hughsie/zif

remove-with-deps does not work as it should

Opened this issue · 10 comments

mustafa1024m commented

Hi,
I've been trying this and it is FAST, thank you.
One thing that bothers me is not removing dependencies after removing the package that installed them, there is an option in yum "clean_requirements_on_remove" that does this, hope you can implement it, regards

hughsie commented

On 18 December 2012 05:57, mustafaa notifications@github.com wrote:

One thing that bothers me is not removing dependencies after removing the package that installed them, there is an option in yum "clean_requirements_on_remove" that does this, hope you can implement it, regards

Already done, although it's not well tested. Either set
clean_requirements_on_remove in /etc/yum.conf or use "zif
remove-with-deps foo bar baz"

Richard.

elad661 commented

Closing.

mustafa1024m commented

If you mean that setting it in /etc/yum.conf makes "yum" remove dependencies, you are right and I know it.
But if you mean that setting it in /etc/yum.conf makes "zif" remove dependencies, this is not the case here, however, remove-with-deps works but not as good as yum's, I hope you add it as an option in /etc/zif.conf or inherit it from /etc/yum.conf (and after enough testing make it default, nobody loves unneeded orphan packages).

I also retried these tests (originally by Chris):
http://blog.christophersmart.com/2010/11/11/testing-yums-autoremove-orphaned-deps-feature/
and I found:

  1. In the first case (Single package with dependencies), remove-with-deps works fine.
  2. In the second case (Packages with shared dependencies), remove-with-deps tries to (force remove) the dependency, thus removing other packages depending on the dependency (e.g. removing vlc wants to remove libcaca even if it is still used by mplayer, thus it removes mplayer too).
  3. The third case (Removing a package’s dependency) doesn't correctly too.

hope you fix those issues.
Regards

hughsie commented

On 19 December 2012 05:52, Mustafa Muhammad notifications@github.com wrote:

  1. In the second case (Packages with shared dependencies),
    remove-with-deps tries to (force remove) the dependency, thus removing other
    packages depending on the dependency (e.g. removing vlc wants to remove
    libcaca even if it is still used by mplayer, thus it removes mplayer too).

Right, so something like this would expose the bug in "make check":

Install a package that drags in two deps, install another package

that also requires the fist dep, and then remove the first package --

the shared dep should not be removed, nor the second package

config
archinfo=i386
clean_requirements_on_remove=1
history_db=/tmp/history.db

local

remote
vlc;0:0.1.0-1;i386;meta
Requires
libcaca
libvlc
mplayer;0:0.1.0-1;i386;meta
Requires
libcaca
libmplayer
libcaca;0:0.1.0-1;i386;meta
libvlc;0:0.1.0-1;i386;meta
libmplayer;0:0.1.0-1;i386;meta

transaction
install
vlc
install
mplayer

result
vlc;0:0.1.0-1;i386;meta
libcaca;0:0.1.0-1;i386;meta
libvlc;0:0.1.0-1;i386;meta
mplayer;0:0.1.0-1;i386;meta
libmplayer;0:0.1.0-1;i386;meta

----------------------------------------------------------------------

flush

----------------------------------------------------------------------

local
vlc;0:0.1.0-1;i386;meta
Requires
libcaca
libvlc
mplayer;0:0.1.0-1;i386;meta
Requires
libcaca
libmplayer
libcaca;0:0.1.0-1;i386;meta
libvlc;0:0.1.0-1;i386;meta
libmplayer;0:0.1.0-1;i386;meta

transaction
remove
vlc

result
mplayer;0:0.1.0-1;i386;meta
libcaca;0:0.1.0-1;i386;meta
libmplayer;0:0.1.0-1;i386;meta

Richard

hughsie commented

I've merged this into master:

commit 3f218a0
Author: Richard Hughes richard@hughsie.com
Date: Wed Dec 19 13:07:23 2012 +0000

Fix 'zif remove-with-deps' to not remove user-action packages that also require an installed provide

This fixes item 1 and 2 as described in:
http://blog.christophersmart.com/2010/11/11/testing-yums-autoremove-orphaned-deps-feature/

Resolves some of the issues in https://github.com/hughsie/zif/issues/17
mustafa1024m commented

Thanks Richard, do you think you can fix the other item too before F18? This would be great.

hughsie commented

No, it's quite a lot harder. I'd have to refactor the dep-chain logic to be able to save the state before doing each cycle. It's quite a factorial problem. I've got some test code, but it's not working very well.

mustafa1024m commented

Thanks again, I'll keep waiting.

elad661 commented

Oops, didn't mean to close that, sorry

mustafa1024m commented

Any update on the matter? Before F20?