1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
|
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE> [Mageia-dev] Proposal: Updating released versions (long post)
</TITLE>
<LINK REL="Index" HREF="index.html" >
<LINK REL="made" HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20Proposal%3A%20Updating%20released%20versions%20%28long%20post%29&In-Reply-To=%3Ci8o03u%24p72%241%40dough.gmane.org%3E">
<META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow">
<META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<LINK REL="Previous" HREF="001045.html">
<LINK REL="Next" HREF="001024.html">
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff">
<H1>[Mageia-dev] Proposal: Updating released versions (long post)</H1>
<B>Marc Paré</B>
<A HREF="mailto:mageia-dev%40mageia.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BMageia-dev%5D%20Proposal%3A%20Updating%20released%20versions%20%28long%20post%29&In-Reply-To=%3Ci8o03u%24p72%241%40dough.gmane.org%3E"
TITLE="[Mageia-dev] Proposal: Updating released versions (long post)">marc at marcpare.com
</A><BR>
<I>Fri Oct 8 22:49:01 CEST 2010</I>
<P><UL>
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="001045.html">[Mageia-dev] Proposal: Updating released versions (long post)
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="001024.html">[Mageia-dev] Proposal: Updating released versions (long post)
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#1048">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#1048">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#1048">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#1048">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<HR>
<!--beginarticle-->
<PRE>Le 2010-10-08 16:32, Frank Griffin a écrit :
><i> Marc Paré wrote:
</I>>><i>
</I>>><i> So, in terms of space used for this, if you had to install all 6,
</I>>><i> would this tax the system so much and risk filling up the hardrive
</I>>><i> needlessly.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> Not really, since the old versions would be removed when the new ones
</I>><i> were installed. The behavior I described is not part of the proposal;
</I>><i> that's what happens today.
</I>><i>
</I>>><i>
</I>>><i> It not, if a rollback were done, could all 6 as well as the new F be
</I>>><i> removed and the old version restored?
</I>><i>
</I>><i> Yes, that's exactly what happens today.The problem is that today,
</I>><i> removing them may cause tons of other packages to have to be removed
</I>><i> because they require things that A-F provide. This wasn't a problem on
</I>><i> upgrade, because the removal of the old and the addition of the new was
</I>><i> a single urpmi "transaction" (I put this in quotes because urpmi uses
</I>><i> "transaction" to mean something other than what I mean here), and urpmi
</I>><i> "knew" that the new versions supplied all the things that vanished when
</I>><i> the old versions were removed. Today, rollbacks have to be done
</I>><i> manually - remove new, then install old. Urpmi doesn't know at the time
</I>><i> of the removal that you're going to turn around and install the old
</I>><i> versions next. It only sees that all the things that both the old and
</I>><i> new versions supply are about to disappear from your system, so it tells
</I>><i> you that you have to remove any other package which requires those things.
</I>>><i>
</I>>><i> If this is possible, would this have an impact on devs preparing
</I>>><i> Backport versions with rollbacks?
</I>><i>
</I>><i> RPM dependencies aren't a problem. Urpmi/urpme know all about them.
</I>><i> The only packaging changes would be for situations like that where a new
</I>><i> version of an application has changed a format of one of its files in
</I>><i> your home directory and the new version automatically converts the old
</I>><i> version of the file to the new format. In that case, the package would
</I>><i> need install scriptlets that copied the old version somewhere so that it
</I>><i> could be restored at uninstall time, otherwise the old version of the
</I>><i> software won't be able to use the new file format.
</I>><i>
</I>><i> The biggest chunk of development involved in the proposal is to make
</I>><i> urpmi do a rollback as a single operation, just as it does an upgrade.
</I>><i> This already exists, in a way; there is a facility called urpmi.recover
</I>><i> that does this type of thing. Bit it's not really considered
</I>><i> mainstream, and I don't think it's been supported for a while.
</I>><i>
</I>><i>
</I>
Thanks. So this thread is to see if there were a possibility to
programme a more efficient roll-back option so that it would be more
"aware" of the previous "dependencies" needs for the previous version.
Having "double dependencies" is not so much of a problem, it is the
rollback to a previous version where the dependency confusion may occur,
and, ONLY, if an upgraded type of "dependency" thread had been
installed. (Sorry I may have used the wrong terms in the last sentence).
Marc
</PRE>
<!--endarticle-->
<HR>
<P><UL>
<!--threads-->
<LI>Previous message: <A HREF="001045.html">[Mageia-dev] Proposal: Updating released versions (long post)
</A></li>
<LI>Next message: <A HREF="001024.html">[Mageia-dev] Proposal: Updating released versions (long post)
</A></li>
<LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B>
<a href="date.html#1048">[ date ]</a>
<a href="thread.html#1048">[ thread ]</a>
<a href="subject.html#1048">[ subject ]</a>
<a href="author.html#1048">[ author ]</a>
</LI>
</UL>
<hr>
<a href="https://www.mageia.org/mailman/listinfo/mageia-dev">More information about the Mageia-dev
mailing list</a><br>
</body></html>
|
