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

[Tim Lauridsen]

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?
>
>
> Florian
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Yum-devel mailing list
> Yum-devel at linux.duke.edu
> https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/yum-devel
Look good to me.
maybe it was a good idea to make some unit test to test TransactionData, 
so it is easy to test that basic operations are work as expected.

Tim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.baseurl.org/pipermail/yum-devel/attachments/20071129/d9ddae11/attachment.htm