what I want /need .

-- 
Sérgio M. B.

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: To distro-sync or not distro-sync?

[Reindl Harald]

Am 29.10.2015 um 14:18 schrieb Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek:

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 01:44:34PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:



Am 29.10.2015 um 13:37 schrieb Sérgio Basto:

On Qui, 2015-10-29 at 17:09 +0800, Christopher Meng wrote:

You have a chance to get your rpmfusion softwares wiped after the sync.

[1]---https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1263677


yep, so not distro-sync


nonsense when i read the bugreport

* system-upgrade now uses dnf (standard "dnf update" approach)

THAT is the problem and i really wonder what somebody thinks by
implement it that way after *many years* of "yum --releasever=XX
distro-sync" works absolutely relieable

* change "dnf update" mode during system upgrade to
   "dnf distro-sync --allowerasing"

THAT is the right direction but nonsense because --allowerasing is a
terrible idea, anyways "dnf --releasever=XX distro-sync" is not
affected by both wrong solutions as far as i see (expect DNF is
intentionally or unintenioally broken elsewhere there)


There are three options:
(1, no distro-sync) — upgrade only packages which can be upgraded
   without conflicts. Leaves a partially upgraded system in some cases.
(2, distro-sync) — upgrade packages which can be upgraded, remove
   conflicting ones. Lose some packages during upgrade.
(3, force) — upgrade all packages ignoring conflicts. Leaves the
   system with some programs broken.

You seem to dislike all the options, but I don't see anything else
possible. Do you have some better proposal?


just behave like "yum --releasever=XX distro-sync" all the years before 
and just REFUSE to upgrade if there are conflicts because anything else 
is undefined behavior


DNF just needs to give enough information how to solve the dependency 
problems




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: To distro-sync or not distro-sync?

[Reindl Harald]

Am 29.10.2015 um 13:37 schrieb Sérgio Basto:

On Qui, 2015-10-29 at 17:09 +0800, Christopher Meng wrote:

You have a chance to get your rpmfusion softwares wiped after the sync.

[1]---https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1263677


yep, so not distro-sync


nonsense when i read the bugreport

* system-upgrade now uses dnf (standard "dnf update" approach)

THAT is the problem and i really wonder what somebody thinks by 
implement it that way after *many years* of "yum --releasever=XX 
distro-sync" works absolutely relieable


* change "dnf update" mode during system upgrade to
  "dnf distro-sync --allowerasing"

THAT is the right direction but nonsense because --allowerasing is a 
terrible idea, anyways "dnf --releasever=XX distro-sync" is not affected 
by both wrong solutions as far as i see (expect DNF is intentionally or 
unintenioally broken elsewhere there)




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: To distro-sync or not distro-sync?

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 01:44:34PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
> 
> 
> Am 29.10.2015 um 13:37 schrieb Sérgio Basto:
> >On Qui, 2015-10-29 at 17:09 +0800, Christopher Meng wrote:
> >>You have a chance to get your rpmfusion softwares wiped after the sync.
> >>
> >>[1]---https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1263677
> >
> >yep, so not distro-sync
> 
> nonsense when i read the bugreport
> 
> * system-upgrade now uses dnf (standard "dnf update" approach)
> 
> THAT is the problem and i really wonder what somebody thinks by
> implement it that way after *many years* of "yum --releasever=XX
> distro-sync" works absolutely relieable
> 
> * change "dnf update" mode during system upgrade to
>   "dnf distro-sync --allowerasing"
> 
> THAT is the right direction but nonsense because --allowerasing is a
> terrible idea, anyways "dnf --releasever=XX distro-sync" is not
> affected by both wrong solutions as far as i see (expect DNF is
> intentionally or unintenioally broken elsewhere there)

There are three options:
(1, no distro-sync) — upgrade only packages which can be upgraded
  without conflicts. Leaves a partially upgraded system in some cases.
(2, distro-sync) — upgrade packages which can be upgraded, remove
  conflicting ones. Lose some packages during upgrade.
(3, force) — upgrade all packages ignoring conflicts. Leaves the
  system with some programs broken.

You seem to dislike all the options, but I don't see anything else
possible. Do you have some better proposal?

(Note that the user is always asked for confirmation before proceeding,
so she can always stop to remove/update packages by hand in all three
cases.)

Zbyszek
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: To distro-sync or not distro-sync?

[Przemek Klosowski]

On 10/29/2015 05:56 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:


the software upgrade just have to mention the conflicting packages and 
stop until somebody enables a --force switch and in general DNF has to 
be much more verbose in case of dependency problems instead just 
saying "can't do anything because broken deps"in the past you saw 
*exactly* which package requires which so-version and so find out 
where the problem starts, which packages you may consider to remove 
and then try again


currently we have some sort of blackbox with no output how to solve 
dependency problems



I believe "dnf update --best"  is more verbose and tells you where 
conflict is coming from. This is not very discoverable; I can't remember 
how I arrived at trying --best,  but it probably should be the default, 
as you say.




-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: To distro-sync or not distro-sync?

[Przemek Klosowski]

On 10/29/2015 08:33 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:


Am 29.10.2015 um 13:24 schrieb Honza Šilhan:


dnf has `--allowerasing switch - it will resolve the conflicts by 
uninstallation
of conflicting packages. Installing the packages regardless the 
dependencies by

`--force` is really dangerous and will not be supported by DNF.


removing random packages is also really dangerous and *not* acceptable
For what it's worth, in the YUM days few years back I had a botched 
update (not even upgrade!). I believe it was a 5.x Centos, and yum 
decided to delete a ton of packages. The system became unbootable, and I 
had to do a lot of manual yum installs including IIRC yum itself, to 
restore it. I didn't even file yum  bugs because that system has a rich 
history and a lot of odd software installed so I chalked it to 
'self-inflicted', but:


I learned to be very careful reading the lists of packages 
suggested for deletion.



-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: To distro-sync or not distro-sync?

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 02:20:50PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
> 
> 
> Am 29.10.2015 um 14:18 schrieb Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek:
> >On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 01:44:34PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>Am 29.10.2015 um 13:37 schrieb Sérgio Basto:
> >>>On Qui, 2015-10-29 at 17:09 +0800, Christopher Meng wrote:
> You have a chance to get your rpmfusion softwares wiped after the sync.
> 
> [1]---https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1263677
> >>>
> >>>yep, so not distro-sync
> >>
> >>nonsense when i read the bugreport
> >>
> >>* system-upgrade now uses dnf (standard "dnf update" approach)
> >>
> >>THAT is the problem and i really wonder what somebody thinks by
> >>implement it that way after *many years* of "yum --releasever=XX
> >>distro-sync" works absolutely relieable
> >>
> >>* change "dnf update" mode during system upgrade to
> >>   "dnf distro-sync --allowerasing"
> >>
> >>THAT is the right direction but nonsense because --allowerasing is a
> >>terrible idea, anyways "dnf --releasever=XX distro-sync" is not
> >>affected by both wrong solutions as far as i see (expect DNF is
> >>intentionally or unintenioally broken elsewhere there)
> >
> >There are three options:
> >(1, no distro-sync) — upgrade only packages which can be upgraded
> >   without conflicts. Leaves a partially upgraded system in some cases.
> >(2, distro-sync) — upgrade packages which can be upgraded, remove
> >   conflicting ones. Lose some packages during upgrade.
> >(3, force) — upgrade all packages ignoring conflicts. Leaves the
> >   system with some programs broken.
> >
> >You seem to dislike all the options, but I don't see anything else
> >possible. Do you have some better proposal?
> 
> just behave like "yum --releasever=XX distro-sync" all the years
> before and just REFUSE to upgrade if there are conflicts because
> anything else is undefined behavior
Well, that's what it does, more or less. Depending on --allowerasing
being there or not, it asks or refuses. You can always say "no".

> DNF just needs to give enough information how to solve the
> dependency problems
Yeah, it should. It's not too bad already.

Zbyszek
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: To distro-sync or not distro-sync?

[Reindl Harald]

Am 29.10.2015 um 16:30 schrieb Przemek Klosowski:

On 10/29/2015 08:33 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:


Am 29.10.2015 um 13:24 schrieb Honza Šilhan:


dnf has `--allowerasing switch - it will resolve the conflicts by
uninstallation
of conflicting packages. Installing the packages regardless the
dependencies by
`--force` is really dangerous and will not be supported by DNF.


removing random packages is also really dangerous and *not* acceptable

For what it's worth, in the YUM days few years back I had a botched
update (not even upgrade!). I believe it was a 5.x Centos, and yum
decided to delete a ton of packages. The system became unbootable, and I
had to do a lot of manual yum installs including IIRC yum itself, to
restore it. I didn't even file yum  bugs because that system has a rich
history and a lot of odd software installed so I chalked it to
'self-inflicted', but:

I learned to be very careful reading the lists of packages
suggested for deletion


well, luckily we have now /etc/dnf/protected.d/dnf.conf containing "dnf" 
to prevent the combination of bugs and mistakes doing that sort of 
damage - i remember well summer 2014 how hard i was defended to demand 
get that back since yum had it for years


the same for uninstall the running kernel



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: To distro-sync or not distro-sync?

[Petr Pisar]

On 2015-10-29, Reindl Harald  wrote:
> removing random packages is also really dangerous and *not* acceptable
>
It does not remove random packages. It removes packages that are not
needed because the package was not installed explicitly and it's not
a transitive dependency of such explicitly installed package.

So either it's a bug in dependency specification, or the user should
mark the package as explicitly wanted.

Frankly if someone do a mass upgrade, he should expect some changes.

A contraexemple: A package splits into more subpackages. Suddenly
packages needing a moved file and requiring a package name instead of
a file name will stop work.

Are we going to fight against splitting packages?

(Better distributions have system of notifications that allows to warn
a user before the upgrade that something important is going to change.)

-- Petr

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: To distro-sync or not distro-sync?

[Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski]

On Thursday, 29 October 2015 at 15:00, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Dne 29.10.2015 v 13:24 Honza Šilhan napsal(a):
> > You can exclude the conflicting packages to proceed the system-upgrade i.e.:
> > "dnf system-upgrade download --releasever=23 --distro-sync -x 
> > rubygem-celluloid --allowerasing"
> 
> 
> Does the "-x" work actually? Last time I tried, the package I excluded
> was not downloaded (as expected), but after restart, the "-x" was not
> used and my system-upgrade failed (this was unexpected). These flags
> should be propagated and honored after restart, during the upgrade phase.

It doesn't, at least not in F21:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1238204

Regards,
Dominik
-- 
Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann
RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org
"Faith manages."
-- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: To distro-sync or not distro-sync?

[Kevin Kofler]

Petr Pisar wrote:
> It does not remove random packages. It removes packages that are not
> needed because the package was not installed explicitly and it's not
> a transitive dependency of such explicitly installed package.

That's the autoremove misfeature, which is really a different issue than the 
--allowerasing to resolve dependency conflicts that is being discussed here.

IMHO, enabling autoremoval by default was a horrible idea.

Kevin Kofler

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: To distro-sync or not distro-sync?

[Miroslav Suchý]

Dne 26.10.2015 v 18:39 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a):
> --distro-sync is now (in git, I don't think this version was released yet)
> the default in dnf-plugin-system-upgrade.

OK. So I will file BZs for all issues I find with --distro-sync I hit.

>> # dnf system-upgrade download --releasever=23 --distro-sync --best 
>> --allowerasing
>> Error: package rubygem-celluloid-0.15.2-2.fc22.noarch requires 
>> rubygem(timers) < 1.2, but none of the providers can be
>> installed.
>> package fedup-dracut-0.9.2-1.fc22.x86_64 requires librpm.so.3()(64bit), but 
>> none of the providers can be installed
> 
> What version of dnf/libsolv are you using? The last update
> (libsolv-0.6.14-2.fc22,dnf-1.1.3-1.fc22) solved a bunch of
> upgrade problems.

Exactly dnf-1.1.3-1.fc22


-- 
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Senior Software Engineer, #brno, #devexp, #fedora-buildsys
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: To distro-sync or not distro-sync?

[Christopher Meng]

You have a chance to get your rpmfusion softwares wiped after the sync.

[1]---https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1263677

-- 

Yours sincerely,
Christopher Meng

http://awk.io
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: To distro-sync or not distro-sync?

[Reindl Harald]

Am 29.10.2015 um 10:09 schrieb Christopher Meng:

You have a chance to get your rpmfusion softwares wiped after the sync.

[1]---https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1263677


unacceptable

the software upgrade just have to mention the conflicting packages and 
stop until somebody enables a --force switch and in general DNF has to 
be much more verbose in case of dependency problems instead just saying 
"can't do anything because broken deps"


in the past you saw *exactly* which package requires which so-version 
and so find out where the problem starts, which packages you may 
consider to remove and then try again


currently we have some sort of blackbox with no output how to solve 
dependency problems




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: To distro-sync or not distro-sync?

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 06:24:43PM +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> I am trying to upgrade to F23 (I know still not finished but...)
> 
> In past I always done 'distro-sync'. Albeit with yum.
> 
> Now I tried:
>   dnf system-upgrade download --releasever=23 --distro-sync
>   dnf system-upgrade download --releasever=23 --distro-sync --best
>   dnf system-upgrade download --releasever=23 --distro-sync --best 
> --allowerasing
> 
> And all of them fail. See below for full log.
> 
> On the other hand:
>   dnf system-upgrade download --releasever=23
> succeed.
> 
> Actually most of the problem are caused by retired or obsoleted packages. E.g 
> fedup-dracut or rubygem-celluloid (this
> one reported as BZ 1275030).
FTR, fedup-dracut was obsoleted today morning
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1275085).

> My question is should we use --distro-sync at all? Are users supposed to 
> remove obsoleted packages manually?

--distro-sync is now (in git, I don't think this version was released yet)
the default in dnf-plugin-system-upgrade.

> # dnf system-upgrade download --releasever=23 --distro-sync --best 
> --allowerasing
> Error: package rubygem-celluloid-0.15.2-2.fc22.noarch requires 
> rubygem(timers) < 1.2, but none of the providers can be
> installed.
> package fedup-dracut-0.9.2-1.fc22.x86_64 requires librpm.so.3()(64bit), but 
> none of the providers can be installed

What version of dnf/libsolv are you using? The last update
(libsolv-0.6.14-2.fc22,dnf-1.1.3-1.fc22) solved a bunch of
upgrade problems.

Zbyszek
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct