Re: dnf still is unuseable

[Neal Gompa]

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 7:27 AM, Jonathan Wakely
 wrote:
> On 18/01/16 07:05 -0500, Honza Šilhan wrote:
>>
>> yes, autoremoval issue could be either caused by bad packaging [1] or when
>> you are
>> installing packages via yum or packagekit [2]. We are working on better
>> integration
>> between DNF and PK so this could be fixed soon. At the meantime use this
>> workaround [3].
>
>
> It's a *terrible* workaround though. "Make a note of everything that
> gets installed using PK and then as root run dnf to mark them as
> userinstalled". A better workaround is "Don't use PK to install
> things, use DNF". Why bother using PK at all if you then have to go
> and run DNF commands for the same packages? You might as well just use
> DNF.
>

Honestly, I wonder why we didn't just have PackageKit have a DNF
backend directly, instead. It seems like we created some very weird
problems by having two independent package managers that can't even
talk to each other. Maybe we should just tell people to use yumex-dnf,
since it just calls DNF APIs through dnfdaemon, and I believe those
transactions remain in sync.

Doing things like having PK shell out to call dnf mark just makes
things really odd.



-- 
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: dnf still is unuseable

[Reindl Harald]

Am 18.01.2016 um 13:39 schrieb Heiko Adams:

Am Montag, den 18.01.2016, 12:27 + schrieb Jonathan Wakely:

On 18/01/16 07:05 -0500, Honza Šilhan wrote:

yes, autoremoval issue could be either caused by bad packaging [1]
or when you are
installing packages via yum or packagekit [2]. We are working on
better integration
between DNF and PK so this could be fixed soon. At the meantime use
this workaround [3].


It's a *terrible* workaround though. "Make a note of everything that
gets installed using PK and then as root run dnf to mark them as
userinstalled". A better workaround is "Don't use PK to install
things, use DNF". Why bother using PK at all if you then have to go
and run DNF commands for the same packages? You might as well just
use
DNF.

Because sometimes PK says there are updates available while "dnf update
--refresh" says no updates are available?
Happend to me several times in the past.


that's the drawback of dnf-makecache.timer because it may cache 
something shortly before updates are pushed and without that caching it 
would be refresehd when it's attempted to be used and so contain recent data


mask that timer and you are done
that never should have been introduced as default

the logflood "Cannot add dependency job for unit dnf-makecache.timer, 
ignoring: Unit dnf-makecache.timer is masked" should go away soon 
(referenced in a different thread and a systemd bugreport of some otehr 
person)




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: dnf still is unuseable

[Reindl Harald]

Am 18.01.2016 um 13:16 schrieb Jonathan Wakely:

And the fact that /var/log/dnf.rpm.log doesn't show updates done by PK
is just annoying. Isn't there a single log file I can look at to see
what was updated, and when?


currently no because dnf, PK and yum-deprecated using different logging 
instead just point to a generic "/var/log/packages.log" or how ever called


that's also annoying when you need to use yum-deprecated to get your 
tasks done, at least that and 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1273925 could have been 
avoided (logwatch would have then contained the informations scratched 
with the premature logrotate)






signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: dnf still is unuseable

[Heiko Adams]

Am Montag, den 18.01.2016, 07:05 -0500 schrieb Honza Šilhan:
> > From: "James Hogarth" 
> > The autoremove reference might be the well known issue with
> > packagekit, not
> > dnf, that is not marking packages as installed rather than
> > dependencies.
> > 
> > The default dnf configuration is autoremove so that doesn't then
> > know that
> > have been specifically installed rather than just unneeded
> > dependencies of
> > something else and then helpfully tries to remove them...
> > 
> > Note this is a result of a packagekit bug not dnf.
> > 
> > On a side note it'd be nice if pk just called out to dnf so that
> > they have a
> > common backend which would prevent behaviour like this and would
> > result in
> > sharing a history database as well.
> 
> yes, autoremoval issue could be either caused by bad packaging [1] or
> when you are
> installing packages via yum or packagekit [2]. We are working on
> better integration
> between DNF and PK so this could be fixed soon. At the meantime use
> this workaround [3].
> 
> [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1222812#c23
> [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259865
> [3] http://dnf.baseurl.org/2015/10/26/mark-command-usecase/

That workaround is only useable if you know what packages you've
installed via PK but because this issue exists nearly since a year that
could be hard to remember what pacakges were installed via PK.
-- 
Regards,

Heiko Adams



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: dnf still is unuseable

[Sérgio Basto]

On Seg, 2016-01-18 at 07:37 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 7:27 AM, Jonathan Wakely
>  wrote:
> > On 18/01/16 07:05 -0500, Honza Šilhan wrote:
> > > 
> > > yes, autoremoval issue could be either caused by bad packaging
> > > [1] or when
> > > you are
> > > installing packages via yum or packagekit [2]. We are working on
> > > better
> > > integration
> > > between DNF and PK so this could be fixed soon. At the meantime
> > > use this
> > > workaround [3].
> > 
> > 
> > It's a *terrible* workaround though. "Make a note of everything
> > that
> > gets installed using PK and then as root run dnf to mark them as
> > userinstalled". A better workaround is "Don't use PK to install
> > things, use DNF". Why bother using PK at all if you then have to go
> > and run DNF commands for the same packages? You might as well just
> > use
> > DNF.
> > 
> 
> Honestly, I wonder why we didn't just have PackageKit have a DNF
> backend directly, instead.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1256108

except that don't found any bug . 

>  It seems like we created some very weird
> problems by having two independent package managers that can't even
> talk to each other. Maybe we should just tell people to use yumex-
> dnf,
> since it just calls DNF APIs through dnfdaemon, and I believe those
> transactions remain in sync.
> 
> Doing things like having PK shell out to call dnf mark just makes
> things really odd.



-- 
Sérgio M. B.

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: dnf still is unuseable

[Neal Gompa]

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 2:52 AM, James Hogarth  wrote:
> On 18 Jan 2016 06:33, "Igor Gnatenko"  wrote:
>>
>> I hope Heiko Adams and Reindl Harald should co-operate and write usable
>> and bug free package manager.
>>
>> Related to topic: Please prepare full list of bugs which you think
>> critical for you and write to each how to reproduce it.
>>
>> P.S. autoremove works here fine (fresh 23).
>>
>
> The autoremove reference might be the well known issue with packagekit, not
> dnf, that is not marking packages as installed rather than dependencies.
>
> The default dnf configuration is autoremove so that doesn't then know that
> have been specifically installed rather than just unneeded dependencies of
> something else and then helpfully tries to remove them...
>
> Note this is a result of a packagekit bug not dnf.
>
> On a side note it'd be nice if pk just called out to dnf so that they have a
> common backend which would prevent behaviour like this and would result in
> sharing a history database as well.
>
>

Or at least wrote information to a common database so that all the
information is synchronized[0].

Note that with hawkey now merged into libhif, DNF will be using
libhif, which makes it even more silly that PackageKit-Hif and DNF
still don't keep each other in sync.

[0]: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1167239



-- 
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: dnf still is unuseable

[Reindl Harald]

Am 18.01.2016 um 02:32 schrieb Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek:

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 12:55:54AM +0100, Heiko Adams wrote:

But it seems to be broken since Feb 2015, which is IMHO unacceptable
since a default package manager and all of its features have to work
absolutely reliable.


When was the last time you saw a program bigger then /bin/true that was
"absolutely reliable"? Your implicit premise that yum was bug free
is completely bogus, just look for yum bugs in bugzilla [1].

It seems that with dnf we are currently in the phase of fine-tuning
user interaction. The resolver works nicely


the resolver works NOT nicely - hence that whole thread and bugreport



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: dnf still is unuseable

[Ian Malone]

On 18 January 2016 at 01:32, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
 wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 12:55:54AM +0100, Heiko Adams wrote:
>> But it seems to be broken since Feb 2015, which is IMHO unacceptable
>> since a default package manager and all of its features have to work
>> absolutely reliable.
>
> When was the last time you saw a program bigger then /bin/true that was
> "absolutely reliable"? Your implicit premise that yum was bug free
> is completely bogus, just look for yum bugs in bugzilla [1].
>

xz
tar
cp
...

Being reliable might be difficult, but it is achievable, and the more
core a tool is the more important it is that it approaches
reliability.

> It seems that with dnf we are currently in the phase of fine-tuning
> user interaction. The resolver works nicely, there is a growing system
> of plugins based on a stable API, the codebase was ported to the
> current version of python, speed is decent most of the time... There
> *are* things to fix, but calling for the return of yum is a complete
> waste of the time of everbody on this list.
>

So there's no need to fight hyperbole with hyperbole.


-- 
imalone
http://ibmalone.blogspot.co.uk
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: dnf still is unuseable

[Reindl Harald]

Am 18.01.2016 um 04:16 schrieb Kevin Fenzi:

On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 00:53:00 +0100
Reindl Harald  wrote:

...snip...



why?

because you don't type "dnf install kernel" instead "dnf upgrade" and
"kernel-headers" *is never installed* in multiple versions


Sure, you want upgrade/update to update installonly pkgs too.

In any case 'dnf install' will work for locally downloaded kernel rpms,
which was your case right? so it should work as a workaround at least
for now, no?


the case of *that thread* was a ordinary "dnf upgrade" with no local 
packages involved


i think "for localupdate i switched back to yum-deprecated long ago, but 
for ordinary kernel updates pretend unsolved deps is simply 
unacceptable" was pretty clear - see the "but" - i gave up with dnf long ago





signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: dnf still is unuseable

[Honza Šilhan]

> From: "James Hogarth" 
> On 18 Jan 2016 06:33, "Igor Gnatenko" < i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com > wrote:
> > 
> > I hope Heiko Adams and Reindl Harald should co-operate and write usable and
> > bug free package manager.
> > 
> > Related to topic: Please prepare full list of bugs which you think critical
> > for you and write to each how to reproduce it.
> > 
> > P.S. autoremove works here fine (fresh 23).
> > 
> The autoremove reference might be the well known issue with packagekit, not
> dnf, that is not marking packages as installed rather than dependencies.
> 
> The default dnf configuration is autoremove so that doesn't then know that
> have been specifically installed rather than just unneeded dependencies of
> something else and then helpfully tries to remove them...
> 
> Note this is a result of a packagekit bug not dnf.
> 
> On a side note it'd be nice if pk just called out to dnf so that they have a
> common backend which would prevent behaviour like this and would result in
> sharing a history database as well.

yes, autoremoval issue could be either caused by bad packaging [1] or when you 
are
installing packages via yum or packagekit [2]. We are working on better 
integration
between DNF and PK so this could be fixed soon. At the meantime use this 
workaround [3].

> From: "Reindl Harald" 
> Am 18.01.2016 um 00:48 schrieb Kevin Fenzi:
> > Reindl Harald  wrote:
> >
> > ...snip...
> >
> >> "dnf update *.rpm" is the way which has to work
> >
> > Why? It works fine as a install. It's installing a new kernel, since
> > kernels can have many versions installed at a time it makes more sense
> > for it to be a install than an upgrade (which would imply that the old
> > version would be removed).
> 
> why?
> 
> because you don't type "dnf install kernel" instead "dnf upgrade" and
> "kernel-headers" *is never installed* in multiple versions
> 
>  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1271676
> >>>
> >>> This seems like a matter of taste. If you want to keep yearly logs,
> >>> set your logrotate that way.
> >>
> >> AFAIR the config files are not config noreplace"
> >
> > The spec seems to have:
> > %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/logrotate.d/%{name}
> 
> well, give it a try, but for many years you had yum-logs for the
> complete year rotated once on the begin of a new year - package updates
> are not that often and don#t flood logs like some systemd things

Then I am closing this bug, thanks for cooperation.

Honza

[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1222812#c23
[2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259865
[3] http://dnf.baseurl.org/2015/10/26/mark-command-usecase/
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: dnf still is unuseable

[Reindl Harald]

Am 18.01.2016 um 13:16 schrieb Jonathan Wakely:

And the fact that /var/log/dnf.rpm.log doesn't show updates done by PK
is just annoying. Isn't there a single log file I can look at to see
what was updated, and when?


currently no because dnf, PK and yum-deprecated using different logging 
instead just point to a generic "/var/log/packages.log" or how ever called


that's also annoying when you need to use yum-deprecated to get your 
tasks done, at least that and 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1273925 could have been 
avoided (logwatch would have then contained the informations scratched 
with the premature logrotate)






signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: dnf still is unuseable

[Neal Gompa]

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 7:27 AM, Jonathan Wakely
 wrote:
> On 18/01/16 07:05 -0500, Honza Šilhan wrote:
>>
>> yes, autoremoval issue could be either caused by bad packaging [1] or when
>> you are
>> installing packages via yum or packagekit [2]. We are working on better
>> integration
>> between DNF and PK so this could be fixed soon. At the meantime use this
>> workaround [3].
>
>
> It's a *terrible* workaround though. "Make a note of everything that
> gets installed using PK and then as root run dnf to mark them as
> userinstalled". A better workaround is "Don't use PK to install
> things, use DNF". Why bother using PK at all if you then have to go
> and run DNF commands for the same packages? You might as well just use
> DNF.
>

Honestly, I wonder why we didn't just have PackageKit have a DNF
backend directly, instead. It seems like we created some very weird
problems by having two independent package managers that can't even
talk to each other. Maybe we should just tell people to use yumex-dnf,
since it just calls DNF APIs through dnfdaemon, and I believe those
transactions remain in sync.

Doing things like having PK shell out to call dnf mark just makes
things really odd.



-- 
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: dnf still is unuseable

[Heiko Adams]

Am Montag, den 18.01.2016, 12:27 + schrieb Jonathan Wakely:
> On 18/01/16 07:05 -0500, Honza Šilhan wrote:
> > yes, autoremoval issue could be either caused by bad packaging [1]
> > or when you are
> > installing packages via yum or packagekit [2]. We are working on
> > better integration
> > between DNF and PK so this could be fixed soon. At the meantime use
> > this workaround [3].
> 
> It's a *terrible* workaround though. "Make a note of everything that
> gets installed using PK and then as root run dnf to mark them as
> userinstalled". A better workaround is "Don't use PK to install
> things, use DNF". Why bother using PK at all if you then have to go
> and run DNF commands for the same packages? You might as well just
> use
> DNF.
Because sometimes PK says there are updates available while "dnf update
--refresh" says no updates are available? 
Happend to me several times in the past.
-- 
Regards,

Heiko Adams



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: dnf still is unuseable

[Heiko Adams]

Am Montag, den 18.01.2016, 07:05 -0500 schrieb Honza Šilhan:
> > From: "James Hogarth" 
> > The autoremove reference might be the well known issue with
> > packagekit, not
> > dnf, that is not marking packages as installed rather than
> > dependencies.
> > 
> > The default dnf configuration is autoremove so that doesn't then
> > know that
> > have been specifically installed rather than just unneeded
> > dependencies of
> > something else and then helpfully tries to remove them...
> > 
> > Note this is a result of a packagekit bug not dnf.
> > 
> > On a side note it'd be nice if pk just called out to dnf so that
> > they have a
> > common backend which would prevent behaviour like this and would
> > result in
> > sharing a history database as well.
> 
> yes, autoremoval issue could be either caused by bad packaging [1] or
> when you are
> installing packages via yum or packagekit [2]. We are working on
> better integration
> between DNF and PK so this could be fixed soon. At the meantime use
> this workaround [3].
> 
> [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1222812#c23
> [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259865
> [3] http://dnf.baseurl.org/2015/10/26/mark-command-usecase/

That workaround is only useable if you know what packages you've
installed via PK but because this issue exists nearly since a year that
could be hard to remember what pacakges were installed via PK.
-- 
Regards,

Heiko Adams



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: dnf still is unuseable

[Jonathan Wakely]

On 18/01/16 03:28 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 2:52 AM, James Hogarth  wrote:

On a side note it'd be nice if pk just called out to dnf so that they have a
common backend which would prevent behaviour like this and would result in
sharing a history database as well.




Or at least wrote information to a common database so that all the
information is synchronized[0].

Note that with hawkey now merged into libhif, DNF will be using
libhif, which makes it even more silly that PackageKit-Hif and DNF
still don't keep each other in sync.

[0]: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1167239


Yes, the lack of PK and DNF integration is a bigger problem than some
of DNF's peculiarities, and leads to very poor user experiences. For
example when PK tells you there are updates and you apply them via DNF
on the command-line, then tell PK to "Install Updates" it tells you
there is an internal system error and to contact your system
administrator. "Already updated" should not be an "internal system
error"!

And the fact that /var/log/dnf.rpm.log doesn't show updates done by PK
is just annoying. Isn't there a single log file I can look at to see
what was updated, and when?

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: dnf still is unuseable

[Jonathan Wakely]

On 18/01/16 07:05 -0500, Honza Šilhan wrote:

yes, autoremoval issue could be either caused by bad packaging [1] or when you 
are
installing packages via yum or packagekit [2]. We are working on better 
integration
between DNF and PK so this could be fixed soon. At the meantime use this 
workaround [3].


It's a *terrible* workaround though. "Make a note of everything that
gets installed using PK and then as root run dnf to mark them as
userinstalled". A better workaround is "Don't use PK to install
things, use DNF". Why bother using PK at all if you then have to go
and run DNF commands for the same packages? You might as well just use
DNF.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: dnf still is unuseable

[Reindl Harald]

Am 18.01.2016 um 13:39 schrieb Heiko Adams:

Am Montag, den 18.01.2016, 12:27 + schrieb Jonathan Wakely:

On 18/01/16 07:05 -0500, Honza Šilhan wrote:

yes, autoremoval issue could be either caused by bad packaging [1]
or when you are
installing packages via yum or packagekit [2]. We are working on
better integration
between DNF and PK so this could be fixed soon. At the meantime use
this workaround [3].


It's a *terrible* workaround though. "Make a note of everything that
gets installed using PK and then as root run dnf to mark them as
userinstalled". A better workaround is "Don't use PK to install
things, use DNF". Why bother using PK at all if you then have to go
and run DNF commands for the same packages? You might as well just
use
DNF.

Because sometimes PK says there are updates available while "dnf update
--refresh" says no updates are available?
Happend to me several times in the past.


that's the drawback of dnf-makecache.timer because it may cache 
something shortly before updates are pushed and without that caching it 
would be refresehd when it's attempted to be used and so contain recent data


mask that timer and you are done
that never should have been introduced as default

the logflood "Cannot add dependency job for unit dnf-makecache.timer, 
ignoring: Unit dnf-makecache.timer is masked" should go away soon 
(referenced in a different thread and a systemd bugreport of some otehr 
person)




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: dnf still is unuseable

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 10:22:11 +0100
Reindl Harald  wrote:

> the case of *that thread* was a ordinary "dnf upgrade" with no local 
> packages involved

ok. I think we are talking about different things then. I was
addressing the issue where you download kernel rpms and dnf won't let
you 'update' them, you have to 'install'.
> 
> i think "for localupdate i switched back to yum-deprecated long ago,
> but for ordinary kernel updates pretend unsolved deps is simply 
> unacceptable" was pretty clear - see the "but" - i gave up with dnf
> long ago

Well, thats your choice, but note that yum will go away at some point.

kevin




pgpJYaChh1E4A.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: dnf still is unuseable

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 18:23:44 -0500
Johnny Robeson  wrote:

> agreed. This is a major reason I choose not to participate on Fedora
> lists. I can't trust that even the limited code of conduct that exists
> will even be enforced.

Yet, you read and are participating here? 

In any case feel free to mail the list owners
( devel-ow...@lists.fedoraproject.org ) if you feel the code of conduct
has been violated.

kevin


pgpaPyR4bfRTC.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: dnf still is unuseable

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 08:46:06AM +, Ian Malone wrote:
> On 18 January 2016 at 01:32, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
>  wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 12:55:54AM +0100, Heiko Adams wrote:
> >> But it seems to be broken since Feb 2015, which is IMHO unacceptable
> >> since a default package manager and all of its features have to work
> >> absolutely reliable.
> >
> > When was the last time you saw a program bigger then /bin/true that was
> > "absolutely reliable"? Your implicit premise that yum was bug free
> > is completely bogus, just look for yum bugs in bugzilla [1].
> >

> xz
> tar
> cp
> ...

I'd argue that those three programs aren't that far from /bin/true in
terms of complexity. And if you look in the bugzilla, all three of
those *do* have occasional bugs. And they are missing features: xz
still does not support parallel compression, and people have been
asking for it for years.  tar does not support ACLS, etc.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?classification=Fedora=xz=Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?classification=Fedora=tar=Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?classification=Fedora=coreutils=Fedora_desc=cp_desc_type=allwordssubstr

> Being reliable might be difficult, but it is achievable, and the more
> core a tool is the more important it is that it approaches
> reliability.

You can't really compare programs which have a single purpose and a
simple user interface and for which there is one obvious way to do
things with a sprawling beast of a program that has plugins, hundreds
of options, deals with the network, needs various heuristics for
speed, depends on other libraries, ... and is just complex.

> > It seems that with dnf we are currently in the phase of fine-tuning
> > user interaction. The resolver works nicely, there is a growing system
> > of plugins based on a stable API, the codebase was ported to the
> > current version of python, speed is decent most of the time... There
> > *are* things to fix, but calling for the return of yum is a complete
> > waste of the time of everbody on this list.
> >
> 
> So there's no need to fight hyperbole with hyperbole.

Do you really think that there's any chance of us returning to yum?
Or a reason to advocate that? There doesn't seem to be, so it *is*
a complete waste of time and this is not hyperbole.

Zbyszek
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: dnf still is unuseable

[James Hogarth]

On 18 Jan 2016 06:33, "Igor Gnatenko"  wrote:
>
> I hope Heiko Adams and Reindl Harald should co-operate and write usable
and bug free package manager.
>
> Related to topic: Please prepare full list of bugs which you think
critical for you and write to each how to reproduce it.
>
> P.S. autoremove works here fine (fresh 23).
>

The autoremove reference might be the well known issue with packagekit, not
dnf, that is not marking packages as installed rather than dependencies.

The default dnf configuration is autoremove so that doesn't then know that
have been specifically installed rather than just unneeded dependencies of
something else and then helpfully tries to remove them...

Note this is a result of a packagekit bug not dnf.

On a side note it'd be nice if pk just called out to dnf so that they have
a common backend which would prevent behaviour like this and would result
in sharing a history database as well.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: dnf still is unuseable

[Igor Gnatenko]

I hope Heiko Adams and Reindl Harald should co-operate and write usable and
bug free package manager.

Related to topic: Please prepare full list of bugs which you think critical
for you and write to each how to reproduce it.

P.S. autoremove works here fine (fresh 23).

On Sun, Jan 17, 2016, 11:48 PM Heiko Adams  wrote:

> Am Sonntag, den 17.01.2016, 23:27 +0100 schrieb Reindl Harald:
> > may i suggest to forget that dnf ever existed and switch back to yum?
> >
> > ongoing problems in the core-task solve dependencies is not
> > production
> > ready AND REMOVE THE DEPRECATED WARNINGS for "package-cleanup" and
> > "yum-deprecated" until DNF is useable and provides the same
> > capabilities
> > as yum/yum-utils
> >
> And please don't forget that the autoremove command is unusable at
> least since somewhere between Fedora 23 beta and final. That's
> absolutely unacceptable!
>
> So please fix your shit or remove the parts you can't fix! And until
> then de-deprecate yum until dnf is feature-complete, in a usable stage
> and you can guarantee dnf will stay in that stage for a long time.
>
> For me a new package manager has to be absolutely reliable and every
> feature has to work as expected before the new one can replace the
> current one!
> --
> Regards,
>
> Heiko Adams
>
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

-- 

-Igor Gnatenko
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

dnf still is unuseable

[Reindl Harald]

for localupdate i switched back to yum-deprecated long ago, but for 
ordinary kernel updates pretend unsolved deps is simply unacceptable


*no* i am not the only one - see karma comments for 4.3.3-300.fc23

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1263888#c14
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1271676

may i suggest to forget that dnf ever existed and switch back to yum?

ongoing problems in the core-task solve dependencies is not production 
ready AND REMOVE THE DEPRECATED WARNINGS for "package-cleanup" and 
"yum-deprecated" until DNF is useable and provides the same capabilities 
as yum/yum-utils




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: dnf still is unuseable

[Pierre-Yves Chibon]

On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 11:48:23PM +0100, Heiko Adams wrote:
> Am Sonntag, den 17.01.2016, 23:27 +0100 schrieb Reindl Harald:
> > may i suggest to forget that dnf ever existed and switch back to yum?
> > 
> > ongoing problems in the core-task solve dependencies is not
> > production 
> > ready AND REMOVE THE DEPRECATED WARNINGS for "package-cleanup" and 
> > "yum-deprecated" until DNF is useable and provides the same
> > capabilities 
> > as yum/yum-utils
> > 
> And please don't forget that the autoremove command is unusable at
> least since somewhere between Fedora 23 beta and final. That's
> absolutely unacceptable!
> 
> So please fix your shit or remove the parts you can't fix! And until
> then de-deprecate yum until dnf is feature-complete, in a usable stage
> and you can guarantee dnf will stay in that stage for a long time.

I would like to point out that this way of communicating is not welcome on this
list. If you have something to say, please say it but be respectful in your tone
and wording with everyone and everyone's work. We are all on the same boat and
shooting each other on the legs isn't going to help.
You may want to refresh your memory on our code of conduct:
https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct


Pierre
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: dnf still is unuseable

[Reindl Harald]

Am 17.01.2016 um 23:54 schrieb Kevin Fenzi:

On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 23:27:02 +0100
Reindl Harald  wrote:


for localupdate i switched back to yum-deprecated long ago, but for
ordinary kernel updates pretend unsolved deps is simply unacceptable

*no* i am not the only one - see karma comments for 4.3.3-300.fc23


But your comment doesn't explain what you are even doing.
What was the command and all output?


just "dnf upgrade" and DNF don't give any useful output, even not with 
"dnf -v upgrade" in the last case with *no local* packages



For localling installing new kernel versions, I use 'dnf install' and
it works just fine here.


"dnf update *.rpm" is the way which has to work


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1263888#c14
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1271676


This seems like a matter of taste. If you want to keep yearly logs, set
your logrotate that way.


AFAIR the config files are not config noreplace"


may i suggest to forget that dnf ever existed and switch back to yum?


You can suggest it, but it's not going to happen, so I'd advise
relaxing some and working with dnf developers.


what more than report bugs months ago which can be reprodcued with 
nearly every "dnf update *.rpm" when there are sub-packages with 
inter-dependencies


better adivse the dnf evelopers to work together with reporters and just 
try "dnf update *.rpm" which worked in case of "yum update *.rpm" forever



I'd encourage you to re-read our code of conduct
( https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct ) and try and be more
respectful in bugs and here. We are all trying to improve things, lets
work together


in case of such obvious bugs this *is* resepectful



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: dnf still is unuseable

[Heiko Adams]

Am Sonntag, den 17.01.2016, 23:27 +0100 schrieb Reindl Harald:
> may i suggest to forget that dnf ever existed and switch back to yum?
> 
> ongoing problems in the core-task solve dependencies is not
> production 
> ready AND REMOVE THE DEPRECATED WARNINGS for "package-cleanup" and 
> "yum-deprecated" until DNF is useable and provides the same
> capabilities 
> as yum/yum-utils
> 
And please don't forget that the autoremove command is unusable at
least since somewhere between Fedora 23 beta and final. That's
absolutely unacceptable!

So please fix your shit or remove the parts you can't fix! And until
then de-deprecate yum until dnf is feature-complete, in a usable stage
and you can guarantee dnf will stay in that stage for a long time.

For me a new package manager has to be absolutely reliable and every
feature has to work as expected before the new one can replace the
current one!
-- 
Regards,

Heiko Adams



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: dnf still is unuseable

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 23:27:02 +0100
Reindl Harald  wrote:

> for localupdate i switched back to yum-deprecated long ago, but for 
> ordinary kernel updates pretend unsolved deps is simply unacceptable
> 
> *no* i am not the only one - see karma comments for 4.3.3-300.fc23

But your comment doesn't explain what you are even doing. 
What was the command and all output? 

For localling installing new kernel versions, I use 'dnf install' and
it works just fine here. 

> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1263888#c14
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1271676

This seems like a matter of taste. If you want to keep yearly logs, set
your logrotate that way. 

> may i suggest to forget that dnf ever existed and switch back to yum?

You can suggest it, but it's not going to happen, so I'd advise
relaxing some and working with dnf developers. 

I'd encourage you to re-read our code of conduct 
( https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct ) and try and be more
respectful in bugs and here. We are all trying to improve things, lets
work together. 

kevin


pgpAs05Xxz2oP.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: dnf still is unuseable

[Neal Gompa]

On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 6:01 PM, Reindl Harald  wrote:
>
>
> Am 17.01.2016 um 23:54 schrieb Kevin Fenzi:
>>
>> I'd encourage you to re-read our code of conduct
>> ( https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct ) and try and be more
>> respectful in bugs and here. We are all trying to improve things, lets
>> work together
>
>
> in case of such obvious bugs this *is* resepectful
>

No, it is not. Your tone and method of communication is highly
antagonistic in nature on both mailing lists and in bugs you've filed
in the Red Hat Bugzilla, and it's very hard to be willing to even
consider issues you experience when you continue to maintain such a
tone while trying to seek assistance or trying to get something fixed.

Fedora is a large community and all of us love using and developing
the distribution. Passions may get a bit hot, but we should always be
respectful and constructive. We also don't live in isolation, and work
with other communities to develop excellent solutions that everyone
can use, including the many projects and products that are downstream
from Fedora.

And if you really want something fixed that badly, talk to the DNF
development team about contributing to fix particular issues, or even
work with them one-on-one to help them fix it properly. Suggesting to
throw out DNF and re-instate Yum is not helpful and makes it really
easy to ignore you.


-- 
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: dnf still is unuseable

[Reindl Harald]

Am 18.01.2016 um 00:48 schrieb Kevin Fenzi:

On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 00:01:13 +0100
Reindl Harald  wrote:

...snip...


"dnf update *.rpm" is the way which has to work


Why? It works fine as a install. It's installing a new kernel, since
kernels can have many versions installed at a time it makes more sense
for it to be a install than an upgrade (which would imply that the old
version would be removed).


why?

because you don't type "dnf install kernel" instead "dnf upgrade" and 
"kernel-headers" *is never installed* in multiple versions



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1263888#c14
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1271676


This seems like a matter of taste. If you want to keep yearly logs,
set your logrotate that way.


AFAIR the config files are not config noreplace"


The spec seems to have:
%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/logrotate.d/%{name}


well, give it a try, but for many years you had yum-logs for the 
complete year rotated once on the begin of a new year - package updates 
are not that often and don#t flood logs like some systemd things




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: dnf still is unuseable

[Johnny Robeson]

On Mon, 2016-01-18 at 00:00 +0100, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 11:48:23PM +0100, Heiko Adams wrote:
> > Am Sonntag, den 17.01.2016, 23:27 +0100 schrieb Reindl Harald:
> > > may i suggest to forget that dnf ever existed and switch back to
> > > yum?
> > > 
> > > ongoing problems in the core-task solve dependencies is not
> > > production 
> > > ready AND REMOVE THE DEPRECATED WARNINGS for "package-cleanup"
> > > and 
> > > "yum-deprecated" until DNF is useable and provides the same
> > > capabilities 
> > > as yum/yum-utils
> > > 
> > And please don't forget that the autoremove command is unusable at
> > least since somewhere between Fedora 23 beta and final. That's
> > absolutely unacceptable!
> > 
> > So please fix your shit or remove the parts you can't fix! And
> > until
> > then de-deprecate yum until dnf is feature-complete, in a usable
> > stage
> > and you can guarantee dnf will stay in that stage for a long time.
> 
> I would like to point out that this way of communicating is not
> welcome on this
> list. If you have something to say, please say it but be respectful
> in your tone
> and wording with everyone and everyone's work. We are all on the same
> boat and
> shooting each other on the legs isn't going to help.
> You may want to refresh your memory on our code of conduct:
> https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct
> 
> 
> Pierre
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.
> org

agreed. This is a major reason I choose not to participate on Fedora
lists. I can't trust that even the limited code of conduct that exists
will even be enforced.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: dnf still is unuseable

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 00:01:13 +0100
Reindl Harald  wrote:

...snip...
 
> "dnf update *.rpm" is the way which has to work

Why? It works fine as a install. It's installing a new kernel, since
kernels can have many versions installed at a time it makes more sense
for it to be a install than an upgrade (which would imply that the old
version would be removed). 

> 
> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1263888#c14
> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1271676  
> >
> > This seems like a matter of taste. If you want to keep yearly logs,
> > set your logrotate that way.  
> 
> AFAIR the config files are not config noreplace"

The spec seems to have:
%config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/logrotate.d/%{name}

kevin



pgpMtULmLAikd.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: dnf still is unuseable

[Heiko Adams]

Am Montag, den 18.01.2016, 00:00 +0100 schrieb Pierre-Yves Chibon:
> On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 11:48:23PM +0100, Heiko Adams wrote:
> > Am Sonntag, den 17.01.2016, 23:27 +0100 schrieb Reindl Harald:
> > > may i suggest to forget that dnf ever existed and switch back to
> > > yum?
> > > 
> > > ongoing problems in the core-task solve dependencies is not
> > > production 
> > > ready AND REMOVE THE DEPRECATED WARNINGS for "package-cleanup"
> > > and 
> > > "yum-deprecated" until DNF is useable and provides the same
> > > capabilities 
> > > as yum/yum-utils
> > > 
> > And please don't forget that the autoremove command is unusable at
> > least since somewhere between Fedora 23 beta and final. That's
> > absolutely unacceptable!
> > 
> > So please fix your shit or remove the parts you can't fix! And
> > until
> > then de-deprecate yum until dnf is feature-complete, in a usable
> > stage
> > and you can guarantee dnf will stay in that stage for a long time.
> 
> I would like to point out that this way of communicating is not
> welcome on this
> list. If you have something to say, please say it but be respectful
> in your tone
> and wording with everyone and everyone's work. We are all on the same
> boat and
> shooting each other on the legs isn't going to help.
> You may want to refresh your memory on our code of conduct:
> https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct
> 
I apologize for that mail and I'll try to say it more respectful this
time:

The first time i noticed the autoerase feature of dnf seems to be
broken was somewhere between Fedora 23 beta and final. But it seems to
be broken since Feb 2015 [1], which is IMHO unacceptable since a
default package manager and all of its features have to work absolutely
reliable. And in my case autoerase want's to remove  half of my GNOME
desktop which seems to be reliable a very bad joke.

But IMHO this reliability seems to be not the case ATM so I'd prefer to
rollback the switch from yum to dnf at least until the broken features
are fixed and dnf works absolutely reliable (again).
And the next time it would be nice if switching the package manager
would only affect fresh installations.

[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1190141
-- 
Regards,

Heiko Adams



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: dnf still is unuseable

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 12:55:54AM +0100, Heiko Adams wrote:
> But it seems to be broken since Feb 2015, which is IMHO unacceptable
> since a default package manager and all of its features have to work
> absolutely reliable.

When was the last time you saw a program bigger then /bin/true that was
"absolutely reliable"? Your implicit premise that yum was bug free
is completely bogus, just look for yum bugs in bugzilla [1].

It seems that with dnf we are currently in the phase of fine-tuning
user interaction. The resolver works nicely, there is a growing system
of plugins based on a stable API, the codebase was ported to the
current version of python, speed is decent most of the time... There
*are* things to fix, but calling for the return of yum is a complete
waste of the time of everbody on this list.

Zbyszek

[1] 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?classification=Fedora=yum=Fedora_format=advanced
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: dnf still is unuseable

[Reindl Harald]

Am 18.01.2016 um 00:08 schrieb Neal Gompa:

On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 6:01 PM, Reindl Harald  wrote:



Am 17.01.2016 um 23:54 schrieb Kevin Fenzi:


I'd encourage you to re-read our code of conduct
( https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct ) and try and be more
respectful in bugs and here. We are all trying to improve things, lets
work together



in case of such obvious bugs this *is* resepectful



No, it is not. Your tone and method of communication is highly
antagonistic in nature on both mailing lists and in bugs you've filed
in the Red Hat Bugzilla, and it's very hard to be willing to even
consider issues you experience when you continue to maintain such a
tone while trying to seek assistance or trying to get something fixed.


and replace a perfect working package manager is respectful to users?


Fedora is a large community and all of us love using and developing
the distribution. Passions may get a bit hot, but we should always be
respectful and constructive. We also don't live in isolation, and work
with other communities to develop excellent solutions that everyone
can use, including the many projects and products that are downstream
from Fedora.


dnf is far away from "excellent solutions"

just the fact that there are no useful outputs about the nature of a 
(mostly pretended) dependency problem disqualifies it while 
"yum-deprecated" shows you even soname-conflicts in a clear way


the case where i had enough again and wrote the mail above was a "dnf -v 
upgrade" with no useful output and "yum-deprecated upgrade" just worked 
fine as all the years ago - so *there is no* dependency problem



And if you really want something fixed that badly, talk to the DNF
development team about contributing to fix particular issues, or even
work with them one-on-one to help them fix it properly. Suggesting to
throw out DNF and re-instate Yum is not helpful and makes it really
easy to ignore you.


it would be enough to *remove* all that deprecation warnings for 
"yum-deprecated" and "package-cleanup" so that i could set an alias back 
to yum-deprecated




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: dnf still is unuseable

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Mon, 18 Jan 2016 00:53:00 +0100
Reindl Harald  wrote:

...snip...

> 
> why?
> 
> because you don't type "dnf install kernel" instead "dnf upgrade" and 
> "kernel-headers" *is never installed* in multiple versions

Sure, you want upgrade/update to update installonly pkgs too. 

In any case 'dnf install' will work for locally downloaded kernel rpms,
which was your case right? so it should work as a workaround at least
for now, no?

kevin





pgp7qfdyp1Wlj.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org