* rpm: Recover RPM4 to OE-core
@ 2016-10-06 11:18 Fan Xin
2016-10-06 12:42 ` Joshua Lock
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Fan Xin @ 2016-10-06 11:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: OE-core
Hi
I did some work to figure out whether the smartpm could been built with
python3. However, I found smartpm is dependent with rpm, and OE-core
uses RPM5 which seems has some bug.
http://rpm5.org/community/rpm-users/1098.html
RPM4 could be built with python3. So I think maybe we could recover RPM4
into OE-core which is deleted
(oe-core a6e7a86f1635be9a688c56c25e9d215ea4d2cc84 )
The drop reason is that RPM4 is buggy and no one want to maintain it.
I build RPM4 in OE-core and the build is finished without any bug. And
next I will try to use smartpm to manage RPM4 packages in my local
environment.
By the way, could anyone give more detail info about the bugs in RPM4 or
any suggestion about how to make smartpm built with python3.
Thanks.
Best Regards,
Fan
--
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: rpm: Recover RPM4 to OE-core
2016-10-06 11:18 rpm: Recover RPM4 to OE-core Fan Xin
@ 2016-10-06 12:42 ` Joshua Lock
2016-10-07 3:19 ` Fan Xin
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Joshua Lock @ 2016-10-06 12:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Fan Xin, OE-core
Hi Fan,
On Thu, 2016-10-06 at 20:18 +0900, Fan Xin wrote:
> By the way, could anyone give more detail info about the bugs in RPM
We removed rpm4 early this year[1] because rather than have people be
surprised that it didn't work we decided to drop support for rpm4 until
such time as the project had sufficient resources to properly maintain
it.
There were at least two issues[2][3] reported that indicated rpm4
support was incomplete, though I believe they were mostly related to
Smart's interactions with RPM 4 rather than any issue in RPM 4 itself.
It's also worth pointing out that we're strongly considering dropping
SMART in the next (2.3) development cycle[4].
Do you have a reason for wanting rpm4 beyond the proven Python3
support?
Regards,
Joshua
1. http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2016-March
/118849.html
2. https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8968
3. https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8969
4. https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9675
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: rpm: Recover RPM4 to OE-core
2016-10-06 12:42 ` Joshua Lock
@ 2016-10-07 3:19 ` Fan Xin
2016-10-07 7:20 ` Maciej Borzęcki
2016-10-11 14:05 ` Joshua Lock
0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Fan Xin @ 2016-10-07 3:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joshua Lock, OE-core
Hi Joshua,
Thanks for your info.
Actually, our origin motivation is that we found smartpm is not
maintained any more. We maintain smartpm for our distro at
https://github.com/ubinux/smart2
Then we realize smartpm should switch to python3. In order to solve this
issue, there are four solutions as follows.
[1] smart/RPM5
[2] smart/RPM4
[3] dnf/RPM5
[4] dnf/RPM4
I confirm that RPM5 have some bugs with python3 and I am not familiar
with RPM. So I think the easy way to solve this issue is [2], recover
RPM4 and solve the bugs in smartpm.
>
> It's also worth pointing out that we're strongly considering dropping
> SMART in the next (2.3) development cycle[4].
>
Considering YP would like to drop smart in 2.3, I wonder YP would use
[3]dnf/RPM5 or [4]dnf/RPM4 ?
> Do you have a reason for wanting rpm4 beyond the proven Python3
> support?
No, I just think python3 support issue should be solved. I am fine with
RPM4 or RPM5 or smart or dnf.
Best Regards,
Fan
--
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: rpm: Recover RPM4 to OE-core
2016-10-07 3:19 ` Fan Xin
@ 2016-10-07 7:20 ` Maciej Borzęcki
2016-10-07 9:52 ` Fan Xin
2016-10-07 15:52 ` Richard Purdie
2016-10-11 14:05 ` Joshua Lock
1 sibling, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Maciej Borzęcki @ 2016-10-07 7:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Fan Xin; +Cc: OE-core
On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 5:19 AM, Fan Xin <fan.xin@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> Hi Joshua,
>
> Thanks for your info.
>
> Actually, our origin motivation is that we found smartpm is not maintained
> any more. We maintain smartpm for our distro at
> https://github.com/ubinux/smart2
>
> Then we realize smartpm should switch to python3. In order to solve this
> issue, there are four solutions as follows.
>
> [1] smart/RPM5
> [2] smart/RPM4
> [3] dnf/RPM5
> [4] dnf/RPM4
>
> I confirm that RPM5 have some bugs with python3 and I am not familiar with
> RPM. So I think the easy way to solve this issue is [2], recover RPM4 and
> solve the bugs in smartpm.
>
>>
>> It's also worth pointing out that we're strongly considering dropping
>> SMART in the next (2.3) development cycle[4].
>>
> Considering YP would like to drop smart in 2.3, I wonder YP would use
> [3]dnf/RPM5 or [4]dnf/RPM4 ?
BTW. do you recall the rationale behind abandoning zypper in 1.4? I'm
curious about the motivation for using smart given its Python
dependency.
--
Maciej Borzecki
RnDity
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: rpm: Recover RPM4 to OE-core
2016-10-07 7:20 ` Maciej Borzęcki
@ 2016-10-07 9:52 ` Fan Xin
2016-10-07 10:39 ` Maciej Borzęcki
2016-10-07 15:52 ` Richard Purdie
1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Fan Xin @ 2016-10-07 9:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Maciej Borzęcki; +Cc: OE-core
Hi Maciej,
> BTW. do you recall the rationale behind abandoning zypper in 1.4? I'm
> curious about the motivation for using smart given its Python
> dependency.
>
The reason to drop Zypper is Zypper has too much components and brings
huge potential support issues described in [1].
The maintainer of Yum is actively hostile toward RPM5. This is the
reason why YP do not select YUM.
In [2], Smart is small and compact. And dependency of smart is small
(python and rpm).
The dnf forks from Yum and dependent of hawkey, librepo, libcomps,
libsolv. If according to the same raionale, smart is still the proper
choice.
The relationship is complicated among rpm4, rpm5, dnf, yum, smart and
OE-core. And thing is changing makes it harder to figure out this issue.
Best Regards,
Fan
[1] https://lists.yoctoproject.org/pipermail/yocto/2012-October/010384.html
[2]
http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2015-January/100582.html
--
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: rpm: Recover RPM4 to OE-core
2016-10-07 9:52 ` Fan Xin
@ 2016-10-07 10:39 ` Maciej Borzęcki
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Maciej Borzęcki @ 2016-10-07 10:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Fan Xin; +Cc: OE-core
On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Fan Xin <fan.xin@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> Hi Maciej,
>
>> BTW. do you recall the rationale behind abandoning zypper in 1.4? I'm
>> curious about the motivation for using smart given its Python
>> dependency.
>>
>
> The reason to drop Zypper is Zypper has too much components and brings huge
> potential support issues described in [1].
>
> The maintainer of Yum is actively hostile toward RPM5. This is the reason
> why YP do not select YUM.
>
> In [2], Smart is small and compact. And dependency of smart is small (python
> and rpm).
>
> The dnf forks from Yum and dependent of hawkey, librepo, libcomps, libsolv.
> If according to the same raionale, smart is still the proper choice.
>
> The relationship is complicated among rpm4, rpm5, dnf, yum, smart and
> OE-core. And thing is changing makes it harder to figure out this issue.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Fan
>
> [1] https://lists.yoctoproject.org/pipermail/yocto/2012-October/010384.html
> [2]
> http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2015-January/100582.html
>
Thanks. This has been an interesting read.
--
Maciej Borzecki
RnDity
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: rpm: Recover RPM4 to OE-core
2016-10-07 7:20 ` Maciej Borzęcki
2016-10-07 9:52 ` Fan Xin
@ 2016-10-07 15:52 ` Richard Purdie
1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Richard Purdie @ 2016-10-07 15:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Maciej Borzęcki, Fan Xin; +Cc: OE-core
On Fri, 2016-10-07 at 09:20 +0200, Maciej Borzęcki wrote:
> BTW. do you recall the rationale behind abandoning zypper in 1.4? I'm
> curious about the motivation for using smart given its Python
> dependency.
zypper didn't cross compile easily and had a fairly nasty dependency
chain if I remember rightly including things like boost. We had quite
an extensive patchset against it and libzypp which could never be
upstreamed:
http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky/commit/?id=fcdc8d7f6d10b3abf9
f6a28cff55b1cc89b88bc9
zypper was also hostile to rpm5 if I remember rightly.
Switching to something python based was much lower overhead on the
system compared to C++ and boost.
Cheers,
Richard
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: rpm: Recover RPM4 to OE-core
2016-10-07 3:19 ` Fan Xin
2016-10-07 7:20 ` Maciej Borzęcki
@ 2016-10-11 14:05 ` Joshua Lock
1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Joshua Lock @ 2016-10-11 14:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Fan Xin, OE-core
On Fri, 2016-10-07 at 12:19 +0900, Fan Xin wrote:
> Hi Joshua,
>
> Thanks for your info.
>
> Actually, our origin motivation is that we found smartpm is not
> maintained any more. We maintain smartpm for our distro at
> https://github.com/ubinux/smart2
Indeed, the lack of maintenance for Smart is one of the reasons we're
looking to switch away from it.
> Then we realize smartpm should switch to python3. In order to solve
> this
> issue, there are four solutions as follows.
>
> [1] smart/RPM5
> [2] smart/RPM4
> [3] dnf/RPM5
> [4] dnf/RPM4
>
> I confirm that RPM5 have some bugs with python3 and I am not
> familiar
> with RPM. So I think the easy way to solve this issue is [2],
> recover
> RPM4 and solve the bugs in smartpm.
>
> >
> >
> > It's also worth pointing out that we're strongly considering
> > dropping
> > SMART in the next (2.3) development cycle[4].
> >
> Considering YP would like to drop smart in 2.3, I wonder YP would
> use
> [3]dnf/RPM5 or [4]dnf/RPM4 ?
There are two main reasons we want to switch away from Smart. Firstly
we made a concerted effort to switch to Python3 in the 2.2 cycle —
Smart is one of the few recipes in OE-Core which still pulls in
Python2, maybe the only one we use by default (for RPM using distros).
Secondly Smart is unmaintained and has several known issues related to
its abstraction over package backends.
So far as I'm aware no decision has been made as to what we'll replace
Smart with yet. I believe the first step will be to investigate RPM5 &
dnf.
Regards,
Joshua
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-10-11 14:05 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-10-06 11:18 rpm: Recover RPM4 to OE-core Fan Xin
2016-10-06 12:42 ` Joshua Lock
2016-10-07 3:19 ` Fan Xin
2016-10-07 7:20 ` Maciej Borzęcki
2016-10-07 9:52 ` Fan Xin
2016-10-07 10:39 ` Maciej Borzęcki
2016-10-07 15:52 ` Richard Purdie
2016-10-11 14:05 ` Joshua Lock
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.