Bug 16530
| Summary: | RFE:installer to handle mising comps/hdlist entries gracefully | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Retired] Red Hat Linux | Reporter: | Pekka Savola <pekkas> | ||||
| Component: | anaconda | Assignee: | Erik Troan <ewt> | ||||
| Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | |||||
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |||||
| Priority: | medium | ||||||
| Version: | 7.1 | CC: | aleksey | ||||
| Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | FutureFeature | ||||
| Target Release: | --- | ||||||
| Hardware: | i386 | ||||||
| OS: | Linux | ||||||
| Whiteboard: | |||||||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Enhancement | |||||
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||
| Last Closed: | 2001-01-09 20:18:26 UTC | Type: | --- | ||||
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | ||||
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |||||
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |||||
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |||||
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |||||
| Embargoed: | |||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||
|
Description
Pekka Savola
2000-08-18 13:10:16 UTC
Added to feature request list. For the record, rudimentary functionality was in RHL 6.0 *** Bug 9005 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Moving to RESOVLED - DEFERRED from CLOSED - DEFERRED Moving to RESOVLED - DEFERRED from CLOSED - DEFERRED Implemented in internal builds. Brock, please test. verified fix ... a "missing package" dialog does occur that allows the user to know they have bad or incomplete media ... (if for example a rpm package is missing) ... no traceback happens ... Does this only notify the user, thus avoiding a traceback? This is good, but still a suboptimal solution. For network installs (ie: media where the contents may change or become unavailable due to connection problems etc.) there really should be a retry and/or skip option. That way the ridiculously long (dozens of minutes, if not hours?) network timeout could be reduced too. The missing dialog is as far as we're going to go on this one. Packages missing frmo the comps file means something is wrong, and it needs to be fixed rather then just ignored by the install. This is true. But also consider: You have package 'aaaa' missing. The dialog appears, you fix it. Reboot, try again. Then you notice you have package 'bbbb' missing. The dialog appears, you fix it. Ad infinitum. [...] This is how it has to be done now. Dialog is a good way to report the error more gracefully. *But* if at all possible, make it so that all packages are scanned for possible problems so that you can fix everything in one sitting. _That_ is what 'Skip' option was very good for. Actually skipping something because it was missing would definitely be a braindead idea, especially if it's a vital component. How about contributing a script to check for this on another system? Hmm. I guess it should do something like
- check that all RPMs in comps exist in the tree
* I can't think of anything but something ugly like
if "`rpm -qp xxxnameincomps*.rpm --queryformat "%{name}`" = xxxnameincomps
outright
* as a side effect, this would mostly check the integrity of those files (I've one-byte corruptions sometimes)
- Check that all files mentioned in hdlist are there and rpm --checksig them for errors and package corruptions
- I guess it's allowed to have multiple versions of the same package (newest always picked) in the same dir.
Any other cases to check?
That looks right. The easiest way to do this is to use python, which will let you use the comps.py in anaconda-runtime to get the list of packages in the comps file, and use the rpm python module to read the hdlist. I'm not picky though. Created attachment 7484 [details]
python script to check these things
added to anaconda-runtime package -- thanks! |