On Saturday September 13 2003 05:59 pm, Brant Fitzsimmons wrote:
H.J.Bathoorn wrote:
On Sunday 14 September 2003 00:26, Brant Fitzsimmons wrote:
I should clarify that --allow-force and --allow-nodeps does not
automatically install without checking dependencies or force an
install.
Actually it does! check all the aliases to find out where Mdk does all the handholding.
Thatway you'll find out why "rm -r xxx" is a PITA on mdk:o)
"rm -f xxx" solves that BTW or change the aliases. If you don't know how.......don't!!! That's another one up for the mandrakians:o)
Good luck,
HarM
I'm aware of the safety net implemented for the rm command, but what does this have to do with what I said? --allow-nodeps whether an alias or a true option passed to urpmi does indeed ask you before it does its business. The same with --allow-force.
See "man urpmi":
"--allow-nodeps Allow urpmi to ask user to continue installation using no depen- dencies checking due to error. By default urpmi exit immediately in such case.
--allow-force Allow urpmi to ask user to continue installation using no depen- dencies checking or forced installation due to error. By default urpmi exit immediately in such case."
Alias or not, these are the actions of those options.
Bet your life on it Brant? My money's on HarM ;)
Absolutely. I use that command every time I want to upgrade. I may not be a rocket scientist, but I know when I'm asked a question during an upgrade or install.
urpmi --allow-force --allow-nodeps --auto-select
Will allow packages to be updated, and --ALLOW it without checking for dependencies, and will --ALLOW replacement of files and directories. I know it's supposed to ask, but it doesn't always, _if_ you include force. IE, (from man urpmi)
--force
Assumes yes on all questions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--allow-force
Allow urpmi to ask user to continue installation
using no dependencies checking or forced installation due to error. By default urpmi exit immediately in such case.
Often as not it "Assumes yes on all questions", or just exits doin nothing. The first case can be a disaster, the second case a waste of time and bandwidth. These options should not be used except in rare cases. Nor should they with 'rpm'. --force is good for re-installing already installed rpms of the exact same version/ patch level, to correct links and files. --nodeps is fine after the rpm packager admits a fsck'up in his/her %requires, and/or package and says it's no problemo.
YMMV, stick around, you'll see ;> alias safety nets have got nothin to do with it. (_Don't_ "use the --force, Luke" ;) Anyway, ya just gotta ask yourself why t'hell you would want, or would need to regularly update everything with force an nodeps in the first place (?) Specially cooker
Better to go gently thru the night
Is anyone reading my posts?
urpmi -v --auto-select --allow-nodeps --allow-force --no-verify-rpm
At what point in the previous line did I include --force? I didn't. There's a very good reason I didn't. Why? Because I don't want it to force an install without asking me first. I though I made this pretty clear.
Let me say it again. When you run the command above it will try to install the packages. If it runs into a dependency it can't resolve it asks me if I want to try to install the offending package without checking for dependencies. I say yes or no depending on what the package is and what the possible effects would be of allowing it to do so. If I say no it exits. If I say yes it then tries to install the packages without checking for dependencies. If it still cannot do it because of a conflict with an already installed package it asks if I want to force the install. I again have the option of saying Y or n. If I say no it exits. If I say yes it installs the package without checking anything. It forces it to install without any regard for breaking dependencies or conflicting with existing packages.
I'm not crazy. I know when I'm asked a question during an update. I have had to do it twice in the last couple of days when upgrading a cooker box.
As to the remark about the "safety net" "rm -i" is aliased to "rm" so that you have to explicitly state that you don't want to be asked for each deletion by using "rm -f". It *is* a safety net. It is a workaround for a bad design. The same goes for "mv" and "cp". It forces you to go through extra effort to do something that is quite powerful and can be very destructive when used absentmindedly. You have to think about what you are doing when you add that extra option (-f).
Don't ever bet against the house. ;-)
-- Brant Fitzsimmons [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___________________________________________________________________
Linux user #322847 | Linux machine #207465 | http://counter.li.org/ AMD Duron 1.3GHz | Mandrake 9.1 | Kernel 2.4.21-0.16mm-mdk KDE 3.1.3 | Mozilla 1.4 Mail Client Uptime: 02:00:00 up 7 days, 13:16, 1 user, load average: 0.28, 0.43, 0.40 ___________________________________________________________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being
self-evident."
-Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
