Bug 496584
| Summary: | [RFE] RhtsRequires is Not Installing all Requires | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Retired] Beaker | Reporter: | Qian Cai <qcai> |
| Component: | beah | Assignee: | beaker-dev-list |
| Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | low | ||
| Version: | 0.5 | CC: | azelinka, bpeck, dcallagh, ebaak, jhutar, mcsontos, phan, rjoost, tools-bugs |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | FutureFeature |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | SimpleHarness | ||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Enhancement | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2017-01-26 14:59:40 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: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | 577796 | ||
| Bug Blocks: | 545868 | ||
|
Description
Qian Cai
2009-04-20 08:02:49 UTC
Ahh. interesting. This has showed a serious problem in how were doing this. RhtsRequires puts requirements in the rpm package but Requires just tells anaconda that we want to install these packages without putting the requirements in the rpm itself. The reason we don't put the Requires as dependancies in the rpm itself is you can have conflicting requirements between releases. Its ok to ask anaconda for both packages because we have --ignore-missing in %packages. We don't want to have to create test rpms for every release. That would be a nightmare. What I think we may need to do is create our own packaging format for tests. Additional info would be in the tests about what requirements they need for each release. Any other ideas? For a quick workaround you can put the above Requires from rh-tests-super-smack in /kernel/errata/4.7.z as RhtsRequires. (In reply to comment #1) > Ahh. interesting. This has showed a serious problem in how were doing this. > > RhtsRequires puts requirements in the rpm package but Requires just tells > anaconda that we want to install these packages without putting the > requirements in the rpm itself. > > The reason we don't put the Requires as dependancies in the rpm itself is you > can have conflicting requirements between releases. Its ok to ask anaconda for > both packages because we have --ignore-missing in %packages. > > We don't want to have to create test rpms for every release. That would be a > nightmare. What I think we may need to do is create our own packaging format > for tests. Additional info would be in the tests about what requirements they > need for each release. > OK. > Any other ideas? For a quick workaround you can put the above Requires from > rh-tests-super-smack in /kernel/errata/4.7.z as RhtsRequires. Yes, that is how we currently workaround this issue, but dumping Requires to the several places is hard to maintain. What I would like is like the following example, Test A -- Requires: a b c Test B -- Requires: d e rhtsRequires: Test A When run Test B, it should ideally merge the Requires from rhtsRequires automatically, so we end up with, Requires: a b c d e Since if we are putting other tests in rhtsRequires, it makes sense to pull all requires from there first. Notice: Legacy RHTS is soon to be retired and replaced by Beaker. As part of this migration process all RHTS bugs need to be re-verified against a Beaker instance by the cut-off date 5pm Monday April 12th UTC-4. Please confirm this bug is still relevant to Beaker by re-verifying it against the stage deployment of Beaker https://beaker-stage.app.eng.bos.redhat.com. To keep this bug open please comment on it If it has not received a comment by that date the bug will be closed/wontfix. After the cutoff date all commented bugs will be moved to the Beaker product. thank you This is still the case for Beaker We will need to re-implement dependencies on harness side: see also Bug 577796. Any update? Sorry for late answer. So far no plan to start on this. This will be likely a part of future major update (rewrite?). Bulk reassignment of issues as Bill has moved to another team. Reverting to NEW to more accurately reflect current status. *** Bug 1169321 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** I have no interest in this anymore. |