Re: setup: problems with local install

[Ken Brown <kbrown@cornell.edu>]

On 3/14/2018 12:07 PM, Jon Turney wrote:
> On 12/03/2018 13:22, Ken Brown wrote:
>> On 3/8/2018 4:59 PM, Ken Brown wrote:
>>> On 3/8/2018 10:59 AM, Ken Brown wrote:
>>>> On 3/7/2018 4:52 PM, Ken Brown wrote:
>>>>> On 3/6/2018 1:47 PM, Jon Turney wrote:
>>>>>> On 06/03/2018 15:18, Jon Turney wrote:
>>>>>>> So yeah, I guess putting some complexity back in accessible() 
>>>>>>> would work, or perhaps the attached?  (This doesn't do the right 
>>>>>>> thing for a few packages, for reasons I'm still looking into...)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To be specific it was doing the wrong thing for those few packages 
>>>>>> with no source
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   /* scan for local copies of package */
>>>>>>> -void
>>>>>>> +bool
>>>>>>>   packagemeta::scan (const packageversion &pkg, bool mirror_mode)
>>>>>>>   {
>>>>>>> -  /* Already have something */
>>>>>>> +  /* empty version */
>>>>>>>     if (!pkg)
>>>>>>> -    return;
>>>>>>> +    return true;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, this needs to be 'return false', as the empty version is 
>>>>>> always inaccessible, to get the same behaviour as before.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've found another problem with local installs: If a package needs 
>>>>> upgrading, then the chooser will offer the upgraded version for 
>>>>> install, even if there's no archive available.  As a result, the 
>>>>> current version will get uninstalled, and then setup will discover 
>>>>> that it doesn't have the archive to install the new version.
> 
> Thanks very much for finding this.
> 
>>>>> The problem occurs because packagedb::defaultTrust() is called 
>>>>> after ScanDownloadedFiles() has already done its work.  
>>>>> solution.update() and solution.trans2db() are called, and 
>>>>> pkg->desired is set equal to an inaccessible version pv (which has 
>>>>> been previously removed from pkg->versions).
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess trans2db() should check that pv is in pkg->versions before 
>>>>> acting on an install transaction for pv.  And then we also have to 
>>>>> make sure to ignore the erase transaction for the current version 
>>>>> of pkg.
>>>>>
>>>>> Alternatively, can we just remove an inaccessible packageversion 
>>>>> from the libsolv pool, or at at least just tell libsolv that we 
>>>>> don't want to install it?
> 
> Attached is an attempt at that.
> 
> I think this is preferable, if it works correctly, as I think avoiding 
> solutions with these unavailable versions is better than trying to 
> massage the solution afterwards.

I agree, and it does seem to work correctly.  But there's one other case 
that it doesn't cover:  Suppose there's no archive for the installed 
version.  Even with your patch, the user can still choose 'Reinstall', 
which will fail.  The first of the patches from my previous email fixes 
this case.

Ken