SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-DEVEL Archives

June 2009

SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-DEVEL@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Troy Dawson <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Troy Dawson <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 30 Jun 2009 09:13:20 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (48 lines)
Constance J. Sieh wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Troy Dawson wrote:
> 
>> Hello,
>> I have been wanting to update the kernel-module plugin for yum on SL5. I have 
>> it all ready in the testing area, and it does work so much better than the 
>> previous kernel module plugin.
>> The problem is that it does not backport very well to yum 3.0 which is on SL 
>> 5.0 and 5.1.  To keep things short there is a bug in yum 3.0 (and 2.4) that 
>> prevents the plugin's from fixing up dependancies when yum gets them wrong. 
>> This bug is fixed in yum 3.2 (which is what is in SL 5.2 and 5.3)
>> So why would I worry about upgrading the old yum?
>> Because along with bug fixes, there is a couple of feature changes.  The 
>> biggest change is that yum 3.2 automatically has the installonlyn feature. 
>> This only keeps 'n' kernels on your machine.
>> This works pretty good and I think many people will think it's great. But I 
>> don't know if everyone is going to like it, and they might be surprised by 
>> it.
>> Anyway, I need opinions.  Should I push the newer yum out to all of SL5?
>>  Or should I just push it out to SL 5.2 and 5.3?
> 
> And live with the bugs for 5.0 and 5.1 .  Can you give more detail about 
> these bugs.
> 
Well, we could go through yum's bugzilla, but I'll tell about the bug 
that was biting me.

If there was a dependancy problem during the normal yum requirements 
check, and you tried to clean it up in the plugin's section that comes 
just after that, yum would still think it had the dependancy problem 
after the plugin section.  Basically, it wouldn't go back and recheck 
the dependancies.
 From what I could tell, it also didn't go back and check the 
dependancies of any of the extra rpm's added during the plugin section. 
  This could also cause a problem.

It sounds like this should be a simple fix, but it isn't.  The 
dependancy checking functions were compeltely rewritten between 3.0 and 
3.2, so there isn't just a few lines of code to patch.

Troy
-- 
__________________________________________________
Troy Dawson  [log in to unmask]  (630)840-6468
Fermilab  ComputingDivision/LCSI/CSI LMSS Group
__________________________________________________

ATOM RSS1 RSS2