Re: Thank God for yum-deprecated :-)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 20. 7. 2015 at 10:12:35, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 16:02:11 +0200,
> 
>   Jan Zelený <jzeleny@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >On 20. 7. 2015 at 08:57:41, kevin martin wrote:
> >> I'm with Jan...Thank God for yum-deprecated.  Been trying to get systemd
> >> updated with DNF forever and it's been throwing an error about
> >> fedora-release..yum-deprecated has it handled.  The whole skip-broken
> >> part
> >> of yum makes it so much easier to actually do updates.  DNF's handling of
> >> broken packages by stopping the update cold is worthless.
> >
> >Well, I can't be sure because you haven't provided any details but it
> >sounds like something --best might be able to solve for you.
> 
> That doesn't really help much. It provides some data on why it isn't
> doing things that might allow you to figure out how to modify the command to
> get it to partially succeed. --allowerasing only works in some cases and I
> haven't been able to figure out which cases.
> 
> For just doing updates (not installs) I found that dnf does a better job
> at figuring out what can be updated without removing anything. Yum's
> depsolver would just give up in some caes where dnf can do some updates.

That's basically what --allowerasing is about. The idea is that when you run 
upgrade, you most likely don't want this upgrade to remove any of the packages 
that are currently installed on your system. As the name says, the --
allowerasing switch removes this assumption, allowing the dependency solver to 
have more available solutions to choose from.

Let me give you an example how can such situation occur. You install package A 
which it depends on a certain capability that packages B and C provide. The 
dependency solver chooses to install package C and finishes the transaction. 
Then, after some time, package A gets an upgrade that requires newer version 
of the aforementioned functionality. However, package C doesn't provide this 
newer version. An intuitive solution is to remove package C and install 
package B instead. To do that you need to use --allowerasing, as dnf doesn't 
expect you by default to want a solution that includes removing currently 
installed package.

Back to your original question, I am not sure what the problem is. You seem to 
describe a situation where package has some broken deps and therefore can't be 
installed in which case it is not going to be installed, neither by yum nor by 
dnf and --skip-broken will have no effect on that. Or am I missing something?

HTH
Jan
-- 
users mailing list
users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org



[Index of Archives]     [Older Fedora Users]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Package Announce]     [EPEL Announce]     [EPEL Devel]     [Fedora Magazine]     [Fedora Summer Coding]     [Fedora Laptop]     [Fedora Cloud]     [Fedora Advisory Board]     [Fedora Education]     [Fedora Security]     [Fedora Scitech]     [Fedora Robotics]     [Fedora Infrastructure]     [Fedora Websites]     [Anaconda Devel]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora Fonts]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Management Tools]     [Fedora Mentors]     [Fedora Package Review]     [Fedora R Devel]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kickstart]     [Fedora Music]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Fedora Legal]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora OCaml]     [Coolkey]     [Virtualization Tools]     [ET Management Tools]     [Yum Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Gnome Users]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Art]     [Fedora Docs]     [Fedora Sparc]     [Libvirt Users]     [Fedora ARM]

  Powered by Linux