Seth Vidal wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008, Christopher Stone wrote:
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 8:43 AM, Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 6:55 AM, Seth Vidal
<skvidal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In general skip-broken is probably going to need to be the default
for these
Yes, having skip-broken notify users of the problems its going to skip
over, and not silently skip would make me feel better. There will be a
--skip-broken is borked, I used it the other day with the PackageKit
problems, and skip-broken tried to pull in a bunch of .i386 deps (I
don't have any .i386 rpms installed on my system). It did manage to
skip the broken rpms, but it also tried to pull in a bunch of .i386
rpms as well which is obviously wrong.
I bet it is not wrong. the i386 packages probably provide what was
required. They just provide it sub-optimally.
I get this quite a bit (and I don't use skip-broken), as I keep a local
mirror of updates for packages that are on the DVD (my quick heuristic
for the most common ones) and let the rest get pulled from the Internet.
I update my local mirror when I see the package announcements on
fedora-package-announce, so it's usually updated before many of the
other mirrors.
The problem happens when I have two packages installed that have a
versioned dependency relationship and where one can be found on my local
mirror and the other needs to be pulled from the Internet, and the
package that is "required" is multilib.
Suppose B is a subpackage of A,
with B requiring A = %{version}-%{release}, A being on the release media
and B not being. So when A is updated, I see the update of A first.
When I do a "yum update", and updated version of A is available but no
update to B is visible. My installed version of B needs the installed
version of A, but A is about to be upgraded. This would normally cause a
dependency issue and fail, but if A is multilib, the dependency can be
satisfied by installing the original version of A.i386 in parallel with
the new version of A.x86_64. This then pulls in all of the i386 deps of
A. I tend to work around this by adding B to the list of packages I
mirror locally when I see this sort of problem.
Whilst my arrangement is unusual and makes me more prone to seeing this
sort of problem, there are other scenarios in which it could happen,
e.g. where there are versioned cross-repo dependencies.
Paul.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
