[setup topic/libsolv] Does "obsoletes:" work?
Tue Oct 24 20:25:00 GMT 2017
On 10/24/2017 4:09 PM, Jon Turney wrote:
> On 23/10/2017 18:43, Ken Brown wrote:
>> On 10/23/2017 7:38 AM, Jon Turney wrote:
>>> On 21/10/2017 21:18, Ken Brown wrote:
>>>> On 10/20/2017 6:24 PM, Ken Brown wrote:
>>>>> Have you ever tested the "obsoletes:" feature of setup/libsolv?Â I
>>>>> tried adding an "obsoletes:" line to setup.ini, and it didn't seem
>>>>> to have any effect.
>>> It seems I tested it back in May, so it might well have broken since :)
>>> Here's a very small test repo I've been using for some tests:
>>> But yes, your patch looks like it's needed for it to work correctly...
>>>> It turns out that it *is* working (after a minor fix, attached), but
>>>> not always as I expect.Â Suppose A requires B and C obsoletes B.
>>>> Then the "obsoletes" statement appears to have no effect.Â If I
>>>> remove the dependence of A on B, then setup does propose
>>>> uninstalling B and installing C.
>>>> I guess the issue is that libsolv interprets "C obsoletes B" as
>>>> "uninstall B and install C", and it won't uninstall B while
>>>> something requires it.
>>> The 'targeted' vs. 'untargeted' distinction is relevant here? Perhaps
>>> we are doing the wrong one?
>> Maybe.Â I've read and re-read the discussion of this in
>> libsolv-bindings.txt, and I'm still not sure I understand it.
> Yeah, the documentation is a bit impenetrable.
>> But here's a simpler case where "obsoletes" isn't working as I expect.
>> Using your test repo, in which A requires C and obsoletes B, I start
>> with none of the packages installed.Â I choose B for installation
>> (either interactively or on the command line), and B gets installed.
>> If I now run setup a second time, A and C get installed and B gets
>> I expected A and C to be installed on the first run.Â I don't think
>> this has anything to do with targeted vs. untargeted, because that
>> distinction is only relevant for updating installed packages.
> I guess I had the opposite expectation (if I ask for A to be installed,
> that's what should happen, because if it insists on upgrading it behind
> my back there's no way to do that...)
> The actual behaviour you mention fits what's described there pretty well.
OK, so maybe there's no real problem here. In any case, the situation
is unlikely to happen often -- the user has to intentionally choose to
install an obsolete package.
I think we might have reached the point where more widespread testing
would be useful. If it would help, I could put together a patch series
containing the various (sometimes revised) patches we've discussed recently.
More information about the Cygwin-apps