El mar, 11-09-2012 a las 11:09 +0200, Rainer Meier escribió: > Hi Carlos, > > I might shed some light on this topic. Although I currently don't have time > for > in-dept explanation/analysis. > > On 06.09.2012 20:08, Carlos R. Pasqualini wrote: > > 2012-09-06 14:43:53, INFO : Installing 'LibreOffice' (libreoffice)... > > So WPKG is going to verify (check, upgrade/downgrade) LibreOffice. Fine. > > > > 2012-09-06 14:43:53, DEBUG : Reading variables from hosts[s] > > 2012-09-06 14:43:53, DEBUG : Reading variables from profile[s] > > 2012-09-06 14:43:53, DEBUG : Reading variables from package > > 'LibreOffice'. > > 2012-09-06 14:43:53, DEBUG : Got variable 'shortversion' of value > > '3.6.1' > > 2012-09-06 14:43:53, DEBUG : Got variable 'PKG_VERSION' of value '% > > shortversion%-0' > > 2012-09-06 14:43:53, DEBUG : Got variable 'PKG_SOURCE' of value '% > > SOFTWARE%\libreoffice\3.6' > > 2012-09-06 14:43:53, DEBUG : Setting variable: 'SOFTWARE=\\capibara > > \repositorio\software'. > > 2012-09-06 14:43:53, DEBUG : Setting variable: 'SOFTWARE=\\capibara > > \repositorio\software'. > > 2012-09-06 14:43:53, DEBUG : Setting variable: 'shortversion=3.6.1'. > > 2012-09-06 14:43:53, DEBUG : Setting variable: 'PKG_VERSION=% > > shortversion%-0'. > > 2012-09-06 14:43:53, DEBUG : Setting variable: 'PKG_SOURCE=%SOFTWARE% > > \libreoffice\3.6'. > > Variables set. > > > > 2012-09-06 14:43:53, DEBUG : Install type: downgrade > > 2012-09-06 14:43:53, DEBUG : Fetched 0 downgrade command(s). > > Here's your issue (very likely). > WPKG performs a DOWNgrade, not an upgrade as you might have expected. Please > note that the decision to do upgrade or downgrade is not depending on the > checks. I think you got that point as I have seen you replying exactly this > to > another mail in the topic. The checks are entirely there to verify whether > the > software is installed properly. > The decision whether upgrade or downgrade is performed depends on the values > of > the 'revision' attribute of a package. > > So if WPKG now claims it's going to perform a downgrade, then this is because > the machine your package is applied to seems to have already a LibreOffice > package installed which seems to have a newer version (in terms of > revision='...' attribute). > > So please verify that your hosts local wpkg.xml in system32 folder does not > contain an entry with LibreOffice where the revision is higher than your > package > to be synchronized. > > Such things often happen if package manipulations in productive repository > happen while clients do run WPKG or the numbering scheme changes. For example > early versions of WPKG only supported digits in the revision attribute. So I > was > used to enter something like "361" in the revision field. Then when changing > to > a different format like "3.6.1" it means a "downgrade" for WPKG since 3.6.1 > is > supposed to be lower version than 361.0.0 (or 350.0.0 previously installed). > > So please compare the revision locally on the host with the one on the server > and you will likely find the cause why WPKG performs a downgrade instead of > an > upgrade. > > > Moreover you will see here that WPKG fetched 0 (in words: zero) downgrade > commands. Likely you did not specify any downgrade commands. > > You might also just replicate the upgrade commands as downgrade commands so > WPKG > would actually perform the same commands during suspected downgrade. So WPKG > would think it's doing a downgrade while performing upgrade commands. The > result > will also be that the checks succeed and finally you are running LibreOffice > 3.6.1 on your machine. > > > Please also note that there were some issues regarding complex variable > definitions recently. I recommend to use latest WPKG version from SVN: > > <http://wpkg.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/wpkg/wpkg/stable/src/main/resources/wpkg/> > > > > 2012-09-06 14:43:53, ERROR : Could not process (downgrade) > > Finally the checks fail since no changes were performed to the system > (performed > downgrade, no commands, no system change, checks fail). > > > HTH, > Rainer
Hi Rainer Your explanation makes a lot of sense to me, Thanks! Actually, in the first e-mail, i was asking for how to get even more info than 0xFF, because i was not understanding why i was having a 'downgrade'. Here is my libreoffice.xml file: ---------------------------------------------- <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <packages xmlns:xsi="http://www.wpkg.org/packages" xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../xsd/packages.xsd" > <package id="libreoffice" name="LibreOffice" revision="%PKG_VERSION%" reboot="false" priority="10"> <variable name="shortversion" value="3.6.1" /> <variable name="PKG_VERSION" value="%shortversion %-0" /> <variable name="PKG_SOURCE" value="%SOFTWARE% \libreoffice\3.6" /> <depends package-id="java7" /> <check type="uninstall" condition="versiongreaterorequal" path="LibreOffice .+" value="%shortversion%" /> <install cmd='msiexec /qn /i "%PKG_SOURCE%\LibO_%shortversion% _Win_x86_install_multi.msi" ALLUSERS=1 CREATEDESKTOPLINK=1 REGISTER_ALL_MSO_TYPES=0 ISCHECKFORPRODUCTUPDATE=0 REGISTER_NO_MSO_TYPES=1' /> <upgrade include="install" /> <remove cmd='msiexec /qn /x "%PKG_SOURCE%\LibO_%shortversion% _Win_x86_install_multi.msi" ' /> </package> </packages> ---------------------------------------------- Is the same i was using on a previous version of LibO, just updating the version (and the 3.6 directory) (at least in theory). As you can see, i use revision="%PKG_VERSION%", PKG_VERSION = "%shortversion%-0" and shortversion="3.6.1" so the revision should be '3.6.1-0' vs '3.5.x-y'; that's why i don't understand why i'm having a downgrade. i have updated today this file, to include a downgrade command (include install) as you have suggested. reviewing the logs of the affected computers, i found something (i think): Installed revision '%shortversion%-0'|Available revision: '3.6.1-0' as i can understand, it is not expanding %shortversion% to 3.5.4. It makes me think that maybe i was having a wrong ['] vs. ["] in the variable definitions on an earlier version of this file, and wpkg is matching '%shorversion%' literally and not the content of the variable %shortversion%. ¿can this be the source of the trouble? is the only thing i can find that would make WPKG to think about a downgrade instead of an upgrade. Best Regards -- Carlos Pasqualini Administración de Redes Facultad de Ciencias de la Alimentación Universidad Nacional de Entre Ríos 0345-423-1440 int 399 --------------------------------------------------------------------- | Porque así se facilita el seguimiento del tema tratado. | | > ¿Por qué? | | > > Es preferible escribir debajo del párrafo al que se responde. | | > > > ¿Entonces qué se hace? | | > > > > No. | | > > > > > ¿Es bueno hacer "top-posting"? | | +info http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-posting | --------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- wpkg-users mailing list archives >> http://lists.wpkg.org/pipermail/wpkg-users/ _______________________________________________ wpkg-users mailing list wpkg-users@lists.wpkg.org http://lists.wpkg.org/mailman/listinfo/wpkg-users