opkg | 19 Aug 22:32 2014

Re: Issue 124 in opkg: Upgrade of a package do not upgrade the depends


Comment #42 on issue 124 by paul.betafive: Upgrade of a package do not  
upgrade the depends
http://code.google.com/p/opkg/issues/detail?id=124

It should be that opkg-0.2.x branch I mentioned, should be pushing patches  
tomorrow.

--

-- 
You received this message because this project is configured to send all  
issue notifications to this address.
You may adjust your notification preferences at:
https://code.google.com/hosting/settings

opkg | 19 Aug 22:07 2014

Re: Issue 124 in opkg: Upgrade of a package do not upgrade the depends


Comment #41 on issue 124 by muuscl...@...: Upgrade of a package
do  
not upgrade the depends
http://code.google.com/p/opkg/issues/detail?id=124

OK. What is now the best branch (and git url) to follow all your updates to  
this issue and the issue 141?

--

-- 
You received this message because this project is configured to send all  
issue notifications to this address.
You may adjust your notification preferences at:
https://code.google.com/hosting/settings

opkg | 19 Aug 19:05 2014

Re: Issue 124 in opkg: Upgrade of a package do not upgrade the depends


Comment #40 on issue 124 by paul.betafive: Upgrade of a package do not  
upgrade the depends
http://code.google.com/p/opkg/issues/detail?id=124

I have found that my changes have exposed a couple of other dependency  
resolution bugs. They're not related to the original case here so issue 124  
remains closed.

I've opened issue 141 to track the newly exposed bugs. You may want to  
follow that issue and retry the opkg-0.2.x branch from  
git://git.yoctoproject.org/opkg once I've fixed it.

--

-- 
You received this message because this project is configured to send all  
issue notifications to this address.
You may adjust your notification preferences at:
https://code.google.com/hosting/settings

opkg | 19 Aug 19:04 2014

Issue 141 in opkg: Fix pkg_hash_fetch_best_installation_candidate usage

Status: Accepted
Owner: paul.betafive
Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Critical Milestone-0.3

New issue 141 by paul.betafive: Fix  
pkg_hash_fetch_best_installation_candidate usage
http://code.google.com/p/opkg/issues/detail?id=141

I think I have a fix for some of this but I want to document it anyway.

Looking at opkg v0.2.2:

There seems to be some confusion in the use of this constraint function in  
pkg_hash_fetch_best_installation_candidate. The current usage makes sense  
when we consider pkg_hash_fetch_best_installation_candidate_by_name, where  
the constraint function is pkg_name_constraint_fcn. In this case,  
good_pkg_by_name can only be set if the constraint function passes.  
good_pkg_by_name then takes priority over latest_matching and thus an  
explicit name match is preferred to an implicit name match (where  
apkg->name matches but pkg->name doesn't). However, an implicit match is  
still allowed as latest_matching will be returned if nothing passes the  
constraint function.

The usage of pkg_hash_fetch_best_installation_candidate from  
pkg_hash_fetch_unsatisfied_dependencies and  
pkg_hash_fetch_satisfied_dependencies is different though. They attempt to  
use the constraint function as a hard constraint, but that doesn't work so  
there is another check of this constraint afterwards.

Looking at the prototype for pkg_hash_fetch_best_installation_candidate, it  
(Continue reading)

opkg | 18 Aug 22:04 2014

Re: Issue 124 in opkg: Upgrade of a package do not upgrade the depends


Comment #39 on issue 124 by muuscl...@...: Upgrade of a package
do  
not upgrade the depends
http://code.google.com/p/opkg/issues/detail?id=124

I use the for-0.2.3/fix-124 version from git clone  
https://bitbucket.org/betafive/opkg.git
Also I use the --combine Option.
Tomorrow I will create some test packages, to check again my reported  
problem.

--

-- 
You received this message because this project is configured to send all  
issue notifications to this address.
You may adjust your notification preferences at:
https://code.google.com/hosting/settings

opkg | 18 Aug 19:54 2014

Re: Issue 124 in opkg: Upgrade of a package do not upgrade the depends


Comment #38 on issue 124 by paul.betafive: Upgrade of a package do not  
upgrade the depends
http://code.google.com/p/opkg/issues/detail?id=124

I can't replicate either of those failures. With just A, B and C  
installed, "opkg upgrade A" or "opkg upgrade" works and upgrades all three  
packages. With A, B, C and D installed, "opkg upgrade --combine" or "opkg  
upgrade --combine A D" is needed as the dependencies of A and D must be  
considered together.

Are you using the opkg-0.2.x branch from git://git.yoctoproject.org/opkg or  
are you using some other version?

--

-- 
You received this message because this project is configured to send all  
issue notifications to this address.
You may adjust your notification preferences at:
https://code.google.com/hosting/settings

opkg | 18 Aug 17:02 2014

Re: Issue 124 in opkg: Upgrade of a package do not upgrade the depends


Comment #37 on issue 124 by muuscl...@...: Upgrade of a package
do  
not upgrade the depends
http://code.google.com/p/opkg/issues/detail?id=124

Now I have a new problem. If a package depends on two packages and the  
package and both depended packages should be upgraded, this is not possible  
and the upgrade call will only upgrade one of the depended packages.

e.g.:
The control files of the installed packages looks like this:
Package: A
Version: 1.0
Depends: B (= 1.0), C (= 1.0)

Package: B
Version: 1.0

Package: C
Version: 1.0

The new packages looks like this:
Package: A
Version: 1.1
Depends: B (= 1.1), C (= 1.1)

Package: B
Version: 1.1

(Continue reading)

Andreas Oberritter | 17 Aug 03:16 2014

[PATCH] tests/regress: Add failing test for upgrading auto-installed packages

If upgrading with the --autoremove option enabled, an auto-
installed package which has no more recommendations should
get uninstalled instead of upgraded.

Signed-off-by: Andreas Oberritter <obi@...>
---
I haven't investigated this one further yet.

 tests/regress/18_upgrade_recommends.py | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 tests/regress/Makefile                 |  2 +-
 2 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
 create mode 100755 tests/regress/18_upgrade_recommends.py

diff --git a/tests/regress/18_upgrade_recommends.py b/tests/regress/18_upgrade_recommends.py
new file mode 100755
index 0000000..37e2f13
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/regress/18_upgrade_recommends.py
 <at>  <at>  -0,0 +1,38  <at>  <at> 
+#! /usr/bin/env python
+#
+# Install a package B, which recommends package A. Verify that A installs
+# automatically and gets flagged as auto-installed. Make a newer version
+# of A and B available. Do upgrade with --autoremove option and ensure
+# that A gets uninstalled correctly instead of being upgraded.
+#
+
+import os
+import opk, cfg, opkgcl
+
(Continue reading)

Andreas Oberritter | 17 Aug 03:15 2014

[PATCH v2 1/5] tests/regress/opkgcl.py: Add missing return statement

Signed-off-by: Andreas Oberritter <obi@...>
---
 tests/regress/opkgcl.py | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/tests/regress/opkgcl.py b/tests/regress/opkgcl.py
index 9020aa3..62f41eb 100755
--- a/tests/regress/opkgcl.py
+++ b/tests/regress/opkgcl.py
 <at>  <at>  -22,7 +22,7  <at>  <at>  def update():

 def upgrade(params=None):
 	if params:
-		opkgcl("upgrade {}".format(params))[0]
+		return opkgcl("upgrade {}".format(params))[0]
 	else:
 		return opkgcl("upgrade")[0]

--

-- 
1.9.1

Andreas Oberritter | 15 Aug 21:47 2014

[PATCH 1/5] tests/regress/opkgcl.py: Add missing return statement

Signed-off-by: Andreas Oberritter <obi@...>
---
 tests/regress/opkgcl.py | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/tests/regress/opkgcl.py b/tests/regress/opkgcl.py
index 9020aa3..62f41eb 100755
--- a/tests/regress/opkgcl.py
+++ b/tests/regress/opkgcl.py
 <at>  <at>  -22,7 +22,7  <at>  <at>  def update():

 def upgrade(params=None):
 	if params:
-		opkgcl("upgrade {}".format(params))[0]
+		return opkgcl("upgrade {}".format(params))[0]
 	else:
 		return opkgcl("upgrade")[0]

--

-- 
1.9.1

Paul Barker | 14 Aug 18:06 2014
Picon

v0.2.3 Release Plan

Hi all,

I've applied a couple of patches today to the opkg-0.2.x branch and done a quick
test of the resulting code. Things look to be working and I don't have anything
further outstanding to apply to the opkg-0.2.x branch. I think it's time to make
the v0.2.3 release.

I'm going to make the release in around 2 weeks to give some time for testing.
I'll do some testing myself but I'd really appreciate any testing other people
can do. If you want to help you just need to build from the head of the
opkg-0.2.x branch, try out the usual things you do with opkg and send an email
to say that it works or to report any issues you've found.

If you want to build the opkg-0.2.x branch with OpenEmbedded, take a look at the
'meta-opkg' layer available at https://bitbucket.org/opkg/meta-opkg. The README
file should contain the necessary instructions, assuming you already know how to
add layers to an OpenEmbedded build.

Assuming no-one reports any major issues I'll aim for a release around 28th
August.

As an aside, development on the master branch has stalled a bit recently due to
my workload on other projects. Hopefully this will be a little lighter over the
next month or two and I can get the work towards the v0.3.0 release finished.

Many thanks,

--

-- 
Paul Barker

(Continue reading)


Gmane