Re: [Cooker] Please don't make urpmi stupid
On Thursday 09 January 2003 03:19 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the name urpmi does sound stupid, like somebody belching. why do linux programmers give their software such silly names? guess they dont have sales or packaging departments OK, how about `RPMmy' the handy RPM wizard, requires only X and 256MB of RAM, and there is no cancel button, no undo. That sounds like sales and packaging. We know where you want to do go today. Cheers; Leon
Re: [Cooker] Please don't make urpmi stupid
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] the name urpmi does sound stupid, like somebody belching. why do linux programmers give their software such silly names? guess they dont have sales or packaging departments IMHO it could be: urpmi - Unified RPM Installer urpme - Unified RPM Eraser urpmf - Unified RPM Finder urpmq - Unified RPM Query and so on ... Thomas
Re: [Cooker] Please don't make urpmi stupid
Thomas Backlund wrote: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] the name urpmi does sound stupid, like somebody belching. why do linux programmers give their software such silly names? guess they dont have sales or packaging departments IMHO it could be: urpmi - Unified RPM Installer urpme - Unified RPM Eraser urpmf - Unified RPM Finder urpmq - Unified RPM Query AFAIK it was originally User RPM Installer (or something like that) from 7.1/7.2 or so when members of the urpmi group could also use urpmi. Buchan -- |--Another happy Mandrake Club member--| Buchan MilneMechanical Engineer, Network Manager Cellphone * Work+27 82 472 2231 * +27 21 8828820x121 Stellenbosch Automotive Engineering http://www.cae.co.za GPG Key http://ranger.dnsalias.com/bgmilne.asc 1024D/60D204A7 2919 E232 5610 A038 87B1 72D6 AC92 BA50 60D2 04A7
Re: [Cooker] Please don't make urpmi stupid
Steve Fox wrote: On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 23:19, Vox wrote: I actually like to think that urpmi getting old unresolved deps flagged is A Good Thing(tm). If you don't care for deps, don't use a package *manager*. I totally appreciate that for packages which are being upgraded/installed. But for stuff that's not being modified, it shouldn't worry about it. The whole all dependencies must always be resolved is nice if you live in your closed little world where smart packagers like Mandrake create proper dependencies. But in the Real World (tm), there are idiots who package things to fit in their little world. They won't listen to me when I say to use a Requires: java instead of Requires: IBM-JDK. In the real world, sysadmins just find a solution (like redoing the crap ass RPM someone made) and move on with life. If you don't like dependancy checking, then don't use urpmi. Use the plain rpm command. Write your own scripts as a wrapper. Or just patch urpmi yourself for your own needs. It's not rocket-science! ;) Just don't advocate breaking a tool other people like for your *small* need of getting one damn broken rpm to smoothly work! Find a better tool for your needs or create your own tools from scratch. -- Bryan Whitehead SysAdmin - JPL - Interferometry Systems and Technology Phone: 818 354 2903 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Cooker] Please don't make urpmi stupid
On Wed, 2003-01-08 at 12:32, Bryan Whitehead wrote: In the real world, sysadmins just find a solution (like redoing the crap ass RPM someone made) and move on with life. If you don't like dependancy checking, then don't use urpmi. Use the plain rpm command. Write your own scripts as a wrapper. Or just patch urpmi yourself for your own needs. It's not rocket-science! ;) Wow, what a well thought-out response! You're a freaking genius! I NEED dependency checking. What I am asking for is the tool to only worry about dependencies which are affected by the action being requested. There is no reason for urpmi to care about unrelated dependencies which I made a conscious decision to break knowing very well the potential results. -- Steve Fox http://k-lug.org
Re: [Cooker] Please don't make urpmi stupid
Bryan Whitehead wrote: Steve Fox wrote: On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 23:19, Vox wrote: I actually like to think that urpmi getting old unresolved deps flagged is A Good Thing(tm). If you don't care for deps, don't use a package *manager*. I totally appreciate that for packages which are being upgraded/installed. But for stuff that's not being modified, it shouldn't worry about it. The whole all dependencies must always be resolved is nice if you live in your closed little world where smart packagers like Mandrake create proper dependencies. But in the Real World (tm), there are idiots who package things to fit in their little world. They won't listen to me when I say to use a Requires: java instead of Requires: IBM-JDK. In the real world, sysadmins just find a solution (like redoing the crap ass RPM someone made) and move on with life. If you don't like dependancy checking, then don't use urpmi. Use the plain rpm command. Write your own scripts as a wrapper. Or just patch urpmi yourself for your own needs. It's not rocket-science! ;) Just don't advocate breaking a tool other people like for your *small* need of getting one damn broken rpm to smoothly work! Find a better tool for your needs or create your own tools from scratch. Actually, I think my proposal for having user-defineable provide/requires etc for urpmi would solve this one too, but I still think it shouldn't be messing with RPMs that it's not busy with ... One could just add (in this case): Provides: IBM-SDK to whichever file fpons decides to use, if he can implement it ... maybe even a gui from rpmdrake (that's probably asking too much ...) Buchan -- |--Another happy Mandrake Club member--| Buchan MilneMechanical Engineer, Network Manager Cellphone * Work+27 82 472 2231 * +27 21 8828820x121 Stellenbosch Automotive Engineering http://www.cae.co.za GPG Key http://ranger.dnsalias.com/bgmilne.asc 1024D/60D204A7 2919 E232 5610 A038 87B1 72D6 AC92 BA50 60D2 04A7
Re: [Cooker] Please don't make urpmi stupid
Steve Fox wrote: On Wed, 2003-01-08 at 12:32, Bryan Whitehead wrote: In the real world, sysadmins just find a solution (like redoing the crap ass RPM someone made) and move on with life. If you don't like dependancy checking, then don't use urpmi. Use the plain rpm command. Write your own scripts as a wrapper. Or just patch urpmi yourself for your own needs. It's not rocket-science! ;) Wow, what a well thought-out response! You're a freaking genius! I NEED dependency checking. What I am asking for is the tool to only worry about dependencies which are affected by the action being requested. Thanks for clarifying. The message I replied to originally implied you didn't like the dependacy checking / resolving features of urpmi. There is no reason for urpmi to care about unrelated dependencies which I made a conscious decision to break knowing very well the potential results. Your right on this. I second the motion to keep urpmi from being some wannabe apt. -- Bryan Whitehead SysAdmin - JPL - Interferometry Systems and Technology Phone: 818 354 2903 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Cooker] Please don't make urpmi stupid
On Wednesday 08 January 2003 06:53 pm, Bryan Whitehead honored me with this communique: Steve Fox wrote: On Wed, 2003-01-08 at 12:32, Bryan Whitehead wrote: In the real world, sysadmins just find a solution (like redoing the crap ass RPM someone made) and move on with life. If you don't like dependancy checking, then don't use urpmi. Use the plain rpm command. Write your own scripts as a wrapper. Or just patch urpmi yourself for your own needs. It's not rocket-science! ;) Wow, what a well thought-out response! You're a freaking genius! I NEED dependency checking. What I am asking for is the tool to only worry about dependencies which are affected by the action being requested. Thanks for clarifying. The message I replied to originally implied you didn't like the dependacy checking / resolving features of urpmi. There is no reason for urpmi to care about unrelated dependencies which I made a conscious decision to break knowing very well the potential results. Your right on this. I second the motion to keep urpmi from being some wannabe apt. I understood from the start what he was getting at, it seemed like he made it pretty clear. And I'm glad you understand now, because if you're a sysadmin, you know the ugly implications of fingers (human or software) getting in where they don't belong. There is a definite difference between breaking and refining an app. Jay -- Drinking makes such fools of people, and people are such fools to begin with, that it's compounding a felony. -- Robert Benchley
Re: [Cooker] Please don't make urpmi stupid
the name urpmi does sound stupid, like somebody belching. why do linux programmers give their software such silly names? guess they dont have sales or packaging departments Quoting Jay DeKing [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Wednesday 08 January 2003 06:53 pm, Bryan Whitehead honored me with this communique: Steve Fox wrote: On Wed, 2003-01-08 at 12:32, Bryan Whitehead wrote: In the real world, sysadmins just find a solution (like redoing the crap ass RPM someone made) and move on with life. If you don't like dependancy checking, then don't use urpmi. Use the plain rpm command. Write your own scripts as a wrapper. Or just patch urpmi yourself for your own needs. It's not rocket-science! ;) Wow, what a well thought-out response! You're a freaking genius! I NEED dependency checking. What I am asking for is the tool to only worry about dependencies which are affected by the action being requested. Thanks for clarifying. The message I replied to originally implied you didn't like the dependacy checking / resolving features of urpmi. There is no reason for urpmi to care about unrelated dependencies which I made a conscious decision to break knowing very well the potential results. Your right on this. I second the motion to keep urpmi from being some wannabe apt. I understood from the start what he was getting at, it seemed like he made it pretty clear. And I'm glad you understand now, because if you're a sysadmin, you know the ugly implications of fingers (human or software) getting in where they don't belong. There is a definite difference between breaking and refining an app. Jay -- Drinking makes such fools of people, and people are such fools to begin with, that it's compounding a felony. -- Robert Benchley
Re: [Cooker] Please don't make urpmi stupid
On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 21:19, Vox wrote: This time Steve Fox [EMAIL PROTECTED] becomes daring and writes: On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 19:47, Vox wrote: Easy to fix: rpm -e --justdb SuperFoo While that is certainly a solution, it seems like an awful nasty hack. (but thanks for the tip :) I would much prefer to see the tool remain smart. Really, why should it even care if unrelated dependencies are unresolved? It's kind of like getting into other people's business even though they didn't ask you to. (ok, maybe that's not the best analogy, but it's all I can think of) I actually like to think that urpmi getting old unresolved deps flagged is A Good Thing(tm). If you don't care for deps, don't use a package *manager*. I must say I disagree here. He surely do care for deps and that --justdb trick is just like installing a tarball on an rpm system. Leaving the SuperFoo in the rpm database allows to keep track of the installed files and remove them easily. There should be a way to tell urpmi to ignore a certain list of rpm and only deal with what it knows, i.e. what is in the hdlist. -- Quel Qun [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [Cooker] Please don't make urpmi stupid
Quel Qun wrote: On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 21:19, Vox wrote: This time Steve Fox [EMAIL PROTECTED] becomes daring and writes: I would much prefer to see the tool remain smart. Really, why should it even care if unrelated dependencies are unresolved? It's kind of like getting into other people's business even though they didn't ask you to. (ok, maybe that's not the best analogy, but it's all I can think of) I actually like to think that urpmi getting old unresolved deps flagged is A Good Thing(tm). If you don't care for deps, don't use a package *manager*. I must say I disagree here. He surely do care for deps and that --justdb trick is just like installing a tarball on an rpm system. Leaving the SuperFoo in the rpm database allows to keep track of the installed files and remove them easily. There should be a way to tell urpmi to ignore a certain list of rpm and only deal with what it knows, i.e. what is in the hdlist. Does putting the rpm name in /etc/urpmi/skip.list stop the attempted removal? It stops upgrading to packages (such as ignore apache2, I want to stick with apache thanks). If not, perhaps a /etc/urpmi/noremove.list? -- Mark Scott
Re: [Cooker] Please don't make urpmi stupid
Le mar 07/01/2003 à 05:22, Steve Fox a écrit : I would much prefer to see the tool remain smart. Really, why should it even care if unrelated dependencies are unresolved? It's kind of like getting into other people's business even though they didn't ask you to. (ok, maybe that's not the best analogy, but it's all I can think of) Ok, I hope I will not hurt sensibility but urpmi doesn't care if unrelated dependencies are unresolved. *BUT* urpmi when resolving related dependencies (and related should be understanded in the very large part) it may add unresolved dependencies. François.
Re: [Cooker] Please don't make urpmi stupid
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Vox wrote: This time Steve Fox [EMAIL PROTECTED] becomes daring and writes: But in the Real World (tm), there are idiots who package things to fit in their little world. They won't listen to me when I say to use a Requires: java instead of Requires: IBM-JDK. Then use the ugly little hack to go around their ugly little hack, and keep yelling at them...if it's closed source stuff, I bet you are paying them...so...yell at them a lot...if they don't want to fix it, yell at their boss or at their boss' boss...keep going up the lather, it'll happen, specially if it's an expensive product that is not widely deployed in the world. In the real world, though, the stock answer is printf(But it works on Redhat version %d.2 and that's all we support, floor(RH_CURRENT_VERSION - - 2)); - -- |--Another happy Mandrake Club member--| Buchan MilneMechanical Engineer, Network Manager Cellphone * Work+27 82 472 2231 * +27 21 8828820x121 Stellenbosch Automotive Engineering http://www.cae.co.za GPG Key http://ranger.dnsalias.com/bgmilne.asc 1024D/60D204A7 2919 E232 5610 A038 87B1 72D6 AC92 BA50 60D2 04A7 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE+GsnIrJK6UGDSBKcRAmMeAJ9d2iuFyEY5sd4NwLltYW066CewZwCeNX2T BbWFSmpTq2bXHcBIZPOuQ0E= =rU5s -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Cooker] Please don't make urpmi stupid
Le Mardi 7 Janvier 2003 02:35, Olivier Thauvin a écrit : Why urpmi should and could do , ftp and http doesn't support this kind of feature. Maybe you can use a protocol which support... hum, let me purpose, hum... no... Ah yes ! Use rsync !! I reduce a lot my bandwith I switched from ftp to rsync! http://plf.zarb.org/~nanardon is your friend If you know other mirror with anonymous rsync availlable, mail me ! Can you explain a little more, how you can use rsync with urpmi ? these is nothing in the man or --help Emmanuel
Re: [Cooker] Please don't make urpmi stupid
Le Mardi 7 Janvier 2003 13:02, Emmanuel Blindauer a écrit : Can you explain a little more, how you can use rsync with urpmi ? these is nothing in the man or --help Emmanuel Yes: I'll go on the very beautifull and powerfull http://plf.zarb.org/~nanardon, I choose an adress beginning by rsync:// I follow instruction and here an exemple: urpmi.addmedia main rsync://ftp.uninett.no::Mandrake/Mandrake-devel/cooker/i586/Mandrake/RPMS with ../base/hdlist.cz Other mirror are listed ! -- Linux pour Mac !? Enfin le moyen de transformer une pomme en véritable ordinateur. - JL. Olivier Thauvin - http://nanardon.homelinux.org/
Re: [Cooker] Please don't make urpmi stupid
Le Mardi 7 Janvier 2003 14:32, Olivier Thauvin a écrit : Yes: I'll go on the very beautifull and powerfull http://plf.zarb.org/~nanardon, I choose an adress beginning by rsync:// I follow instruction and here an exemple: urpmi.addmedia main rsync://ftp.uninett.no::Mandrake/Mandrake-devel/cooker/i586/Mandrake/RPMS with ../base/hdlist.cz Other mirror are listed ! Oh I didn't notice that some entries didn't begin with ftp:// or http:// :) Emmanuel
Re: [Cooker] Please don't make urpmi stupid
Le mar 07/01/2003 à 04:43, Mark Scott a écrit : Does putting the rpm name in /etc/urpmi/skip.list stop the attempted removal? It stops upgrading to packages (such as ignore apache2, I want to stick with apache thanks). Do you have a specific reason to stay with Apache 1.3? The 1.3 series will move to the Contribs in a couple of days, and the 2.0 will be in Cooker, and in Mandrake 9.1. Jean-Michel
Re: [Cooker] Please don't make urpmi stupid
Emmanuel Blindauer wrote: Le Mardi 7 Janvier 2003 14:32, Olivier Thauvin a écrit : Yes: I'll go on the very beautifull and powerfull http://plf.zarb.org/~nanardon, I choose an adress beginning by rsync:// I follow instruction and here an exemple: urpmi.addmedia main rsync://ftp.uninett.no::Mandrake/Mandrake-devel/cooker/i586/Mandrake/RPMS with ../base/hdlist.cz Other mirror are listed ! Oh I didn't notice that some entries didn't begin with ftp:// or http:// :) Emmanuel And don't foget the file:// prefix for any local mirror folder paths. -- Ron. [Melbourne, Australia] 20030106 updates now available for Fastest Mandrake downloader (English-only) from: http://members.optusnet.com.au/ronst/
Re: [Cooker] Please don't make urpmi stupid
On Tue, 2003-01-07 at 04:18, François Pons wrote: Ok, I hope I will not hurt sensibility but urpmi doesn't care if unrelated dependencies are unresolved. *BUT* urpmi when resolving related dependencies (and related should be understanded in the very large part) it may add unresolved dependencies. That's just the thing. It used to not care about unrelated dependencies. But now it does and it says that it must uninstall SuperFoo in order to continue. If I select Yes it allows my 'urpmi --auto-select' to continue and in fact it *does not* actually uninstall SuperFoo. I started this thread because this indicates to me that in the future urpmi will uninstall it, and that it doesn't currently uninstall it is merely a bug or an uncompleted feature. urpmi seems to be becoming like apt. I tried out apt4rpm once for giggles when I was running RH8 for a while. It wouldn't let me install any software at all because I had this unresolved dependency that was totally unrelated to anything I was installing (it was complaining about the JDK even though nothing I installed used Java). So apt4rpm was completely useless to me and was half the reason I returned to Cooker. -- Steve Fox http://k-lug.org
Re: [Cooker] Please don't make urpmi stupid
On Tue, 2003-01-07 at 01:35, Vox wrote: Then use the ugly little hack to go around their ugly little hack, and keep yelling at them...if it's closed source stuff, I bet you are paying them...so...yell at them a lot...if they don't want to fix it, yell at their boss or at their boss' boss...keep going up the lather, it'll happen, specially if it's an expensive product that is not widely deployed in the world. Granted I can do that, but the point I'm trying to make is that this unresolved dependency has nothing to do with any of the packages I am updating. It just makes sense to me to only worry about things that affect the action you are trying to perform. urpmi doing a 'system check' to make sure the whole world is in order not only has this nasty side effect, but it also probably slows urpmi down. -- Steve Fox http://k-lug.org
Re: [Cooker] Please don't make urpmi stupid
On Monday 06 January 2003 22:06, Steve Fox wrote: I noticed that urpmi now tries to figure out all the unresolved dependencies on your system just like how apt does. I think this is extremely annoying behavior and I wish I was disabled by default. I had not noticed it is doing that now, but if it cannot be turned off it would make me uninstall urpmi asap. Actually, it should not even be the default. For rpmdrake I could live with it, not for a commandline tool. Danny
Re: [Cooker] Please don't make urpmi stupid
On Tuesday 07 January 2003 05:06 am, Steve Fox wrote: Previously I have bragged to Debian users that urpmi is smarter because it only concerns itself with the packages that are being installed/upgraded. I'd like to be able to brag that it doesn't download a couple of megabytes before considering each update. Given that simply bunging gzipped files together works (it all gets unpacked as one file), I'd expect bzip2'ed files to do the same thing. Is it possible to get urpmi to (by default, it would need an override to combat a corrupted file) download only the *differences* between its current and the incoming hdlist file? Cheers; Leon
Re: [Cooker] Please don't make urpmi stupid
Le Mardi 7 Janvier 2003 00:42, Leon Brooks a écrit : On Tuesday 07 January 2003 05:06 am, Steve Fox wrote: Previously I have bragged to Debian users that urpmi is smarter because it only concerns itself with the packages that are being installed/upgraded. I'd like to be able to brag that it doesn't download a couple of megabytes before considering each update. Given that simply bunging gzipped files together works (it all gets unpacked as one file), I'd expect bzip2'ed files to do the same thing. Is it possible to get urpmi to (by default, it would need an override to combat a corrupted file) download only the *differences* between its current and the incoming hdlist file? Cheers; Leon Why urpmi should and could do , ftp and http doesn't support this kind of feature. Maybe you can use a protocol which support... hum, let me purpose, hum... no... Ah yes ! Use rsync !! I reduce a lot my bandwith I switched from ftp to rsync! http://plf.zarb.org/~nanardon is your friend If you know other mirror with anonymous rsync availlable, mail me ! -- Linux pour Mac !? Enfin le moyen de transformer une pomme en véritable ordinateur. - JL. Olivier Thauvin - http://nanardon.homelinux.org/
Re: [Cooker] Please don't make urpmi stupid
This time Steve Fox [EMAIL PROTECTED] becomes daring and writes: I noticed that urpmi now tries to figure out all the unresolved dependencies on your system just like how apt does. I think this is extremely annoying behavior and I wish I was disabled by default. Justification: I have an application, SuperFoo, installed. It has a dependency on IBM's Java Runtime Environment (JRE). I need to use Sun's JRE because IBM hasn't bothered to release one that likes gcc 3.2 yet. And I know from my usage that it works fine with Sun's JRE. SuperFoo is a proprietary application so I don't have the source for it. Having to repackage it every release to remove the stupid hard requirement on IBM-JDK is extremely annoying. So I can install SuperFoo with straight rpm -Uvh --nodeps. Life is good and I can use SuperFoo. Easy to fix: rpm -e --justdb SuperFoo That'll delete SuperFoo from your rpm database without deleting the actual files. That way your deps will work nicely and you have your package installed. Vox -- Think of the Linux community as a niche economy isolated by its beliefs. Kind of like the Amish, except that our religion requires us to use _higher_ technology than everyone else. -- Donald B. Marti Jr. msg85078/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Cooker] Please don't make urpmi stupid
Damn people on this list rock...I have never even heard of that command!! Cool, thanks (and I didn't even need it!!). Regards, Jason *sitting in awe at his ignorance of so many things Linux. Vox wrote: This time Steve Fox [EMAIL PROTECTED] becomes daring and writes: I noticed that urpmi now tries to figure out all the unresolved dependencies on your system just like how apt does. I think this is extremely annoying behavior and I wish I was disabled by default. Justification: I have an application, SuperFoo, installed. It has a dependency on IBM's Java Runtime Environment (JRE). I need to use Sun's JRE because IBM hasn't bothered to release one that likes gcc 3.2 yet. And I know from my usage that it works fine with Sun's JRE. SuperFoo is a proprietary application so I don't have the source for it. Having to repackage it every release to remove the stupid hard requirement on IBM-JDK is extremely annoying. So I can install SuperFoo with straight rpm -Uvh --nodeps. Life is good and I can use SuperFoo. Easy to fix: rpm -e --justdb SuperFoo That'll delete SuperFoo from your rpm database without deleting the actual files. That way your deps will work nicely and you have your package installed. Vox
Re: [Cooker] Please don't make urpmi stupid
Le Mardi 7 Janvier 2003 02:32, vous avez écrit : On Tuesday 07 January 2003 09:35 am, Olivier Thauvin wrote: Le Mardi 7 Janvier 2003 00:42, Leon Brooks a écrit : On Tuesday 07 January 2003 05:06 am, Steve Fox wrote: Previously I have bragged to Debian users that urpmi is smarter because it only concerns itself with the packages that are being installed/upgraded. I'd like to be able to brag that it doesn't download a couple of megabytes before considering each update. Given that simply bunging gzipped files together works (it all gets unpacked as one file), I'd expect bzip2'ed files to do the same thing. Is it possible to get urpmi to (by default, it would need an override to combat a corrupted file) download only the *differences* between its current and the incoming hdlist file? Why urpmi should and could do , ftp and http doesn't support this kind of feature. Yes they do. Try a `wget -c URL' some time. -c continue download for an uncomplete file ! Hum, maybe you really should to take a look to genhdlist... genhdlist extract header from each rpm, copy it in hdlist, and gzip hdlist. synthesis is generate from hdlist by removing some unusefull info. If a rpm is delete on repository, info are delete at begin, middle or end of hdlist. genhdlist can certify new rpm info are put at end of hdlist too. Then we should compare the file block by block, ftp and http don't do that. rsync yes, by creating md5sum from block of file, the client compare if block is same, if yes it append locally block to tempary file, if not it retrieve block from server, and it test next, ect... see --no-whole-file option ! We are not looking for *changes*, we are only looking for *appended* information. You're fully wrong, info are not appended ! Cheers; Leon CU ;) -- Linux pour Mac !? Enfin le moyen de transformer une pomme en véritable ordinateur. - JL. Olivier Thauvin - http://nanardon.homelinux.org/
Re: [Cooker] Please don't make urpmi stupid
On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 19:47, Vox wrote: Easy to fix: rpm -e --justdb SuperFoo That'll delete SuperFoo from your rpm database without deleting the actual files. That way your deps will work nicely and you have your package installed. I would add --notriggers --noscripts (without the obviously), just to keep it from running some weird uninstall tool or something and rendering the install useless. TTFN, Lonnie Borntreger
Re: [Cooker] Please don't make urpmi stupid
On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 19:47, Vox wrote: Easy to fix: rpm -e --justdb SuperFoo While that is certainly a solution, it seems like an awful nasty hack. (but thanks for the tip :) I would much prefer to see the tool remain smart. Really, why should it even care if unrelated dependencies are unresolved? It's kind of like getting into other people's business even though they didn't ask you to. (ok, maybe that's not the best analogy, but it's all I can think of) -- Steve Fox http://k-lug.org
Re: [Cooker] Please don't make urpmi stupid
This time Steve Fox [EMAIL PROTECTED] becomes daring and writes: On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 19:47, Vox wrote: Easy to fix: rpm -e --justdb SuperFoo While that is certainly a solution, it seems like an awful nasty hack. (but thanks for the tip :) I would much prefer to see the tool remain smart. Really, why should it even care if unrelated dependencies are unresolved? It's kind of like getting into other people's business even though they didn't ask you to. (ok, maybe that's not the best analogy, but it's all I can think of) I actually like to think that urpmi getting old unresolved deps flagged is A Good Thing(tm). If you don't care for deps, don't use a package *manager*. But that's just MNSHO. Vox -- Think of the Linux community as a niche economy isolated by its beliefs. Kind of like the Amish, except that our religion requires us to use _higher_ technology than everyone else. -- Donald B. Marti Jr. msg85086/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Cooker] Please don't make urpmi stupid
On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 23:19, Vox wrote: I actually like to think that urpmi getting old unresolved deps flagged is A Good Thing(tm). If you don't care for deps, don't use a package *manager*. I totally appreciate that for packages which are being upgraded/installed. But for stuff that's not being modified, it shouldn't worry about it. The whole all dependencies must always be resolved is nice if you live in your closed little world where smart packagers like Mandrake create proper dependencies. But in the Real World (tm), there are idiots who package things to fit in their little world. They won't listen to me when I say to use a Requires: java instead of Requires: IBM-JDK. -- Steve Fox http://k-lug.org
Re: [Cooker] Please don't make urpmi stupid
This time Steve Fox [EMAIL PROTECTED] becomes daring and writes: On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 23:19, Vox wrote: I actually like to think that urpmi getting old unresolved deps flagged is A Good Thing(tm). If you don't care for deps, don't use a package *manager*. I totally appreciate that for packages which are being upgraded/installed. But for stuff that's not being modified, it shouldn't worry about it. The whole all dependencies must always be resolved is nice if you live in your closed little world where smart packagers like Mandrake create proper dependencies. But in the Real World (tm), there are idiots who package things to fit in their little world. They won't listen to me when I say to use a Requires: java instead of Requires: IBM-JDK. Then use the ugly little hack to go around their ugly little hack, and keep yelling at them...if it's closed source stuff, I bet you are paying them...so...yell at them a lot...if they don't want to fix it, yell at their boss or at their boss' boss...keep going up the lather, it'll happen, specially if it's an expensive product that is not widely deployed in the world. Vox -- Think of the Linux community as a niche economy isolated by its beliefs. Kind of like the Amish, except that our religion requires us to use _higher_ technology than everyone else. -- Donald B. Marti Jr. msg85094/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
