Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

- Use zypper instead of yum #1062

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 27, 2018
Merged

Conversation

sbernhard
Copy link

Use zypper library instead of yum on SUSE based distributions.
The zypper library transactions are running within a separate process as the zypper application would otherwise be blocked as long as the gofer process is running. Looks like that this is a issue in zypper / python swig implementation. Answer from zypper development mailing list:

Older libzypp versions are not able to drop the lock at runtime.
(and they also don't have 'zypp.ZYppFactory_instance().haveZYpp()'
to test whether the instance is present.)

On older distros you need to run zypp in a separate process,
so libzypp gets unloaded and releases the lock.

@pulpbot
Copy link
Member

pulpbot commented Sep 1, 2017

Can one of the admins verify this patch?

1 similar comment
@pulpbot
Copy link
Member

pulpbot commented Sep 1, 2017

Can one of the admins verify this patch?

@sbernhard
Copy link
Author

sbernhard commented Sep 1, 2017

This PR does replace #1041 Sorry for that
It does fix https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2996

I guess, I have answered all questions with this PR. Please let me know.

@sbernhard
Copy link
Author

Any update on this?

@sbernhard
Copy link
Author

Update?

@dkliban
Copy link
Member

dkliban commented Feb 28, 2018

Thank you for the PR! I am not a core developer on the RPM plugin, but I am interested in this PR.

The biggest obstacle for me to test this is getting a SUSE system provisioned. However, I believe I have found a volunteer to help me test this PR.

@bmbouter
Copy link
Member

@sbernhard Sorry for the long delay. We don't have a good way to test this, but we think it's ok to merge because:

a) reading the code shows the patch is low risk to existing functionality
b) We can run pulp-smash afterwards and it will tell us if we regress. If so we can negative commit until it's resolved.

@bmbouter bmbouter merged commit c888685 into pulp:master Apr 27, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants