Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 1149014 - [rfe] install and remove together
Summary: [rfe] install and remove together
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 1110780
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: dnf
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Packaging Maintenance Team
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2014-10-02 23:07 UTC by Rahul Sundaram
Modified: 2014-10-03 15:45 UTC (History)
7 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2014-10-03 15:45:44 UTC
Type: Bug
Embargoed:

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Rahul Sundaram 2014-10-02 23:07:58 UTC 
Description of problem:

Yum swap supports installing and removing packages and groups as a single command.  

"Examples:

              swap foo bar
              swap -- remove foo -- install bar
              swap foo group install bar-grp
              swap -- group remove foo-grp -- group install bar-grp
"

This is quite handy especially when you are replacing one package with another with similar files/functionality (ex) sendmail with postfix


Similar request

https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/39887/is-there-a-way-to-install-and-remove-packages-in-a-single-yum-command
Comment 1 Radek Holy 2014-10-03 10:56:59 UTC 
Rahul, if you are not again duplicating some of your requests, can you provide us a common use case where the '--allowerasing' switch is not enough? We do not add new commands just because someone thinks it might become handy sometimes in the future as it was already explained to you.
Comment 2 Rahul Sundaram 2014-10-03 11:23:52 UTC 
The example I showed is directly from yum man page (which came from in part from discussions with Seth Vidal earlier) so I am kinda duplicating myself anyway to avoid losing features I find convenient in the transition from yum to dnf. 

Having said that, --allowerasing doesn't allow you to install and remove packages and groups when there are no conflicts.  

Use cases:

A)  I build images (CI/CD) where I need to install packages and groups and remove others and in conjunction with the RFE to clean cache immediately (1148674),  I can do everything I need in a single transaction which is convenient (vagrant, docker files etc) 

B) Fedora user installs group A and decides to remove it and install group B  instead (think of switching from one desktop environment to another as one possibility here).  The user is already aware that there a bunch of common dependencies between these groups but if you had installed packages together, dnf removes them together by default as well (since clean_requirements_on_remove is enabled by default) but doing them in a single transaction would avoid having to remove packages only to install them immediately after.

Hope that helps.
Comment 3 Radek Holy 2014-10-03 11:34:17 UTC 
If there are no conflicts, you can simply run "dnf install bar;dnf erase foo".
Comment 4 Rahul Sundaram 2014-10-03 11:39:49 UTC 
Alteast with yum, there was a significant performance improvement when doing it as a single transaction especially with large dependencies.
Comment 5 Panu Matilainen 2014-10-03 11:48:12 UTC 
Yum being slow at something doesn't make for a good reason to do something in dnf.
Comment 6 Rahul Sundaram 2014-10-03 12:04:13 UTC 
Sure, what I was getting at is that if dnf developers believe there is no significant difference in performance with dnf, there perhaps it won't be needed.
Comment 7 Radek Holy 2014-10-03 12:31:52 UTC 
Well, I think there cannot be a performance improvement in the case A. You still have to run "dnf swap foo bar" or "dnf erase foo" (appending the bar to the antecedent installation).

And I think that the use case B is not common enough to make a potential performance improvement (if it would be an improvement) so significant to justify a new command that will need to be maintained then.

Anyway, this seems to be a duplicate of 1110780 in which you are involved too. It depends whether the reporter meant conflicting or non-conflicting packages.
Comment 8 Honza Silhan 2014-10-03 15:45:44 UTC 
Still `--allowerasing` seems to me more simple especially for user who doesn't look deeply into relation of packages.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1110780 ***
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.