I recently just did a fedup from f19 to f20, and the new gnome-software application was not installed after the upgrade.
Is this something that should have occurred? if so, where should i file this bug?
cheers, ryanlerch
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Ryan Lerch rlerch@redhat.com wrote:
I recently just did a fedup from f19 to f20, and the new gnome-software application was not installed after the upgrade.
Is this something that should have occurred? if so, where should i file this bug?
It would have to replace (i.e obsolete) something for that to happen or something has to grow a dependency on it.
Neither is the case so nothing happens ...
On Wed 02 Oct 2013 10:34:03 EDT, drago01 wrote:
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Ryan Lerch rlerch@redhat.com wrote:
I recently just did a fedup from f19 to f20, and the new gnome-software application was not installed after the upgrade.
Is this something that should have occurred? if so, where should i file this bug?
It would have to replace (i.e obsolete) something for that to happen or something has to grow a dependency on it.
Neither is the case so nothing happens ...
Sorry! I meant to ask the question from the perspective of is this expected behaviour?
If I fedup from f19 to f20, should gnome-software be installed also.
I also noticed that gnome-packagekit is still installed on my system to. As such, i got two lots of notifications (one from gnome-software, and one from gnome-packagekit) informing me there were updates to install.
With this one as well, should the expected behaviour be -- when updating from f19 to f20 via fedup -- that this package is removed? Is it even installed by default anymore when installing from scratch?
cheers, ryanlerch
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Ryan Lerch rlerch@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed 02 Oct 2013 10:34:03 EDT, drago01 wrote:
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Ryan Lerch rlerch@redhat.com wrote:
I recently just did a fedup from f19 to f20, and the new gnome-software application was not installed after the upgrade.
Is this something that should have occurred? if so, where should i file this bug?
It would have to replace (i.e obsolete) something for that to happen or something has to grow a dependency on it.
Neither is the case so nothing happens ...
Sorry! I meant to ask the question from the perspective of is this expected behaviour?
If I fedup from f19 to f20, should gnome-software be installed also.
I also noticed that gnome-packagekit is still installed on my system to. As such, i got two lots of notifications (one from gnome-software, and one from gnome-packagekit) informing me there were updates to install.
With this one as well, should the expected behaviour be -- when updating from f19 to f20 via fedup -- that this package is removed? Is it even installed by default anymore when installing from scratch?
cheers, ryanlerch
-- desktop mailing list desktop@lists.fedoraproject.**org desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.**org/mailman/listinfo/desktophttps://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
We don't have a mechanism to remove/install packages on upgrade without obsoleting, and gnome-packagekit should NOT be obsoleted by gnome-software.
Therefor, yes, this is the intended behavior.
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 08:44:28PM +0300, Elad Alfassa wrote:
We don't have a mechanism to remove/install packages on upgrade without obsoleting, and gnome-packagekit should NOT be obsoleted by gnome-software.
In the past, things like this have been kludged into anaconda. Is that something fedup can do, and should it?
Matthew Miller wrote:
In the past, things like this have been kludged into anaconda. Is that something fedup can do, and should it?
Any process like this should keep in mind not all users use Gnome and may not have any Gnome package installed.
I am +1 for this idea though. During my years of upgrading I've missed out on new Gnome apps because they were not pulled in and found out about them months later.
I assume it might breach some packaging policy, but why not have a 'desktop' rpm which requires all other packages we consider part of the desktop for a given release? That way when we add new applications like this we just add it as a dependency of the desktop package?
Christian
----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthew Miller" mattdm@fedoraproject.org To: "Discussions about development for the Fedora desktop" desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2013 8:03:25 PM Subject: Re: Fedup to f20 didn't automatically pull down gnome-software
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 08:44:28PM +0300, Elad Alfassa wrote:
We don't have a mechanism to remove/install packages on upgrade without obsoleting, and gnome-packagekit should NOT be obsoleted by gnome-software.
In the past, things like this have been kludged into anaconda. Is that something fedup can do, and should it?
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 17:21:57 -0400, Christian Schaller cschalle@redhat.com wrote:
I assume it might breach some packaging policy, but why not have a 'desktop' rpm which requires all other packages we consider part of the desktop for a given release? That way when we add new applications like this we just add it as a dependency of the desktop package?
Because if it is not necessary then it causes problems for people who want to run systems without them (perhaps to keep the disk footprint small). We have put in temporary requires to accomplish this, but temporary in this context is two releases since we support (more or less) skipping one release.
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 04:26:35PM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 17:21:57 -0400,
I assume it might breach some packaging policy, but why not have a 'desktop' rpm which requires all other packages we consider part of the desktop for a given release? That way when we add new applications like this we just add it as a dependency of the desktop package?
Because if it is not necessary then it causes problems for people who want to run systems without them (perhaps to keep the disk footprint small). We have put in temporary requires to accomplish this, but temporary in this context is two releases since we support (more or less) skipping one release.
In that case, can't you just remove the metapackage?
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 17:40:31 -0400, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 04:26:35PM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 17:21:57 -0400,
I assume it might breach some packaging policy, but why not have a 'desktop' rpm which requires all other packages we consider part of the desktop for a given release? That way when we add new applications like this we just add it as a dependency of the desktop package?
Because if it is not necessary then it causes problems for people who want to run systems without them (perhaps to keep the disk footprint small). We have put in temporary requires to accomplish this, but temporary in this context is two releases since we support (more or less) skipping one release.
In that case, can't you just remove the metapackage?
If you made a separate meta package. Note the meta package would also have to be installed in the prior release, so it wouldn't solve both problems in this particular case.
Yes agreed, I mean if you are proficient enough to want to micromanage what software is installed with your desktop then I am sure removing the metapackage is within your skillset too. Of course the metapackage needs to stay somewhat trim here, but that is fine too as I think the new Software installer will reduce the need for stuff to be pre-installed as we can give new applications visibility in the installer as opposed to having to default install them for visibility.
Christian
----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthew Miller" mattdm@fedoraproject.org To: "Discussions about development for the Fedora desktop" desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org Cc: "Christian Schaller" cschalle@redhat.com Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2013 11:40:31 PM Subject: Re: Fedup to f20 didn't automatically pull down gnome-software
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 04:26:35PM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 17:21:57 -0400,
I assume it might breach some packaging policy, but why not have a 'desktop' rpm which requires all other packages we consider part of the desktop for a given release? That way when we add new applications like this we just add it as a dependency of the desktop package?
Because if it is not necessary then it causes problems for people who want to run systems without them (perhaps to keep the disk footprint small). We have put in temporary requires to accomplish this, but temporary in this context is two releases since we support (more or less) skipping one release.
In that case, can't you just remove the metapackage?
Hi
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Christian Schaller cschalle@redhat.comwrote:
Yes agreed, I mean if you are proficient enough to want to micromanage what software is installed with your desktop then I am sure removing the metapackage is within your skillset too. Of course the metapackage needs to stay somewhat trim here, but that is fine too as I think the new Software installer will reduce the need for stuff to be pre-installed as we can give new applications visibility in the installer as opposed to having to default install them for visibility.
Well, if fedup used yum instead of rpm directly, we wouldn't have this problem in the first place but another related problem is that end users don't usually understand meta packages. If I remove an application and it shows say fedora-desktop (just a example meta package name) as a dependency to be removed, I have no idea what that really means.
Rahul
On Wed, 2013-10-02 at 18:41 -0400, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Christian Schaller cschalle@redhat.com wrote: Yes agreed, I mean if you are proficient enough to want to micromanage what software is installed with your desktop then I am sure removing the metapackage is within your skillset too. Of course the metapackage needs to stay somewhat trim here, but that is fine too as I think the new Software installer will reduce the need for stuff to be pre-installed as we can give new applications visibility in the installer as opposed to having to default install them for visibility.
Well, if fedup used yum instead of rpm directly, we wouldn't have this problem in the first place but another related problem is that end users don't usually understand meta packages. If I remove an application and it shows say fedora-desktop (just a example meta package name) as a dependency to be removed, I have no idea what that really means.
Well we are trying to move away from Yum and move over to hawkeye as quickly as possible, but that is another discussion :)
Anyway, aren't we concerned about a very small demographic here, the demographic consisting of people who understand what the hell all these other package names we have mean, yet find the concept of a meta package confusing? Also exposing users to the individual package names is what we want to get away from with the new Software installer. Instead we want to expose them to an application name and description as that is a lot more sensible to most people, as opposed to questions about if they are fine with 'informative' names such as libpst or libytnef being installed dependencies.
Christian
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 05:21:57PM -0400, Christian Schaller wrote:
I assume it might breach some packaging policy, but why not have a 'desktop' rpm which requires all other packages we consider part of the desktop for a given release? That way when we add new applications like this we just add it as a dependency of the desktop package?
I can't actually find or recall such a policy. I looked, but the last I could find was a 2009 conversation which ended in the comps format being rewritten, which solved the specific problem without answering the general question.
We certainly do have some "meta-packages" like that -- for example from the top of my head, xorg-x11-drivers, and good 'ol redhat-lsb. Your idea seems to fit along the same lines as redhat-lsb.
If we do this, does the %packages list for the spin just become that one file?
Matthew Miller (mattdm@fedoraproject.org) said:
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 05:21:57PM -0400, Christian Schaller wrote:
I assume it might breach some packaging policy, but why not have a 'desktop' rpm which requires all other packages we consider part of the desktop for a given release? That way when we add new applications like this we just add it as a dependency of the desktop package?
I can't actually find or recall such a policy. I looked, but the last I could find was a 2009 conversation which ended in the comps format being rewritten, which solved the specific problem without answering the general question.
We certainly do have some "meta-packages" like that -- for example from the top of my head, xorg-x11-drivers, and good 'ol redhat-lsb. Your idea seems to fit along the same lines as redhat-lsb.
If we do this, does the %packages list for the spin just become that one file?
The goal was to turn on persistent groups in yum, so if you install the gnome-desktop group, then on upgrade, it upgrades to the current definition of that group. It's worth testing why this isn't working - I mentioned that fedup doesn't use yum, but it *does* use it to determine what to download, so it should be working there.
Bill
Matthew Miller (mattdm@fedoraproject.org) said:
On Wed, Oct 02, 2013 at 08:44:28PM +0300, Elad Alfassa wrote:
We don't have a mechanism to remove/install packages on upgrade without obsoleting, and gnome-packagekit should NOT be obsoleted by gnome-software.
In the past, things like this have been kludged into anaconda. Is that something fedup can do, and should it?
With persistent yum groups, this is *supposed* to work now.... but fedup doesn't use yum.
Bill
desktop@lists.stg.fedoraproject.org
-
Bill Nottingham -
Bruno Wolff III -
Christian Schaller -
drago01 -
Elad Alfassa -
Matthew Miller -
Michael Cronenworth -
Rahul Sundaram -
Ryan Lerch