Deprecation of /var/adm/update-scripts

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Deprecation of /var/adm/update-scripts

Thorsten Kukuk

Hi,

if you never heard of /var/adm/update-scripts and your packages are not
using it, you can ignore this.

In the good old times, libzypp wasn't able to handle RPM %posttrans
scripts correct (which shows, that the old times were not always good ;) ).
A workaround for this was to use update-scripts.

Since some years (SLE12) libzypp supports now RPM %posttrans scripts,
so there is no need anymore to use update-scripts as workaround.
The maintainers would like now to remove support of /var/adm/update-scripts
from libzypp.
Why? Because it creates a lot of additional efford for everybody. You
have to implement everything twice (once for RPM, once for libzypp) and
test everything twice. And since this is so much work, a lot of developer
don't do that, which leads to bugs depending on how you install or
update a package.

So, if you use update-scripts as RPM %posttrans replacement, please
change your spec files to only use RPM %posttrans scripts.

If you need update-scripts for something else and you cannot remove it,
please speak up now. But you should have a good answer to "what does
happen if your package is installed or updated with plain rpm?".

  Thorsten

--
Thorsten Kukuk, Distinguished Engineer, Senior Architect SLES & CaaSP
SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nuernberg, Germany
GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nuernberg)
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Deprecation of /var/adm/update-scripts

Tomas Chvatal
Thorsten Kukuk píše v St 22. 11. 2017 v 10:01 +0100:

> Hi,
>
> if you never heard of /var/adm/update-scripts and your packages are
> not
> using it, you can ignore this.
>
> In the good old times, libzypp wasn't able to handle RPM %posttrans
> scripts correct (which shows, that the old times were not always good
> ;) ).
> A workaround for this was to use update-scripts.
>
> Since some years (SLE12) libzypp supports now RPM %posttrans scripts,
> so there is no need anymore to use update-scripts as workaround.
> The maintainers would like now to remove support of /var/adm/update-
> scripts
> from libzypp.
> Why? Because it creates a lot of additional efford for everybody. You
> have to implement everything twice (once for RPM, once for libzypp)
> and
> test everything twice. And since this is so much work, a lot of
> developer
> don't do that, which leads to bugs depending on how you install or
> update a package.
>
> So, if you use update-scripts as RPM %posttrans replacement, please
> change your spec files to only use RPM %posttrans scripts.
>
> If you need update-scripts for something else and you cannot remove
> it,
> please speak up now. But you should have a good answer to "what does
> happen if your package is installed or updated with plain rpm?".
>
Great plan, I have but one question, could we first implement rpmlint
error and fail all the current packages that are using it?

It is just one sure way to get them all fixed quickly.

Also overall I think most installations will have it from texlive and
some fonts.

Cheers

Tom

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Deprecation of /var/adm/update-scripts

Andreas Schwab-2
On Nov 22 2017, Tomas Chvatal <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Also overall I think most installations will have it from texlive and
> some fonts.

The latter will be fixed automatically once the updated fontpackages
package has hit Factory.

Andreas.

--
Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, [hidden email]
GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9 1970 F4BE  1748 E4D4 88E3 0EEA B9D7
"And now for something completely different."
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Deprecation of /var/adm/update-scripts

Petr Gajdos
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 12:26:15PM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Nov 22 2017, Tomas Chvatal <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Also overall I think most installations will have it from texlive and
> > some fonts.
>
> The latter will be fixed automatically once the updated fontpackages
> package has hit Factory.

Correct. Nevertheless I would keep current rpm-macros.fonts-config for
older distros.

Petr
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Deprecation of /var/adm/update-scripts

Takashi Iwai
On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 12:49:02 +0100,
Petr Gajdos wrote:

>
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 12:26:15PM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> > On Nov 22 2017, Tomas Chvatal <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > Also overall I think most installations will have it from texlive and
> > > some fonts.
> >
> > The latter will be fixed automatically once the updated fontpackages
> > package has hit Factory.
>
> Correct. Nevertheless I would keep current rpm-macros.fonts-config for
> older distros.

The old behavior is needed only for SLE11, right?
Just for confirmation.


thanks,

Takashi
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Deprecation of /var/adm/update-scripts

Petr Gajdos
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 12:58:39PM +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> The old behavior is needed only for SLE11, right?
> Just for confirmation.

I guess all the needed information is here:
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=773575
The bug was for 12.3.
Unfortunately I do not remember the details. Should I dive into?

Petr

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Deprecation of /var/adm/update-scripts

Thorsten Kukuk
In reply to this post by Tomas Chvatal
On Wed, Nov 22, Tomas Chvatal wrote:

> Great plan, I have but one question, could we first implement rpmlint
> error and fail all the current packages that are using it?

rpmlint check is not posssible: if you exclude texlive, the packages don't
package the update-script, but create it on the fly (only look at all the
font packages).

Else we have:
- fetchmsttfonts => no idea why this is using update-scripts, doesn't make
                    any sense to me.
- mathgl => texlive, and broken. Does not work since the name of the script
            is wrong.

- nrpe => Misuse of the /var/adm/update-scripts directory as tmp directory,
          package needs to be fixed.

- nsca => Same broken code as nrpe

- texlive* => contains a lot of entries, where the script name does not
              match the package name, which means broken, will not work.

Conclusion: except for the font packages, the usage of update-scripts
is always wrong, broken or misused.
another reason to get ride of this hack rather today than tomorrow.

If anything else is using update-scripts, it is very well hidden in
the code.

  Thorsten

--
Thorsten Kukuk, Distinguished Engineer, Senior Architect SLES & CaaSP
SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nuernberg, Germany
GF: Felix Imendoerffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nuernberg)
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Deprecation of /var/adm/update-scripts

Takashi Iwai
In reply to this post by Petr Gajdos
On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 13:16:15 +0100,
Petr Gajdos wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 12:58:39PM +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > The old behavior is needed only for SLE11, right?
> > Just for confirmation.
>
> I guess all the needed information is here:
> https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=773575
> The bug was for 12.3.
> Unfortunately I do not remember the details. Should I dive into?

Not really.  I just wanted to know the impact.


Takashi
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
To contact the owner, e-mail: [hidden email]