2:03 p.m.
Using yumex use a lot of memory but it seems that yumex does not
restitute it. You use yumex, you look for something so first in your
default repos and after you try in other repos but at each time you
click on refresh on the repos tab yumex does not restitute the memory.
If i try this 4 or 5 times yumex saturate my memory and the only
possibility is to close yumex and reopen it.
Someone could confirm this and/or explain me why ?
Thanks
--
Eric Tanguy | Nantes, France
<eric.tanguy(a)univ-nantes.fr>
Key : A4B8368F | Key Server : subkeys.pgp.net
Fedora Core release 4 (Stentz) sur athlon kernel 2.6.12-1.1456_FC4
2:54 p.m.
On Wed, 2005-09-28 at 21:03 +0200, Eric Tanguy wrote:
Using yumex use a lot of memory but it seems that yumex does not
restitute it. You use yumex, you look for something so first in your
default repos and after you try in other repos but at each time you
click on refresh on the repos tab yumex does not restitute the memory.
If i try this 4 or 5 times yumex saturate my memory and the only
possibility is to close yumex and reopen it.
Someone could confirm this and/or explain me why ?
Thanks
I've noticed that too.
3:41 p.m.
--- "Michael A. Peters" <mpeters(a)mac.com> wrote:
On Wed, 2005-09-28 at 21:03 +0200, Eric Tanguy
wrote:
> Using yumex use a lot of memory but it seems that
yumex does not
> restitute it. You use yumex, you look for
something so first in your
> default repos and after you try in other repos but
at each time you
> click on refresh on the repos tab yumex does not
restitute the memory.
> If i try this 4 or 5 times yumex saturate my
memory and the only
> possibility is to close yumex and reopen it.
> Someone could confirm this and/or explain me why ?
> Thanks
I've noticed that too.
Although I'm still learing it and still using yumex
for mostly, smartpm seems like a better package
manager.
It's faster and claims to resolve packages better than
yum.
http://www.smartpm.org/
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
3:59 p.m.
Le mercredi 28 septembre 2005 à 13:41 -0700, Josh Coffman a écrit :
--- "Michael A. Peters" <mpeters(a)mac.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-09-28 at 21:03 +0200, Eric Tanguy
> wrote:
> > Using yumex use a lot of memory but it seems that
> yumex does not
> > restitute it. You use yumex, you look for
> something so first in your
> > default repos and after you try in other repos but
> at each time you
> > click on refresh on the repos tab yumex does not
> restitute the memory.
> > If i try this 4 or 5 times yumex saturate my
> memory and the only
> > possibility is to close yumex and reopen it.
> > Someone could confirm this and/or explain me why ?
> > Thanks
>
> I've noticed that too.
>
Although I'm still learing it and still using yumex
for mostly, smartpm seems like a better package
manager.
It's faster and claims to resolve packages better than
yum.
http://www.smartpm.org/
Maybe it's true but yum seems to be very good and i prefer to keep the
"official" fedora way. I just want yumex to be improved.
--
Eric Tanguy | Nantes, France
<eric.tanguy(a)univ-nantes.fr>
Key : A4B8368F | Key Server : subkeys.pgp.net
Fedora Core release 4 (Stentz) sur athlon kernel 2.6.12-1.1456_FC4
5:10 p.m.
On Wed, 2005-09-28 at 13:41 -0700, Josh Coffman wrote:
> Although I'm still learing it and still using yumex
> for mostly, smartpm seems like a better package
> manager.
> It's faster and claims to resolve packages better than
> yum.
> http://www.smartpm.org/
smartrpm is very good - I like it.
Last time I used it, though - it had some interface issues.
11:03 a.m.
Josh Coffman wrote:
--- "Michael A. Peters" <mpeters(a)mac.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 2005-09-28 at 21:03 +0200, Eric Tanguy
>wrote:
>
>>Using yumex use a lot of memory but it seems that
>
>yumex does not
>
>>restitute it. You use yumex, you look for
>
>something so first in your
>
>>default repos and after you try in other repos but
>
>at each time you
>
>>click on refresh on the repos tab yumex does not
>
>restitute the memory.
>
>>If i try this 4 or 5 times yumex saturate my
>
>memory and the only
>
>>possibility is to close yumex and reopen it.
>>Someone could confirm this and/or explain me why ?
>>Thanks
>
>I've noticed that too.
>
Although I'm still learing it and still using yumex
for mostly, smartpm seems like a better package
manager.
It's faster and claims to resolve packages better than
yum.
http://www.smartpm.org/
I would try smartpm but there is no FC4 version. I guess I will stick
with Yumex. BTW, is there a bug filed on the memory issue?
--
Robin Laing
10:41 a.m.
國產 Wei-Yee Chan (Made in Chinar) wrote:
Actually, the FC4 version can be downloaded from the Dries
Repository.
Robin Laing wrote:
>I would try smartpm but there is no FC4 version. I guess I will stick
>with Yumex. BTW, is there a bug filed on the memory issue?
>
>
If you had seen my other post, I was downloading it as I typed it. I
have not had much chance to use it yet.
--
Robin Laing
7:40 p.m.
On Thu, 2005-10-06 at 00:23 +0800, "國產 Wei-Yee Chan (Made in Chinar)"
wrote:
Do tell me how U find it after you've tried it out. I'm
sticking to
yumex for the meantime.
Robin Laing wrote:
> If you had seen my other post, I was downloading it as I typed it. I
> have not had much chance to use it yet.
>
I for one, can vouch for smart. Its interface, IMO, is a lot cleaner
than the one for YUMEX. Its also flexable, allowing you to set priorites
for different repos. It also has a functional GUI ( wink ) for setting
up a wide array of repositories. I can also attempt to fix problems with
conflicting packages.
Micheal
3:35 a.m.
Thanks for the tip. I've installed the package and its GUI. It looks
kinda neat but yet, complex in some ways. I'll need to adjust myself to it.
micheal wrote:
I for one, can vouch for smart. Its interface, IMO, is a lot cleaner
than the one for YUMEX. Its also flexable, allowing you to set priorites
for different repos. It also has a functional GUI ( wink ) for setting
up a wide array of repositories. I can also attempt to fix problems with
conflicting packages.
Micheal
1:08 p.m.
Am Freitag, den 30.09.2005, 10:03 -0600 schrieb Robin Laing:
I would try smartpm but there is no FC4 version.
http://www.atrpms.net/dist/fc4/smart/
But be careful: I found the medley-package-config package required by
this package to be very annoying. I hat working apt and yum config files
before and medley-package-config produced a lot of errors that I had to
fix by hand.
Christoph
2:15 a.m.
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 08:08:50PM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
Am Freitag, den 30.09.2005, 10:03 -0600 schrieb Robin Laing:
> I would try smartpm but there is no FC4 version.
http://www.atrpms.net/dist/fc4/smart/
But be careful: I found the medley-package-config package required by
this package to be very annoying. I hat working apt and yum config files
before and medley-package-config produced a lot of errors that I had to
fix by hand.
The medley-package-config is not required for smart, you can use
atrpms-package-config also.
The medley-package-config is a very complete set of repos that are
being offered uncensored for your own (de)activation settings. If you
want to use an arbitrary set of repos of your choice install
medley-pcakge-config and deactive the repos you don't need/want.
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
8:18 a.m.
Am Samstag, den 01.10.2005, 09:15 +0200 schrieb Axel Thimm:
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 08:08:50PM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> Am Freitag, den 30.09.2005, 10:03 -0600 schrieb Robin Laing:
>
> > I would try smartpm but there is no FC4 version.
>
> http://www.atrpms.net/dist/fc4/smart/
>
> But be careful: I found the medley-package-config package required by
> this package to be very annoying. I hat working apt and yum config files
> before and medley-package-config produced a lot of errors that I had to
> fix by hand.
The medley-package-config is not required for smart, you can use
atrpms-package-config also.
The medley-package-config is a very complete set of repos that are
being offered uncensored for your own (de)activation settings. If you
want to use an arbitrary set of repos of your choice install
medley-pcakge-config and deactive the repos you don't need/want.
It's not about (de)activating one or the other repo but about duplicate
entries and conflicting files. Example: A fresh fedora install with
medley-package-config will result in the following yum error/warning:
Repository updates-testing is listed more than once in the
configuration
Repository extras is listed more than once in the configuration
"extras" is already defined in fedora-extras.repo from fedora-release,
it's defined again in fedoraextras.repo from medley-package-config. With
atrpms-package-config "updates-testing" still has a duplicate entry, since
it is already defined in fedora.repo and again in base.repo from your
package.
And there are more duplicates, that are not causing error messages (for
the channel has a different name) but slow down yum(ex) a lot:
- "release" from base.repo is "base" in fedora.repo
- "updates" in base.repo is "updates-released" fedora.repo
I remember someone on the german fedora-list complained that one of
your *-package-config packages screwed up up2date. I hope now you see
why I warned the OP about your medley-package-config.
IMHO all your *-package-config rpms should ether be _fully_ compatible
at least to fedora-release (since it is part of a core install, maybe
livna-release, too) or smart/apt from your repo should not depend on them.
Just my two eurocents
Christoph
P.S.: Nether medley-package-config nor atrpms-package-config are listed
at www.atrpms.net.
8:54 a.m.
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 01, 2005 at 03:18:11PM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
Am Samstag, den 01.10.2005, 09:15 +0200 schrieb Axel Thimm:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 08:08:50PM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> > Am Freitag, den 30.09.2005, 10:03 -0600 schrieb Robin Laing:
> >
> > > I would try smartpm but there is no FC4 version.
> >
> > http://www.atrpms.net/dist/fc4/smart/
> >
> > But be careful: I found the medley-package-config package required by
> > this package to be very annoying. I hat working apt and yum config files
> > before and medley-package-config produced a lot of errors that I had to
> > fix by hand.
>
> The medley-package-config is not required for smart, you can use
> atrpms-package-config also.
"extras" is already defined in fedora-extras.repo from
fedora-release,
it's defined again in fedoraextras.repo from medley-package-config. With
atrpms-package-config "updates-testing" still has a duplicate entry, since
it is already defined in fedora.repo and again in base.repo from your
package.
You didn't fully upgrade to ATrpms' contents, this happens on partial
upgrades/installs.
Unfortunately FC changes its deployment method of depsolver config
files on every release. The mostly sane config was to split the
fedora-release into a proper release package and a depsolver config
package, where the latter can be extended or simply replaced. But you
only get this split, if you do an upgrade against ATrpms.
Now, some will see an opportunity to cry out "murderer" and "how can
you touch Fedora Core packages" and so on. Whoever cares can find
miriads of threads on several lists that discuss these issues, please
keep this thread clean ;)
IMHO all your *-package-config rpms should ether be _fully_
compatible
at least to fedora-release
They are as a set of packages (and that's how any repo should be
considered IMHO), you need to make a full upgrade.
(since it is part of a core install, maybe livna-release, too) or
smart/apt from your repo should not depend on them.
They don't, try rpm -qR smart/apt, there is no trace of any
*-package-config. This is intended, so anyone can reuse the depsolvers
with his own *-package-config (or *-release) package. All the packages
require is a repo-agnostic file dependency on their master config
file(s).
I don't argue that this is the perfect solution, only a good working
one for using several repos with several depsolvers. There are
probably better ways to do it, and if you find one, I'll gladly accept
patches :)
P.S.: Nether medley-package-config nor atrpms-package-config are
listed
at www.atrpms.net.
Did you try google? It's the first link in
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awww.atrpms.net+medley-package-confi...
or try rpm -qi on the package to see that its srpm is
3rd-party-package-config and go to
http://atrpms.net/3rd-party-package-config/
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
8:07 p.m.
Am Samstag, den 01.10.2005, 15:54 +0200 schrieb Axel Thimm:
Hi,
On Sat, Oct 01, 2005 at 03:18:11PM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> Am Samstag, den 01.10.2005, 09:15 +0200 schrieb Axel Thimm:
> > [...]
> >
> > The medley-package-config is not required for smart, you can use
> > atrpms-package-config also.
> "extras" is already defined in fedora-extras.repo from fedora-release,
> it's defined again in fedoraextras.repo from medley-package-config. With
> atrpms-package-config "updates-testing" still has a duplicate entry, since
> it is already defined in fedora.repo and again in base.repo from your
> package.
You didn't fully upgrade to ATrpms' contents, this happens on partial
upgrades/installs.
Sorry, I didn't know that you are offering a fedora-release package,
too.
Unfortunately FC changes its deployment method of depsolver config
files on every release. The mostly sane config was to split the
fedora-release into a proper release package and a depsolver config
package, where the latter can be extended or simply replaced. But you
only get this split, if you do an upgrade against ATrpms.
Although I'm not having any prbls with your packages and honor your work
there are reasons not to upgrade against your (or any other) repo.
Now, some will see an opportunity to cry out "murderer" and "how can
you touch Fedora Core packages" and so on. Whoever cares can find
miriads of threads on several lists that discuss these issues, please
keep this thread clean ;)
I know this topic has been beaten to death, so I'm not going to comment
on that. Just an example what happens while playing with different
config packages:
$ ls -l atrpms*
insgesamt 40
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 553 21. Aug 11:13 atrpms.list
$ rpm -i
--replacefiles
/var/cache/yum/atrpms/packages/medley-package-config-102-1.rhfc4.at.i386.rpm
Warnung: /etc/apt/sources.list.d/atrpms.list created
as /etc/apt/sources.list.d/atrpms.list.rpmnew
Warnung: /etc/apt/sources.list.d/livna.list created
as /etc/apt/sources.list.d/livna.list.rpmnew
Warnung: /etc/apt/sources.list.d/nrpms.list created
as /etc/apt/sources.list.d/nrpms.list.rpmnew
Warnung: /etc/sysconfig/rhn/sources created
as /etc/sysconfig/rhn/sources.rpmnew
Warnung: /etc/yum.repos.d/freshrpms.repo created
as /etc/yum.repos.d/freshrpms.repo.rpmnew
Warnung: /etc/yum.repos.d/livna.repo created
as /etc/yum.repos.d/livna.repo.rpmnew
Warnung: /etc/yum.repos.d/nrpms.repo created
as /etc/yum.repos.d/nrpms.repo.rpmnew
$ ls -l atrpms*
insgesamt 156
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 553 21. Aug 11:13 atrpms.list
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 553 21. Aug 11:13 atrpms.list.rpmnew
$ rpm -e --nodeps medley-package-config
$ sources.list.d]# ls -l atrpms*
insgesamt 48
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 553 21. Aug 11:13 atrpms.list.rpmnew
As you can see my old customized atrpms file is gone, so are the others.
> IMHO all your *-package-config rpms should ether be _fully_ compatible
> at least to fedora-release
They are as a set of packages (and that's how any repo should be
considered IMHO), you need to make a full upgrade.
IMHO a repo is a source for packages but one shouldn't be forced to
upgrade against any repo if one doesn't want to.
> (since it is part of a core install, maybe livna-release, too) or
> smart/apt from your repo should not depend on them.
They don't, try rpm -qR smart/apt, there is no trace of any
*-package-config.
but smart depends on files provided by *-package-config
$ rpm -qf `rpm -qR smart | grep distro`
medley-package-config-102-1.rhfc4.at
This is intended, so anyone can reuse the depsolvers
with his own *-package-config (or *-release) package. All the packages
require is a repo-agnostic file dependency on their master config
file(s).
I don't argue that this is the perfect solution, only a good working
one for using several repos with several depsolvers. There are
probably better ways to do it, and if you find one, I'll gladly accept
patches :)
My suggestion is to remove yum configuration/everything provided by
fedora-release from atrpms/medley-package-config and use fedora-release
from core instead of your own. But of course that's you decision.
> P.S.: Nether medley-package-config nor atrpms-package-config are listed
> at www.atrpms.net.
Did you try google?
If there's an index page I don't see no reason for google ;-)
It's the first link in
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awww.atrpms.net+medley-package-confi...
or try rpm -qi on the package to see that its srpm is
3rd-party-package-config and go to
http://atrpms.net/3rd-party-package-config/
Ok, now I got it. I didn't realize that packages are sorted by their
srpms. IMHO the name 3rd-party-package-config is misleading:
A package named 3rd-party-* should not include config files for core and
extras, for they are not 3rd party be definition.
What's the use of an empty 3rd-party-package-config.rpm - no files
inside, no requires, nothing to provide? It might be better to remove it
from your repo if possible?!
Christoph
P.S.: Pls don't get me wrong: I really honor your work for the fedora
community, although some of above statemenents might not sound that way.
2:43 a.m.
On Sun, Oct 02, 2005 at 03:07:54AM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
Just an example what happens while playing with different
config packages:
$ ls -l atrpms*
insgesamt 40
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 553 21. Aug 11:13 atrpms.list
$ rpm -i
--replacefiles
/var/cache/yum/atrpms/packages/medley-package-config-102-1.rhfc4.at.i386.rpm
Warnung: /etc/apt/sources.list.d/atrpms.list created
as /etc/apt/sources.list.d/atrpms.list.rpmnew
Warnung: /etc/apt/sources.list.d/livna.list created
as /etc/apt/sources.list.d/livna.list.rpmnew
Warnung: /etc/apt/sources.list.d/nrpms.list created
as /etc/apt/sources.list.d/nrpms.list.rpmnew
Warnung: /etc/sysconfig/rhn/sources created
as /etc/sysconfig/rhn/sources.rpmnew
Warnung: /etc/yum.repos.d/freshrpms.repo created
as /etc/yum.repos.d/freshrpms.repo.rpmnew
Warnung: /etc/yum.repos.d/livna.repo created
as /etc/yum.repos.d/livna.repo.rpmnew
Warnung: /etc/yum.repos.d/nrpms.repo created
as /etc/yum.repos.d/nrpms.repo.rpmnew
$ ls -l atrpms*
insgesamt 156
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 553 21. Aug 11:13 atrpms.list
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 553 21. Aug 11:13 atrpms.list.rpmnew
$ rpm -e --nodeps medley-package-config
$ sources.list.d]# ls -l atrpms*
insgesamt 48
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 553 21. Aug 11:13 atrpms.list.rpmnew
As you can see my old customized atrpms file is gone, so are the others.
Isn't that what you asked rpm to do with --replacefiles? From rpm's
man page:
--replacefiles
Install the packages even if they replace files from other, already
installed, packages.
I never use it, so I don't know what it *actually* does. I would
expect it to still honour %config(noreplace) tags in the specfile, but
it looks like it ignores them.
But that is not a problem/bug of the package's content then, but a bug
in rpm --replacefiles, either in code or in its description on the man
page.
> They are as a set of packages (and that's how any repo
should be
> considered IMHO), you need to make a full upgrade.
IMHO a repo is a source for packages but one shouldn't be forced to
upgrade against any repo if one doesn't want to.
In general I agree, but what about package subsets that are
intertwined like foo and foo-devel? Or more fine-grained packages, or
- as in this case - cooperating packages (e.g. packages coming from a
different srpm, but still depending on each other's structure).
So a repo is not just a sum of independent packages, there are various
levels of dependencies (explicit package dependencies, files
dependencies, implicit assumptions about other packages etc.) between
subsets of the repo, and if you break them, you get a buggy situation.
This is why setting priorities and weights or temporily enabling repos
is a bad thing, and why ATrpms doesn't enforce any such policy in
meldey-package-config anymore. It did some ages and a day ago, but it
was withdrawn due to politics (ATrpms wants to be friendly towards any
repo), and the above mentioned technical issues.
> > (since it is part of a core install, maybe livna-release,
too) or
> > smart/apt from your repo should not depend on them.
>
> They don't, try rpm -qR smart/apt, there is no trace of any
> *-package-config.
but smart depends on files provided by *-package-config
$ rpm -qf `rpm -qR smart | grep distro`
medley-package-config-102-1.rhfc4.at
No, smart depends on its config files, that can be provided by any
other package. ATrpms is offering two packages, one for using ATrpms'
mirrors for FC and ATrpms, and one for using all known repos. But you
can create your own tailored package, and so can any rpm repository
maintainer. The smart package itself is thus completely unaware what
repo has soldered it, it just asks for its config file(s).
Ok, now I got it. I didn't realize that packages are sorted by
their
srpms. IMHO the name 3rd-party-package-config is misleading:
A package named 3rd-party-* should not include config files for core and
extras, for they are not 3rd party be definition.
Well, give me a better name :)
What's the use of an empty 3rd-party-package-config.rpm - no
files
inside, no requires, nothing to provide? It might be better to remove it
from your repo if possible?!
Yes, the issue is here more with the buildsystem, that examines with
rpm --specfile what packages should be generated, and I think
3rd-party-package-config is always returned, whether it has a %file
section or not.
P.S.: Pls don't get me wrong: I really honor your work for the
fedora
community, although some of above statemenents might not sound that way.
Oh, no, I don't get you wrong, I like constructive critism. :)
As I said, this is not the perfect solution, and I wouldn't mind to
improve it. It is a good *working* solution and it works not only for
FC4, but for FC3 to FC1, RH9 to RH7.3 and RHEL4 and RHEL3 including
some clones like scientific linux.
Supporting all these distros and their different config mechanisms
(sometimes bundled with the depsolver, sometimes with *-release files
etc., sometimes there is no depsolver at all) is difficult, and any
change in deployment needs to take care not to introduce any
regression.
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
11:26 a.m.
Just checked out kyum (got to install kde-bunch_of_nasty_stuff to make
it work). Guys it kicks ass! It is almost that convenient as synaptic
used to be before 0.51 release. I wish we had this thing for on gtk
because gnome-yum is far behind yet...
on 09/28/2005 03:03 PM Eric Tanguy wrote:
Using yumex use a lot of memory but it seems that yumex does not
restitute it. You use yumex, you look for something so first in your
default repos and after you try in other repos but at each time you
click on refresh on the repos tab yumex does not restitute the memory.
If i try this 4 or 5 times yumex saturate my memory and the only
possibility is to close yumex and reopen it.
Someone could confirm this and/or explain me why ?
Thanks
--
regards,
Oleksandr Korneta
6803
days inactive
6811
days old
17 comments
9 participants
participants (9)
-
"國產 Wei-Yee Chan (Made in Chinar)" -
Axel Thimm -
Christoph Wickert -
Eric Tanguy -
Josh Coffman -
Michael A. Peters -
micheal -
oleksandr korneta -
Robin Laing