Fedora Linux Support Community & Resources Center
  #1  
Old 11th June 2009, 04:17 AM
Nick Levinson Offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 109
package conflicts: assemble dependency lists?

Installing multiple packages risks conflict even before programs run, apparently due to dependencies. For that reason, Red Hat no longer supports an Everything installation. (See <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=503880>.) That principle suggests, however, that any two or more pkgs. could conflict, and there are hundreds available just on a DVD, even before counting remote repositories. It could even occur with one package if it has a conflict with the kernel that hasn't been discovered.

Possible problems are dependencies for the same file in the same path but for diifferent versions of the file and mandatory absence of a dependency when another program requires presence.

That leaves a problem when installing. What packages can we install without conflicts? Or how can we fix the conflicts?

As an alternative, I think a public list of dependencies, including mandatory absences of dependencies, would help. The list should start with dep specifications, but if a clash suggests an error in programming, we should allow for error in a dep spec by allowing other people to add corrective observations. Even rare conflicts need to be known.

Is there such a list or is it an inadequate solution or is it bad idea or should it be created?

If it's a good idea, is setting up the list only feasible for distribution engineers or can anyone just start a list? The problem, I assume, is in collecting all the specs that apply to any single spin or more, and I doubt that posting a general message asking .all programmers whose products might be in a spin or a repo will get much response. Is there a better way?

Thanks.

--
Nick
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11th June 2009, 06:21 AM
sonoran Offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sonoran Desert
Posts: 2,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Levinson View Post
Is there such a list or is it an inadequate solution or is it bad idea or should it be created?
Hi Nick-
That's what package managers are for.

"yum deplist packagename" will give you a complete list of dependencies. Or, in yumex, using the tabs below the bottom window will provide the same info.

You're absolutely right about the complexity and the potential conflicts. That's why one ought to be careful when going outside the official repositories, and why rpm --force should almost never be used.

Trying to manage a complex system like Fedora from a list, in your head, is a task beyond most of our capabilities. Let yum maintain its database and do the work.

You could always join the yum developers and work on the problem there.

Later--
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12th June 2009, 09:59 AM
Nick Levinson Offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 109
Then why do the Red Hat distro engineers have such a problem? What's wrong with installing everything in a spin if I have the hard drive space?

I had proposed that the Everything option be limited (and renamed for truth in labeling) but RH is opposed even to that. I wasn't going to keep this stuff in my head but noted an online list of dep conflicts would allow figuring out which package groups not to install simultaneously. But yum, as described in <http://prefetch.net/articles/yum.html>, seems to handle all that. If yum works as described, and has been run on everything proposed to be included in a spin, then conflicts should have been found by the spin compilers. If dep conflict is why installation does not include an Everything option any more, then the spin must include at least two packages which are simultaneously selectable and and which conflict. Either Everything (if made available again) would work or one or more pairs of packages fail.

Are they assuming that if we select what to install because Everything is no longer an option then we'll be more thoughtful and therefore never select conflicting packages? e.g., that we'll never select to install two browsers because we'll realize how silly that is? But when I look through the list of packages in the spin installation screen no such conflicts occur to me.

Is there a better way to design the installation process for this issue?

Thanks.

--
Nick
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
assemble, conflicts, dependency, lists, package

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Failed to update package lists robertfdawson Using Fedora 3 22nd December 2008 02:43 AM
Failed to Update Package Lists lakegen Installation, Upgrades and Live Media 13 7th December 2008 10:38 PM
dependency conflicts after fresh install (core6) vettehap Installation, Upgrades and Live Media 4 16th May 2007 05:40 AM
Matrix for package lists? MadCat356 Using Fedora 1 14th July 2005 10:20 PM
Install option - package lists? mattm Servers & Networking 1 15th January 2005 03:25 AM


Current GMT-time: 09:17 (Wednesday, 23-04-2014)

TopSubscribe to XML RSS for all Threads in all ForumsFedoraForumDotOrg Archive
logo

All trademarks, and forum posts in this site are property of their respective owner(s).
FedoraForum.org is privately owned and is not directly sponsored by the Fedora Project or Red Hat, Inc.

Privacy Policy | Term of Use | Posting Guidelines | Archive | Contact Us | Founding Members

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

FedoraForum is Powered by RedHat