Attempting to install python-twisted-core on FC6 with python-twisted already installed fails and results in many conflicts messages. python-twisted-core should obsolte python-twisted. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ProvidesObsoletes
These are two separate packages. There will be a python-twisted umbrella package when all the packages that it should pull in are in extras. For now, the situation is fine as is. In any case, python-twisted-core does not provide what is in the current python-twisted and should not obsolete it.
This is unacceptable for Fedora 6 IMO. There are lots of physical file conflicts in the packages. More than 2000 files conflict without an explicit "Conflicts" or "Obsoletes". Please consider packaging this properly as confusing conflicts during installation are among the worst things that can happen to our users. python-twisted-names - 0.3.0-3.fc6.i386 => Package conflicts with: python-twisted - 1.3.0-7.fc6.i386 python-twisted-web - 0.6.0-4.fc6.i386 => Package conflicts with: python-twisted - 1.3.0-7.fc6.i386 python-twisted-conch - 0.7.0-4.fc6.i386 => Package conflicts with: python-twisted - 1.3.0-7.fc6.i386 python-twisted - 1.3.0-7.fc6.i386 => Package conflicts with: python-twisted-names - 0.3.0-3.fc6.i386 => Package conflicts with: python-twisted-conch - 0.7.0-4.fc6.i386 => Package conflicts with: python-twisted-web - 0.6.0-4.fc6.i386 => Package conflicts with: python-twisted-core - 2.4.0-6.fc6.i386 python-twisted-core - 2.4.0-6.fc6.i386 => Package conflicts with: python-twisted - 1.3.0-7.fc6.i386
Please read https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208169, starting from comment 19, were this was discussed. Can you tell me exactly what the end user problem is ? In comment 1, it was an explicit attempt at doing something wrong - installing python-twisted-core when python-twisted is already installed. I can't conflict: or obsolete: python-twisted, since there will be a new umbrella package as soon as all the other packages are siphoned through extras.
Thomas, perhaps you could create the review ticket for the new python-twisted umbrella package, so that the relationship between the old and new packages is visible to everyone? There should be nothing in the repos that depends on python-twisted-* (apart from other python-twisted-* packages) until the new python-twisted package appears, at which point there will be a clean upgrade path. That's why I'm holding off on a upgrade for bittorrent (which will require python-twisted-{core,web}) until then.
The linked bug 208169 does not comment on any conflicts. The problem is the premature release of an incomplete set of *conflicting* packages into a stable branch of Fedora. It is not possible to install the packages in parallel. The availability of non-obvious file conflicts can result in further conflicts in new packages which are added to the distribution, because it is not obvious that the incomplete set of new python-twisted-* packages conflicts with the old python-twisted that is also available for FC-5 and older. It is, for instance, impossible to install python-twisted-web and then install any package that has a dependency on python-twisted. You have published packages that MUST NOT be used by users or packagers. Instead of using "development" as the playing ground, the breakage was added also to FC-6.
I am not sure the strong wording you use is helping anyone understand the problem better. This upgrade is a hard thing to pull through extras because one package was split up into ten, and they each take their own time to get reviewed. As is being explained in other comments, nothing will be pulling in these separate packages until the whole set is in, so unless a user specifically requests to get a conflicting set of updates, he won't get a conflicting set. So unless I am missing something I do not yet see a real "breakage". This is merely a temporary phase that will be resolved as soon as the next three packages are approved, at which point we can finish the umbrella package. If you think this is not OK, please explain why, and please provide a possible solution that makes sense. I am merely trying to follow the collective advice of all reviewers and commenters.
I think Michael's point is that the non-devel branches should not have been built until the whole package set was ready, thus preventing the opportunity for people using existing stable releases to shoot themselves in the foot. Anyway, now that the problem is already here, we just need to push along with the submission and review of the remaining packages so that the problem can be fixed.
What remaining packages need to be reviewed?? There is no tracker bug at all for this. I tried making a tracker bug here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=171543 Which only shows two packages that are not closed, and both of those packages have been reviewed. So what is there left to do?!?! Why is there no tracker bug? Why is there no upgrade to python-twisted umbrella bug?
(In reply to comment #8) > What remaining packages need to be reviewed?? There is no tracker bug at all > for this. I tried making a tracker bug here: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=171543 > > Which only shows two packages that are not closed, and both of those packages > have been reviewed. So what is there left to do?!?! > > Why is there no tracker bug? Why is there no upgrade to python-twisted umbrella > bug? Bug #171543 *is* that bug, but submissions for python-twisted-lore, python-twisted-mail, python-twisted-news, and python-twisted haven't been made yet (I believe Thomas has the packages ready so there's nothing really holidng up these submissions) and hence dependencies on them haven't been added to Bug #171543.
I see, well I feel party responsible for some of the packages being in FC6 because I needed core and web. Personally I don't see that much of a problem with it, but perhaps a Conflicts could easily be added to the specs until all the twisted packages are complete.
Re: comment 6 It is a fact that the packages conflict without any explicit "Conflicts" tag in them. It was wrong to close this ticket because the conflict is not resolved yet. Without in-depth knowledge that this set of packages is incomplete and must not be used yet, both users and packagers can run into the conflicts during package installation, during preparation of a package upgrade, and during inclusion of a new package. Even a simple full installation of all python packages will break in the same way. And this in a stable Fedora release! It was suggested on 23 May 2006 already that an upgrade would preferably add all packages at once. Re: comment 7 Correct. Devel ought to be the first target and testbed for [partial] upgrades like this.
(In reply to comment #6) > If you think this is not OK, please explain why, and please provide a possible > solution that makes sense. I am merely trying to follow the collective advice > of all reviewers and commenters. This is probably how I would have handled it. First make all package spec files and file them in bugzilla all at the same time. Then make a bug for the umbrella package and have the others block this one. Then make another bug for porting over to FC6 and block it against the umbrella bug. You can then close out each of the sub package bugs as they are reviewed and approved in devel. Then once they are all approved in devel you can do the umbrealla bug and get that approved and close that bug. Then finally you work on the FC6 bug and do it all at once and close that. That's just how I would have done it. There probably wont be much problems with the packages in FC6 as long as we add a Conflicts line in the spec files until the umbrella package is in. Some users might have a problem installing two packages (one that depends on the old twisted and one that depends on the new twisted). I plan on building poker-network on FC6 very soon now which depends on the new twisted so this is a possibility. Again this is only temporary, but the quicker the other packages get submitted and reviewed the better IMO.
(In reply to comment #12) > There probably wont be much problems with the packages in FC6 as long as we add > a Conflicts line in the spec files until the umbrella package is in. There is no need to do this as Michael pointed out in Comment #11; the packages already conflict. It would be effort better spent on getting the remaining packages through. > Some users > might have a problem installing two packages (one that depends on the old > twisted and one that depends on the new twisted). I plan on building > poker-network on FC6 very soon now which depends on the new twisted so this is a > possibility. Please don't do this until the new python-twisted package is available. Currently there is no reason for anyone to try installing the new python-twisted-* packages and hence no reason why anyone would see the current conflict. Please don't exacerbate the problem by building a package requiring any of the new packages until they are all ready. > Again this is only temporary, but the quicker the other packages get submitted > and reviewed the better IMO. Agreed.
(In reply to comment #13) > (In reply to comment #12) > > Some users > > might have a problem installing two packages (one that depends on the old > > twisted and one that depends on the new twisted). I plan on building > > poker-network on FC6 very soon now which depends on the new twisted so this is a > > possibility. > > Please don't do this until the new python-twisted package is available. > Currently there is no reason for anyone to try installing the new > python-twisted-* packages and hence no reason why anyone would see the current > conflict. Please don't exacerbate the problem by building a package requiring > any of the new packages until they are all ready. Okay, Ive reblocked poker-network against bug #171543
I understand Michael's point, my personal preference was also to first push only to -devel, but as you can see in the other bug, I did a poll, I had 5 replies, and 3 are for pushing to FC-6 and two against. As I said before, I follow the directions my commenters/reviewers give me because that is the only way to get things done in Extras. Likewise, I am trying to figure out if there is an actual practical non-theoretical problem that users run into. wrt. comment 11 from Michael: """Even a simple full installation of all python packages will break in the same way. And this in a stable Fedora release!""" With all due respect, this does not qualify as a practical problem. Does anyone actually do a full installation of all python packages ? If so, how and why ? So I am open to suggestions on practical things that could be done to solve practical problems. Wrt. to some other comments that all specs should have been filed as once, in practice that doesn't work very well. If you look at how long some of these bugs have been open and how long it can take to get reviews done and packages approved, you will note that various changes to the packages involved that need to be repeated in all 10 (!) of them, you can see why it is wasting a lot of time to submit a spec that cannot be approved yet because dependencies are not in yet.
Ohh what a (hard to follow) mess. I talked to spot; the packaging committee will put http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Conflicts high on its todo list for the next meeting and hopefully will approve it or a slight variant. That should avoid that we get more stupid conflicts into the repo. Can the parties involved into the python-twisted stuff please try to sort the mess out so it works painlessly for our users again as soon as possible?
All remaining packages are submitted. FWIW, is there any real user for which it doesn't work painlessly ? I have the feeling a big deal is being made out of this while in reality there is only one package using python-twisted in extras, and a user would have to do something pretty unusual to actually be in a problem. Compared to all the other ways that a yum upgrade can be broken (one unsigned package blocks every security update) this one seems like it doesn't warrant the drama.
> while in reality there is only one > package using python-twisted in extras, Count again. There are more. And a few wait for the new python-twisted-* packages already. > a big deal is being made out of this Not beyond reopening this bug report and requesting that conflicts like this ought to be avoided.
In reply to comment #18, I get: repoquery -qa --whatrequires python-twisted Excluding Packages in global exclude list Finished python-cvstoys-0:1.0.10-5.fc6.noarch buildbot-0:0.7.4-2.fc6.noarch pyicq-t-0:0.8-1.fc6.noarch pyicq-t-0:0.7-5.fc6.noarch flumotion-0:0.2.1-3.fc6.i386 So at least all of these will need to be rebuilt with python-twisted-core and whatever new subpackage they need.
(In reply to comment #19) > In reply to comment #18, I get: > repoquery -qa --whatrequires python-twisted > Excluding Packages in global exclude list > Finished > python-cvstoys-0:1.0.10-5.fc6.noarch > buildbot-0:0.7.4-2.fc6.noarch > pyicq-t-0:0.8-1.fc6.noarch > pyicq-t-0:0.7-5.fc6.noarch > flumotion-0:0.2.1-3.fc6.i386 > > So at least all of these will need to be rebuilt with python-twisted-core and > whatever new subpackage they need. In the fullness of time, yes. Until that happens, their dependency on python-twisted will pull in the new umbrella package (what that's finally done) and that will pull in all of the subpackages, which should make for a smooth transition for users of those packages.
Closing bug, if there is any reason why this bug should not be closed, please re-open explaining why or add a dependency.