Hi.
I encountered a following problem, if I state for example:
package{"aspell-en": ensure => absent, }
package{"aspell": ensure => absent, }
I get error in logs because of dependencies. It seems that puppet uses
''yum'' for installation on CentOS and ''rpm
-e'' for removal of packages,
so it cannot handle this kind of dependencies:
# rpm -e --test aspell-en
error: Failed dependencies:
aspell-en is needed by (installed) aspell-0.60.3-7.1.x86_64
# rpm -e --test aspell
error: Failed dependencies:
aspell >= 12:0.60 is needed by (installed) aspell-en-6.0-2.1.x86_64
Do you have any idea or advice how to solve this kind of problems?
I''ve searched the list and found:
http://www.mail-archive.com/puppet-users@googlegroups.com/msg03702.html
and consensus is that "RPM circular dependencies have nothing to do with
puppet". OK, but any advice on how to circumvent this issue as elegant
as possible?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
Hi, Haven''t tested but can you try:> package{"aspell-en": ensure => absent, } -> > package{"aspell": ensure => absent, }and see if you can order it. You might also get luck from ''before => '' Cheers, Den On 19/08/2011, at 8:56, Jakov Sosic <jsosic@srce.hr> wrote:> Hi. > > I encountered a following problem, if I state for example: > > package{"aspell-en": ensure => absent, } > package{"aspell": ensure => absent, } > > I get error in logs because of dependencies. It seems that puppet uses > ''yum'' for installation on CentOS and ''rpm -e'' for removal of packages, > so it cannot handle this kind of dependencies: > > # rpm -e --test aspell-en > error: Failed dependencies: > aspell-en is needed by (installed) aspell-0.60.3-7.1.x86_64 > # rpm -e --test aspell > error: Failed dependencies: > aspell >= 12:0.60 is needed by (installed) aspell-en-6.0-2.1.x86_64 > > > Do you have any idea or advice how to solve this kind of problems? > > I''ve searched the list and found: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/puppet-users@googlegroups.com/msg03702.html > > and consensus is that "RPM circular dependencies have nothing to do with > puppet". OK, but any advice on how to circumvent this issue as elegant > as possible? > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. > To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en. >-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
Is it possible to force use of the yum backend for package removals like
this?
package { [''aspell'', ''aspell-en'']:
ensure => absent,
provider => ''yum'',
}
I''m not near a puppet machine to test this, but it''s probably
worth a shot.
Cheers,
Jonathan
On 18/08/11 23:56, Jakov Sosic wrote:> Hi.
>
> I encountered a following problem, if I state for example:
>
> package{"aspell-en": ensure => absent, }
> package{"aspell": ensure => absent, }
>
> I get error in logs because of dependencies. It seems that puppet uses
> ''yum'' for installation on CentOS and ''rpm
-e'' for removal of packages,
> so it cannot handle this kind of dependencies:
>
> # rpm -e --test aspell-en
> error: Failed dependencies:
> aspell-en is needed by (installed) aspell-0.60.3-7.1.x86_64
> # rpm -e --test aspell
> error: Failed dependencies:
> aspell>= 12:0.60 is needed by (installed) aspell-en-6.0-2.1.x86_64
>
>
> Do you have any idea or advice how to solve this kind of problems?
>
> I''ve searched the list and found:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/puppet-users@googlegroups.com/msg03702.html
>
> and consensus is that "RPM circular dependencies have nothing to do
with
> puppet". OK, but any advice on how to circumvent this issue as elegant
> as possible?
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Puppet Users" group.
To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
On 08/19/2011 12:56 PM, Jonathan Gazeley wrote:> Is it possible to force use of the yum backend for package removals like > this? > > package { [''aspell'', ''aspell-en'']: > ensure => absent, > provider => ''yum'', > } > > I''m not near a puppet machine to test this, but it''s probably worth a shot.Fri Aug 19 18:55:21 +0200 2011 /Stage[main]/Packages/Package[aspell-en]/ensure (err): change from 6.0-2.1 to absent failed: Execution of ''/bin/rpm -e aspell-en-6.0-2.1.x86_64'' returned 1: error: Failed dependencies: aspell-en is needed by (installed) aspell-0.60.3-7.1.x86_64 Fri Aug 19 18:56:00 +0200 2011 /Stage[main]/Packages/Package[aspell]/ensure (err): change from 0.60.3-7.1 to absent failed: Execution of ''/bin/rpm -e aspell-0.60.3-7.1.x86_64'' returned 1: error: Failed dependencies: aspell >= 12:0.60 is needed by (installed) aspell-en-6.0-2.1.x86_64 No, it uses rpm and that''s it. And it cycles through the list item by item. If it would only run rpm -e package1 package2, but not even that :( -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 12:56 AM, Jakov Sosic <jsosic@srce.hr> wrote:> Hi. > > I encountered a following problem, if I state for example: > > package{"aspell-en": ensure => absent, } > package{"aspell": ensure => absent, } > > I get error in logs because of dependencies. It seems that puppet uses > ''yum'' for installation on CentOS and ''rpm -e'' for removal of packages, > so it cannot handle this kind of dependencies: > > # rpm -e --test aspell-en > error: Failed dependencies: > aspell-en is needed by (installed) aspell-0.60.3-7.1.x86_64 > # rpm -e --test aspell > error: Failed dependencies: > aspell >= 12:0.60 is needed by (installed) aspell-en-6.0-2.1.x86_64 > > > Do you have any idea or advice how to solve this kind of problems? > > I''ve searched the list and found: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/puppet-users@googlegroups.com/msg03702.html > > and consensus is that "RPM circular dependencies have nothing to do with > puppet". OK, but any advice on how to circumvent this issue as elegant > as possible? > > The right answer is*ensure => purged* as this tell puppet to use yum -y (and not rpm) in the yum provider. But yes the docu could be better perhaps. hth> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Puppet Users" group. > To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > /For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en. > >-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
On 08/18/2011 06:56 PM, Jakov Sosic wrote:> I encountered a following problem, if I state for example: > > package{"aspell-en": ensure => absent, } > package{"aspell": ensure => absent, } > > I get error in logs because of dependencies. It seems that puppet uses > ''yum'' for installation on CentOS and ''rpm -e'' for removal of packages, > so it cannot handle this kind of dependencies: > > # rpm -e --test aspell-en > error: Failed dependencies: > aspell-en is needed by (installed) aspell-0.60.3-7.1.x86_64 > # rpm -e --test aspell > error: Failed dependencies: > aspell>= 12:0.60 is needed by (installed) aspell-en-6.0-2.1.x86_64This is a long-standing bug, and one that I consider fairly major but has been hard to get puppetlabs focused on. - The circular deps bug was reported 2 years ago. http://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/1935 - A few months later a patch is submitted to batch rpm transactions. This solves the circular-deps issue and also has significant performance benefits during puppet runs with many package installs. http://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/2198 This comes up periodically and inevitably someone proposes that the architecturally "correct" solution is for RedHat not to employ circular deps, which shuts down discussion of a potential solution for another 3-6 months: http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users/browse_thread/thread/8a083899386909d5/ http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users/browse_thread/thread/9cbeadad62741b0a/ Denmat wrote:> and see if you can order it. You might also get luck from ''before => ''Ordering doesn''t matter, the dependencies involved are rpm-deps, not puppet-deps. In order to succeed, the action has to be atomically performed in a single rpm call (which requires #2198 to land and enable batch transactions), or it has to be performed with a rpm-dependency-aware tool like yum (but that has it''s own problems discussed below).>> Jonathan Gazeley wrote: >>> Is it possible to force use of the yum backend for package >>> removals like this? >>> >>> package { [''aspell'', ''aspell-en'']: >>> ensure => absent, >>> provider => ''yum'', >>> } >>> > Jakov Sosic wrote: >> No, it uses rpm and that''s it. And it cycles through the list item >> by item. If it would only run rpm -e package1 package2, but not >> even thatdevzero2000 wrote:> The right answer is > > ensure => purged as this tell puppet to use yum -y (and not rpm) in > the yum provider.As devzero notes, ensuring "purged" will force the yum-provider to use the yum-command instead of the rpm-command for package removals, but that''s a good way to get a box blacklisted by Redhat for pinging their update-servers too often. Yum will be run for every single package that you manage this way, and will update its package catalog every time, resulting in what looks like misconfiguration or dos to RedHat. In my opinion, this bug makes the yum provider very close to useless. I''m watching bug #2198 closely to see if it ever lands, but it seems to be very low on the priority list given that there''s been a patch sitting unmerged for almost two years. Folks who work around this issue do so with execs, but I think more often people just give up and let unneeded packages build up like cruft. Cheers, Mike Lococo -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
On 08/22/2011 06:29 PM, Mike Lococo wrote:> This is a long-standing bug, and one that I consider fairly major but > has been hard to get puppetlabs focused on. > > - The circular deps bug was reported 2 years ago. > http://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/1935 > - A few months later a patch is submitted to batch rpm transactions. > This solves the circular-deps issue and also has significant > performance benefits during puppet runs with many package installs. > http://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/2198 > > This comes up periodically and inevitably someone proposes that the > architecturally "correct" solution is for RedHat not to employ circular > deps, which shuts down discussion of a potential solution for another > 3-6 months: > http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users/browse_thread/thread/8a083899386909d5/ > > http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users/browse_thread/thread/9cbeadad62741b0a/I could incorporate that patch into RPM''s... ensure => purged is obviously not a good idea after all (although it works). I have another question about packages... What if I define something like this: package {''httpd'': ensure => absent, } package {''mod_ssl'': ensure => latest, } It is obvious that httpd is a dependency of mod_ssl. What will happen in this case?! I''m asking because I have a template for all my machines with minimal package requirements, and I do that with lots of ensure=>absent. But if some package requires some of the "absent" pacakges, what happens then? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 12:05:30 +0200, Jakov Sosic wrote:> > On 08/22/2011 06:29 PM, Mike Lococo wrote: > > > This is a long-standing bug, and one that I consider fairly major but > > has been hard to get puppetlabs focused on. > > > > - The circular deps bug was reported 2 years ago. > > http://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/1935 > > - A few months later a patch is submitted to batch rpm transactions. > > This solves the circular-deps issue and also has significant > > performance benefits during puppet runs with many package installs. > > http://projects.puppetlabs.com/issues/2198 > > > > This comes up periodically and inevitably someone proposes that the > > architecturally "correct" solution is for RedHat not to employ circular > > deps, which shuts down discussion of a potential solution for another > > 3-6 months: > > http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users/browse_thread/thread/8a083899386909d5/ > > > > http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users/browse_thread/thread/9cbeadad62741b0a/ > > > I could incorporate that patch into RPM''s... ensure => purged is > obviously not a good idea after all (although it works). > > > I have another question about packages... > > What if I define something like this: > > package {''httpd'': ensure => absent, } > package {''mod_ssl'': ensure => latest, } > > It is obvious that httpd is a dependency of mod_ssl. What will happen in > this case?! > > > I''m asking because I have a template for all my machines with minimal > package requirements, and I do that with lots of ensure=>absent. > > But if some package requires some of the "absent" pacakges, what happens > then? > >I would expect Puppet to end up installing and uninstalling packages every run, since it has no knowledge of the package dependencies. -- Jacob Helwig ,---- | Join us for PuppetConf, September 22nd and 23rd in Portland, OR | http://bit.ly/puppetconfsig `----
On 08/25/2011 01:35 PM, Jacob Helwig wrote:> I would expect Puppet to end up installing and uninstalling packages > every run, since it has no knowledge of the package dependencies.This kind of thing won''t happen unless one manually specifies an impossible state, and even then I''m not sure that would be the outcome. Really, the feature being proposed as the solution here is not to extend puppet to understand RPM dependencies, but simply to allow batched transactions so that two packages can be installed/removed in a single command-line run. There is a patch to implement this feature awaiting review (it''s been in that state for over 2 years). As an aside, it''s pretty hard to fully understand this issue without reading through all the bugs and threads listed in my last email. Key background is: 1) You must understand how the puppet implements the rpm package provider. Specifically, you must know when the rpm command is called by puppet, and when the yum command is called by puppet. (rpm is used to check install status, yum is used to perform installs, rpm is used to perform removals). 2) You must understand how the yum and rpm os commands work, and specifically how they each handle dependencies and circular deps (yum works to satisfy deps, rpm fails unless all deps are specified on a single command-line). 3) You don''t actually have to understand much about puppet dependencies, and you also don''t have to understand much about rpm dependencies. The behaviors involved are pretty straightforward, but you can''t make big assumptions about what dependency cycles mean based on your experience in other systems. Cheers, Mike Lococo -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
On Thu, 25 Aug 2011, Mike Lococo wrote:> 2) You must understand how the yum and rpm os commands work, and > specifically how they each handle dependencies and circular deps > (yum works to satisfy deps, rpm fails unless all deps are specified > on a single command-line).The use of verb forms projecting overtones of virtues or deficiency is overstated here. You might have well said: yum will ''do what I mean, not what I said'' even if it would result in a useless installation and recklessly add and remove whole swaths of packages to satisfy deps; rpm will carefully limit itself to not going beyond what is asked to protect your system until the person seeking the transaction enumerates all deps in a single command trasaction Each program is just a mindless tool, with no capacity for for beneficence or malice. Both tools use the RPM database, accessible through ''librpm'', and of course Puppet might be extended to consult this database natively rather than resorting to the present rather ugly ''exec'' command which ignores this source of information [thus forcing a need for knowledge of th4 package state and dependency trees of all potentially packages to manage, exterior to a specific machine into the equasion] The program design for Yum is not enabled to proceed to perform a transaction without the general explicit confirmation with the ''-y'' command line option [applicable to both additions and removals, assuning it has been provided a set of ''repositories'' with ''closure''] RPM (as shipped by Red Hat) is designed to not add or remove packages which have leaf node dependencies beneath it without being explicitly instructed to ignore such potential error conditions: the --nodeps and --force options. The issue of automated package retrieval and dependency is partially out of scope for RPM in the for under which Red hat presently ships it, but can be done inder alternative vendor''s approaches, with a so called ''rpmdb'' database -- Russ herrold -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
Perhaps I''m being dense, but I don''t follow how your response relates to managing packages that have circular deps in puppet. The original question was how to delete two packages with circular deps using puppet. The correct answer is to ensure "purged". The problem with that answer is that it invokes yum multiple times per puppet-run, which incurs many catalog-downloads from redhat servers, which results in blacklisting by redhat. There''s a patch that would provide a second option, batched transactions implemented via rpm. If accepted, that patch would enable a common use-case that is an epic pain to handle in puppet right now. I''m sure there are other ways to handle the problem, but this one has a patch pending review which means there''s a good chance that it could be easily implemented for the next release. It also has performance benefits and no technical downside that has been identified. I have no opinions about whether yum or rpm is superior in the general case, or whether it would be better for puppet to interface directly with librpm, or whether it''s better to allow automatic dependency resolution or to require admins to specify package-deps manually. Cheers, Mike Lococo On 08/25/2011 06:29 PM, R P Herrold wrote:> On Thu, 25 Aug 2011, Mike Lococo wrote: > >> 2) You must understand how the yum and rpm os commands work, and >> specifically how they each handle dependencies and circular deps >> (yum works to satisfy deps, rpm fails unless all deps are specified >> on a single command-line). > > The use of verb forms projecting overtones of virtues or deficiency is > overstated here. You might have well said: > > yum will ''do what I mean, not what I said'' even if it > would result in a useless installation and > recklessly add and remove whole swaths of packages to > satisfy deps; rpm will carefully limit itself to not > going beyond what is asked to protect your system until > the person seeking the transaction enumerates all deps > in a single command trasaction > > Each program is just a mindless tool, with no capacity for for > beneficence or malice. > > Both tools use the RPM database, accessible through ''librpm'', and of > course Puppet might be extended to consult this database natively rather > than resorting to the present rather ugly ''exec'' command which ignores > this source of information [thus forcing a need for knowledge of th4 > package state and dependency trees of all potentially packages to > manage, exterior to a specific machine into the equasion] > > The program design for Yum is not enabled to proceed to perform a > transaction without the general explicit confirmation with the ''-y'' > command line option [applicable to both additions and removals, assuning > it has been provided a set of ''repositories'' with ''closure''] > > RPM (as shipped by Red Hat) is designed to not add or remove packages > which have leaf node dependencies beneath it without being explicitly > instructed to ignore such potential error conditions: the --nodeps and > --force options. The issue of automated package retrieval and dependency > is partially out of scope for RPM in the for under which Red hat > presently ships it, but can be done inder alternative vendor''s > approaches, with a so called ''rpmdb'' database > > -- Russ herrold >-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.