Troy J Dawson wrote: > 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. > I forgot to say, both of these bugs are fixed in yum 3.2. It keeps track if packages were added and/or removed and/or changed during the plugins and rechecks for dependancies if they were. > 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 __________________________________________________