From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 112051 invoked by alias); 23 Oct 2017 11:38:43 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Sender: cygwin-apps-owner@cygwin.com List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com Received: (qmail 112039 invoked by uid 89); 23 Oct 2017 11:38:42 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:1104, B, b, Hx-spam-relays-external:ESMTPA X-HELO: out4-smtp.messagingengine.com Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (HELO out4-smtp.messagingengine.com) (66.111.4.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 11:38:40 +0000 Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6030020D96 for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 07:38:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from frontend2 ([10.202.2.161]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 23 Oct 2017 07:38:39 -0400 X-ME-Sender: Received: from [192.168.1.102] (host86-179-113-201.range86-179.btcentralplus.com [86.179.113.201]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id F073B2484E for ; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 07:38:38 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [setup topic/libsolv] Does "obsoletes:" work? To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com References: <8344e55f-2036-187b-7cb9-819d2cdb0e99@cornell.edu> <2ec4937d-5932-a47a-964d-b3fc8c030da3@cornell.edu> From: Jon Turney Message-ID: Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 11:38:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2ec4937d-5932-a47a-964d-b3fc8c030da3@cornell.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SW-Source: 2017-10/txt/msg00100.txt.bz2 On 21/10/2017 21:18, Ken Brown wrote: > On 10/20/2017 6:24 PM, Ken Brown wrote: >> Have you ever tested the "obsoletes:" feature of setup/libsolv?  I >> tried adding an "obsoletes:" line to setup.ini, and it didn't seem to >> have any effect. It seems I tested it back in May, so it might well have broken since :) Here's a very small test repo I've been using for some tests: http://www.dronecode.org.uk/cygwin/test/x86_64/ But yes, your patch looks like it's needed for it to work correctly... > It turns out that it *is* working (after a minor fix, attached), but not > always as I expect.  Suppose A requires B and C obsoletes B.  Then the > "obsoletes" statement appears to have no effect.  If I remove the > dependence of A on B, then setup does propose uninstalling B and > installing C. > > I guess the issue is that libsolv interprets "C obsoletes B" as > "uninstall B and install C", and it won't uninstall B while something > requires it. The 'targeted' vs. 'untargeted' distinction is relevant here? Perhaps we are doing the wrong one?