Jon Peatfield wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jan 2008, Troy Dawson wrote:
> 
> <snip>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> CHANGES since 5.1 RC 1
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> **alpine
>> **      Updated to version 1.00
>> **
>> **      alpine-1.00-1.i386.rpm
>> **      alpine-1.00-1.x86_64.rpm
> <snip>
> 
> I just managed to (finally) try the new RC, with (essentially) the
> kickstart setup that we use for 5.0.
> 
> However anaconda failed with a transaction error (the unhelpful null
> message kind).
> 
> Looking through the differences and the anaconda.log showed that it was
> picking up alpine as well as pine (though we didn't ask for alpine
> anywhere in the kickstart config).  Anyway it seems that 'cos alpine and
> pine provide binaries of the same name (e.g. pico) so we get a clash and
> hence a failure.
> 
> Previously the last version I'd tested was "SL 5.1" ALPHA so the alpine
> 0.999... from the "SL 5.1" BETA setup may cause a similar problem.  Forry
> for not spotting this before.
> 
> I can fix it (for now at least) by just excluding alpine with:
> 
> -alpine
> 
> in the %packages section but I thought you may want to know.  Maybe pine
> and alpine should use the alternatives stuff, though that means changing
> both packages.
> 
> Looking through 5rolling/i386/SL/repodata/comps-sl.xml alpine is now
> listed as 'optional' in the misc-sl and 'default' in the text-internet
> groupings.  Was that intentional?
> 
>> **yum-utils
>> **      We have added installonlyn
>> **
>> **              yum-installonlyn-1.0.4-2.sl5.noarch.rpm
> 
> Hooray, and it is newer than the 0.92 version I was previously using so it
> got picked by the installer...
> 
> --
> Jon Peatfield,  Computer Officer,  DAMTP,  University of Cambridge
> Mail:  [log in to unmask]     Web:  http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/

Hi Jon,
Thanks for testing.
What do you have listed in your kickstart for packages.

We purposely left both alpine and pine in the distribution.  Alpine is 
newer and looks like it now has support, which pine doesn't.  But we 
figured there might be enough changed in it that some users want their 
old pine.
I had seen that conflict when I first put them in, because I had them 
both listed in the text-internet section.  But then I took pine out of 
the comps and put alpine in and didn't see the error again.  I hadn't 
thought of looking at kickstarts.

And, yes, it was intentional that it is default in text-internet and 
optional in misc-sl.  Everything in misc-sl is optional.  While if 
someone is installing text-internet they want a text based mail reader, 
and pine (or alpine) is what most people think of.

How big of a problem do people think this is?

Troy
p.s. We released RC 2.5 last night, before I read this.  As far as pine 
and alpine goes, there was no change.
-- 
__________________________________________________
Troy Dawson  [log in to unmask]  (630)840-6468
Fermilab  ComputingDivision/LCSI/CSI DSS Group
__________________________________________________