Bug 682994

Summary:	PackageKit refuses updates
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Vic <rhbugs>
Component:	PackageKit	Assignee:	Richard Hughes <rhughes>
Status:	CLOSED CANTFIX	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	high	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	13	CC:	jonathan, rhughes, smparrish
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2011-03-11 15:27:01 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:

Description Vic 2011-03-08 09:06:46 UTC

Description of problem:
Running PackageKit to update a bunch of things failed to update anything.
I left it running in the background while I got on with my work. When I came back to it, it had failed because I was running things it wanted to update. Aparently, a detailed log was available (nut it didn't bother to tell me where).

This is entirely the wrong behaviour. Linux has a well-founded tradition of doing what you tell it to, and getting on with that unless it is physically prevented. I performed the update with yum on the command line, and it was seamless, so we know this update was possible. PackageKit is enforcing its views on users and reducing the update experience to the "stop everything you're doing and leave the PC alone until the update is over"-model of certain other OSes I could mention. This is a Bad Thing(tm).

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
0.6.6-2.fc13

How reproducible:
Unknown

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Run PackageKit
2. Watch it fail
3.
  
Actual results:
A dialogue telling me that PK couldn't update my machine

Expected results:
An updated machine

Additional info:

Comment 1 Richard Hughes 2011-03-09 09:51:04 UTC

I'm guessing there was an xulrunner update in the update set. We can't actually update xulrunner safely when firefox is open. It just can't be done.

Comment 2 Vic 2011-03-09 10:01:11 UTC

"sudo yum update" managed just fine...

Comment 3 Richard Hughes 2011-03-11 09:49:38 UTC

(In reply to comment #2)
> "sudo yum update" managed just fine...

sudo rm -rf /usr/share/xulrunner-1.23
sudo cp /tmp/xulrunner-1.24 /usr/share

That works too. But it's not a sensible thing to do. The mozilla guys have told me that updating xulrunner applications whilst running may lead to data loss.

Richard.

Comment 4 Vic 2011-03-11 10:18:30 UTC

Ah well, now you've made a sarcastic put-down, it's all so much clearer.

> The mozilla guys have told me that updating xulrunner applications whilst 
> running may lead to data loss.

That would sound like the root of the bug. Perhaps that should be files against mozilla.

Nevertheless, there is a clear discrepancy between the core updater method (yum) and the GUI tool that uses it (PK). One works well, the other sits there at a dialogue, refusing to do any of the command it was given (it doesn't even download the packages while it was waiting).

So I guess I need to work out how to get the panel notification to launch yum in an xterm, and remove PackageKit altogether.

Comment 5 Richard Hughes 2011-03-11 15:27:01 UTC

(In reply to comment #4)
> Ah well, now you've made a sarcastic put-down, it's all so much clearer.

Well, sorry if this came across as an insult, but my point was that it's perfectly possible to update without closing xulrunner applications.

> That would sound like the root of the bug. Perhaps that should be files against
> mozilla.

Yup, and they've explicitly said they will not support upgrading xulrunner when xulrunner-using applications are running.
 
> Nevertheless, there is a clear discrepancy between the core updater method
> (yum) and the GUI tool that uses it (PK). One works well, the other sits there
> at a dialogue, refusing to do any of the command it was given (it doesn't even
> download the packages while it was waiting).

Right, we're doing this in a slightly better way for GNOME 3.0, I agree the current process isn't ideal.

> So I guess I need to work out how to get the panel notification to launch yum
> in an xterm, and remove PackageKit altogether.

That's your choice.

Comment 6 Vic 2011-03-11 16:10:50 UTC

> Well, sorry if this came across as an insult

How else could it possibly have come across?

I made a good-faith attempt to report a significant usability issue with a package, and all I got was abuse from the maintainers.

> but my point was that it's perfectly possible to update without closing 
> xulrunner applications.

It certainly is. I've been doing it for years. But PK refuses - in the most brain-dead way I can think of.

> Yup, and they've explicitly said they will not support upgrading xulrunner 
> when xulrunner-using applications are running.

Even if that is the case, a more reasonable approach would be to get as much work done as possible first - like downloading the hundreds of megabytes of updates my system wanted - and then failing temporarily with a meaningful message (telling the user which packages need to be stopped), waiting for the situation to be resolved. Just failing at a nondescript dialogue is appalling.

>> So I guess I need to work out how to get the panel notification to launch yum
>> in an xterm, and remove PackageKit altogether.
> 
> That's your choice.

Having encountered the hostility of this thread, that's no choice at all. If a developer resorts to abuse when a user is trying to assist, it's clearly a package that doesn't want users.