[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: --repackage error?

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Hal Wine wrote:

> James Olin Oden wrote:
> >>
> >>>Hal Wine wrote:
> >>Thanks for the quick response. I realized I forgot to mention this is 
> >>rpm-4.0.4-7x.20 (AS 2.1).
> >>
> > 
> > Ouch.  You really don't want to do rollbacks with AS 2.1's version of rpm.
> > The rollback feature in the rpm in AS 2.1 is just not mature, and has 
> > oodles of problems.  I speak from painfull experience.  Unless, they 
> > actually put out errata for rpm that fixes some of these problems.
> Just to clarify -- we did NOT want to use the RPM rollback feature, just 
> to re-install specific packages that had been created via invoking rpm 
> with the switches "-Uvh --repackage".
There is a problem with doing things this way, and that is you have manage
dependencies yourself.  When rpm installs a set of rpms, it verifies that
given the current state of the rpmdb, and the set of packages that have 
been requested to be installed or upgraded all dependencies are satisfied.
This set of rpms is called an rpm transaction, and when rpm rollsback it
is rollback each transaction that has been installed from the current time
to the rollback goal.  By handling things one transaction at time, in the 
order that the transactions were applied it has a better chance of not 
running into dependency problems during the rollback.  Their are other 
aspects of the rollback feature that make it a fairly correct way of 
achieving the inverse of an install/upgrade/erase, but that is the main

OTH, if you are only updating a few packages and not managing a whole
distribution with its various rpms and dependencies its managable to 
just use the repackage packages directly.  Also, since rpm is rolling
things back in units of transactions, its stratagy pretty much prohibits
updating one group packages, later updating another group of packages
, and then rolling back the first group without the rolling back the
second group (course I consider that a night mare in the making but 
I know a few managers that keep wanting to do just that).  
> As we don't want to move off AS 2.1 mainline, we are staying with the 
> that version of rpm, with whatever errata is in it.
Well, we had to insure a any updating of our systems in the field could
be backed out, and when we were using AS 2.1 the RH folks 
suggested the rollback feature.  It just didn't work, so we went back
to 7.3, and then to 9.0 (we had other reasons [think NTPL]).  
Finally, I got the guts to peer into the
rpm code, and with a lot of help from Jeff I was able to  patch a few 
things to make it work more to my liking.  With
what I know now I probably could have made the AS 2.1 rpm work well
with rollbacks, but we are more likely to move on to fedora than go back
to AS 2.1 (-;

> --Hal
> _______________________________________________
> Rpm-list mailing list
> Rpm-list@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]