Re: Call to help testing osb for backward compatibility

[gbWilly <gbWilly@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

gbWilly

Gambas3 for Debian

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

On Friday, December 20th, 2024 at 22:25, T Lee Davidson <t.lee.davidson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 12/19/24 13:49, gbWilly wrote:
> 
> > For those on Arch, openSuSe, I advise the same as to the risky dudes above, but for your distro. Install official gambas3, create application and package it using qt5-ext, change to osb version, upgrade and see what happens and install previous packaged application (.rpm or whatever you dudes do).
> 
> 
> Okay so, on Manjaro, I just tried to upgrade from the officially packaged Gambas 3.19.5 to the OBS version. I got a "Failed to
> commit transaction" error due to file conflicts:
> ~~~~~~
> conflicting files:
> - gambas3-runtime: /usr/lib/gambas3/gb.hash.component already exists in filesystem (owned by gambas3-gb-hash)
> - gambas3-runtime: /usr/lib/gambas3/gb.hash.la already exists in filesystem (owned by gambas3-gb-hash)
> - gambas3-runtime: /usr/lib/gambas3/gb.hash.so already exists in filesystem (owned by gambas3-gb-hash)
> - gambas3-runtime: /usr/lib/gambas3/gb.hash.so.0 already exists in filesystem (owned by gambas3-gb-hash)
> - gambas3-runtime: /usr/lib/gambas3/gb.hash.so.0.0.0 already exists in filesystem (owned by gambas3-gb-hash)
> - gambas3-runtime: /usr/share/gambas3/info/gb.hash.info already exists in filesystem (owned by gambas3-gb-hash)
> - gambas3-runtime: /usr/share/gambas3/info/gb.hash.list already exists in filesystem (owned by gambas3-gb-hash)
> ~~~~~~
> 
> I have no idea what this means or how it might be fixed as I have never used a rolling release, nor an Arch, distribution.
> Note: I was given an option to choose the source for qt-webview (gtk, qt5, or qt6). I chose qt6-webview.
> 
> 
This means that official gamabs 3.19.5 is wrongly packed and thus causes problems in upgrading.

The gambas3-gb-hash package should not even exist, but since it is existing and has laid it's claims on the .so, .la, .info and .list files, the osb version runtime can't lay it's claim on it.
Now, if you look at runtime specifications for 3.19.x series (https://gambaswiki.org/wiki/howto/package/v3.19#t1) you will see that gb.hash is part of runtime and not a separate package. Thus ,there is a conflict in files being claimed and thus gambas3-runtime will refuse to upgrade (because of conflicts) and thus gambas3-ide and gambas3 in a whole will only partly upgrade (at least that is what happens on debian).

Is there a manner to see what parts of gambas3 did get upgraded and what did not upgrade? (In debian you have 'synaptic package manager' for a simple search and visual overview)

If most except for gambas3 and gambas3-ide (and runtime of course) did not upgrade a simple install (without removing previous semi-upgraded version) of gambas3 might do the trick.

I know I manage on Debian to upgrade from official (same wrong packages) in a 3 step procedure:
1. apt-get upgrade (--> this leaves gambas3 and gambas3-ide not completely upgraded and complains about broken packages)
2. apt --fix-broken install (it will solve the broken dependencies, and they in turn make installing gambas3 and gambas3-ide possible)
     --> at this point all is upgraded component wise what can possibly be upgraded and broken packages is fixed, just a few remain that can now actually install
3. apt-get install gambas3 -> will now finally install over gambas3 and gambas3-ide from previous version and all is completely upgraded

I do not know what options Manjaro has, to do this sort of magic. I do know upgrading from official debian with wrong packages, is possible in a few steps, without having to uninstall previous version. And that to me is as backward compatible as it can be made within my know how.

I just wonder if above is possible on other distro's than debian as well, when upgrading from an official version. If we know how we can do the upgrade (be it in a few steps) we can write improved instruction on the wiki how to do it all.

But maybe Laurent can give some more insight, he's the Arch expert to my understanding, so he might shed some new light on the matter.

And thanks again for collecting valuable information.

gbWilly