This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: [setup topic/libsolv] Does "obsoletes:" work?
On 24/10/2017 21:24, Ken Brown wrote:
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? 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. Suppose A requires B and C obsoletes
B. Then the "obsoletes" statement appears to have no effect. 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. 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. 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 uninstalled.
I expected A and C to be installed on the first run. 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 was wondering if there might be some scenario where A is in the base
category, and obsoleted by B, where we'd really want to install B the
first time on fresh installs, but, yeah, something we'd want to avoid in
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
Cool, I was going to ask you how far along you were in your test plan :)
I think I've been keeping track of your patches, so I've updated
topic/libsolv with your patches and rebased onto master. If that looks
good to you, I'll do test release.
(I squashed "Fix parsing setup.ini" (for obsoletes) into "Add obsoletes:
support", and added a missing break; in "Don't override a Skip selection")