[Yum-devel] [PATCH/RFC] Prepare for skipbroken/Replace already_seen

[Florian Festi]

Florian Festi wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> While playing around with the skipbroken code I run into some problems 
> when transaction members are removed and the packages is readded later 
> on. Reason for this is that __cmp__ and __hash__ methods are overloaded 
> in the TransactionMember class. This means that transaction members 
> containing pkgs with the same pkgtup are treated as equal. Because of 
> this the newly added transaction members are found in the 
> already_seen(_removed) dicts if the old  "equal" transaction members 
> still linger there. A similar problem exists for TsInfo.removedmembers.
> 
> The current problem could be worked around by resetting already_seen* 
> (as done by Jeremy's patch) and TsInfo.removedmembers (still missing) at 
> the begin of the depsolving. But as soon as we try to move the 
> skipbroken code deeper into the depsolving loop this will no longer be 
> sufficient. Resetting the already_seen information also means restarting 
> the depsolving from the start and loosing all the work we already did.
> 
> The attached patch works around this two problems by moving to a list 
> (set) of transaction members that needs to be checked 
> (TsInfo._unresolvedMembers) and keeps it up to date. It also removes the 
> no longer needed already_seen* dicts and removedmembers attribute and 
> related methods.
> 
> The new TsInfo.resetResolved() method feature a hard=False default 
> behavior that keeps the already done work if this is better than 
> starting from scratch which may be the case after big changes (GUI 
> applications come to mind).
> 
> I am a bit unsure how this implementation would cope with reinstalls 
> (adding install and remove transaction members for the same package) but 
> IIRC these are not supported in yum anyway and it is currently not 
> possible to do such things even from the yum shell. I also guess that 
> some other code pieces would need work to support reinstalls.
> 
> So my main questions are:
> 
>  * Does this look sane?
> 
>  * Are any of the removed pieces part of the "official" yum API and need 
> to stay?

Patch is still pending. Any more comments?

Florian