Bug 244954
Summary: | better handling of packages listed in multiple package groups | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Jens Petersen <petersen> |
Component: | yum | Assignee: | Jeremy Katz <katzj> |
Status: | CLOSED DEFERRED | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | low | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | low | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | eng-i18n-bugs, james.antill |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2008-04-24 04:32:54 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: |
Description
Jens Petersen
2007-06-20 02:12:03 UTC
Right now groups are, more or less, just a list of pkgs with some odd attributes to the pkgs. It sounds like the behavior you want is if the user does: yum remove somefonts Then yum will only remove 'somefonts' if nothing else in multiple comps groups requires it? Is that right? If so then it feels fairly confusing to the user b/c yum remove has always removed the pkg(s) asked for and all things that depend on them. Or are you suggesting something more like a way of groups of packages being able to require a package and the group be a hard-boundary for the recursive-removal lookup? (In reply to comment #1) > Right now groups are, more or less, just a list of pkgs with some odd > attributes to the pkgs. Right. > Or are you suggesting something more like a way of groups of packages > being able to require a package and the group be a hard-boundary for > recursive-removal lookup? Yes I was hoping for something like this. I'm not quite sure how we get there without breaking a lot of user expectations, especially the somewhat more advanced users. Then again, I'm unclear about the use case where someone is removing languages/fonts on a system. Is this a common event? In my own experience I tend to just leave them alone, but then again I don't do much with languages or fonts so mine may be a bad example. Is there a use case you're seeing where the existing behavior is annoying? Maybe it is more common for users of pirut. Here are a couple more examples. In FC6 and RHEL5: # yum groupinstall hindi-support bengali-support installs the common packages scim-m17n and scim-bridge-gtk needed for Indic input. Later one then decides to uninstall Bengali support say: # yum groupremove bengali-support then those two packages are removed leaving a system where Hindi can no longer be input. Above yum incantations could also be removed by the equivalent operations in pirut of course. Similarly, if one installs Russian and Ukrainian support and later removes one of them one will lose fonts-KOI8-R, and similarly for Eastern European languages fonts-ISO8859-2 will get removed. I opened this bug to see if something can be done to avoid these kinds of problems in the future. The only real way to fix this is to stop doing groups as we do today and completely rethink the way that package selection and discovery is done :-/ My feeling now is that meta-packages is probably the best answer to this unless we really want to re-architect this completely. Feel free to do with this bug what you want. I actually do want to sit down and rework package selection and discovery. The fact that we now have ~8000 packages of which ~2700 are listed in comps means that we need to look again at how best to do things as what we're doing now worked well when we had ~ 1500 of which ~500 were listed. Is it okay to mark this as deferred b/c it seems like it fairly permanently is deferred? Seems ok to me FWIW. I'll move it then, however I do wonder "why would someone want to remove the bengali-support group"? Is it just the name that would make people think, oh I don't need that so I might as well remove it? The other thing is I do have a patch, which I'll show around after Fed-9 is out that let's people see how much of the groups are installed ... which might lean expectations in a better direction for what groups are. (In reply to comment #10) > I'll move it then, however I do wonder "why would someone want to remove the > bengali-support group"? Well, fair question: it is probably a bit of an edge/corner case: but basically this issue affects any package listed in multiple groups. (Maybe we should just disable that for now, but that is not really practical currently.) But to answer your specific question: there might be a number of reasons - they might find the bengali font(s) covers their own script but they want to use another font, or they just want to get rid of the bengali input maps from the scim menu quickly or some unneeded langpacks. (Anyway we already have a workaround in place for scim.) > The other thing is I do have a patch, which I'll show around after Fed-9 is out > that let's people see how much of the groups are installed ... which might lean > expectations in a better direction for what groups are. For F10 I would like to rethink language support groups a put and mostly just fill them with optional packages - trying to install general fonts and input methods by default. Look forward to you patch anyway, thanks. |