[Mageia-dev] Proposal: Updating released versions (long post)
marc at marcpare.com
Fri Oct 8 22:49:01 CEST 2010
Le 2010-10-08 16:32, Frank Griffin a écrit :
> Marc Paré wrote:
>> So, in terms of space used for this, if you had to install all 6,
>> would this tax the system so much and risk filling up the hardrive
> Not really, since the old versions would be removed when the new ones
> were installed. The behavior I described is not part of the proposal;
> that's what happens today.
>> It not, if a rollback were done, could all 6 as well as the new F be
>> removed and the old version restored?
> Yes, that's exactly what happens today.The problem is that today,
> removing them may cause tons of other packages to have to be removed
> because they require things that A-F provide. This wasn't a problem on
> upgrade, because the removal of the old and the addition of the new was
> a single urpmi "transaction" (I put this in quotes because urpmi uses
> "transaction" to mean something other than what I mean here), and urpmi
> "knew" that the new versions supplied all the things that vanished when
> the old versions were removed. Today, rollbacks have to be done
> manually - remove new, then install old. Urpmi doesn't know at the time
> of the removal that you're going to turn around and install the old
> versions next. It only sees that all the things that both the old and
> new versions supply are about to disappear from your system, so it tells
> you that you have to remove any other package which requires those things.
>> If this is possible, would this have an impact on devs preparing
>> Backport versions with rollbacks?
> RPM dependencies aren't a problem. Urpmi/urpme know all about them.
> The only packaging changes would be for situations like that where a new
> version of an application has changed a format of one of its files in
> your home directory and the new version automatically converts the old
> version of the file to the new format. In that case, the package would
> need install scriptlets that copied the old version somewhere so that it
> could be restored at uninstall time, otherwise the old version of the
> software won't be able to use the new file format.
> The biggest chunk of development involved in the proposal is to make
> urpmi do a rollback as a single operation, just as it does an upgrade.
> This already exists, in a way; there is a facility called urpmi.recover
> that does this type of thing. Bit it's not really considered
> mainstream, and I don't think it's been supported for a while.
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).
More information about the Mageia-dev