[wpkg-users] packages not installing/upgrading
Carlos R. Pasqualini
pasqualinic at fcal.uner.edu.ar
Wed Sep 12 19:37:43 CEST 2012
El mar, 11-09-2012 a las 11:09 +0200, Rainer Meier escribió:
> Hi Carlos,
>
> I might shed some light on this topic. Although I currently don't have time for
> in-dept explanation/analysis.
>
> On 06.09.2012 20:08, Carlos R. Pasqualini wrote:
> > 2012-09-06 14:43:53, INFO : Installing 'LibreOffice' (libreoffice)...
>
> So WPKG is going to verify (check, upgrade/downgrade) LibreOffice. Fine.
>
>
> > 2012-09-06 14:43:53, DEBUG : Reading variables from hosts[s]
> > 2012-09-06 14:43:53, DEBUG : Reading variables from profile[s]
> > 2012-09-06 14:43:53, DEBUG : Reading variables from package
> > 'LibreOffice'.
> > 2012-09-06 14:43:53, DEBUG : Got variable 'shortversion' of value
> > '3.6.1'
> > 2012-09-06 14:43:53, DEBUG : Got variable 'PKG_VERSION' of value '%
> > shortversion%-0'
> > 2012-09-06 14:43:53, DEBUG : Got variable 'PKG_SOURCE' of value '%
> > SOFTWARE%\libreoffice\3.6'
> > 2012-09-06 14:43:53, DEBUG : Setting variable: 'SOFTWARE=\\capibara
> > \repositorio\software'.
> > 2012-09-06 14:43:53, DEBUG : Setting variable: 'SOFTWARE=\\capibara
> > \repositorio\software'.
> > 2012-09-06 14:43:53, DEBUG : Setting variable: 'shortversion=3.6.1'.
> > 2012-09-06 14:43:53, DEBUG : Setting variable: 'PKG_VERSION=%
> > shortversion%-0'.
> > 2012-09-06 14:43:53, DEBUG : Setting variable: 'PKG_SOURCE=%SOFTWARE%
> > \libreoffice\3.6'.
>
> Variables set.
>
>
> > 2012-09-06 14:43:53, DEBUG : Install type: downgrade
> > 2012-09-06 14:43:53, DEBUG : Fetched 0 downgrade command(s).
>
> Here's your issue (very likely).
> WPKG performs a DOWNgrade, not an upgrade as you might have expected. Please
> note that the decision to do upgrade or downgrade is not depending on the
> checks. I think you got that point as I have seen you replying exactly this to
> another mail in the topic. The checks are entirely there to verify whether the
> software is installed properly.
> The decision whether upgrade or downgrade is performed depends on the values of
> the 'revision' attribute of a package.
>
> So if WPKG now claims it's going to perform a downgrade, then this is because
> the machine your package is applied to seems to have already a LibreOffice
> package installed which seems to have a newer version (in terms of
> revision='...' attribute).
>
> So please verify that your hosts local wpkg.xml in system32 folder does not
> contain an entry with LibreOffice where the revision is higher than your package
> to be synchronized.
>
> Such things often happen if package manipulations in productive repository
> happen while clients do run WPKG or the numbering scheme changes. For example
> early versions of WPKG only supported digits in the revision attribute. So I was
> used to enter something like "361" in the revision field. Then when changing to
> a different format like "3.6.1" it means a "downgrade" for WPKG since 3.6.1 is
> supposed to be lower version than 361.0.0 (or 350.0.0 previously installed).
>
> So please compare the revision locally on the host with the one on the server
> and you will likely find the cause why WPKG performs a downgrade instead of an
> upgrade.
>
>
> Moreover you will see here that WPKG fetched 0 (in words: zero) downgrade
> commands. Likely you did not specify any downgrade commands.
>
> You might also just replicate the upgrade commands as downgrade commands so WPKG
> would actually perform the same commands during suspected downgrade. So WPKG
> would think it's doing a downgrade while performing upgrade commands. The result
> will also be that the checks succeed and finally you are running LibreOffice
> 3.6.1 on your machine.
>
>
> Please also note that there were some issues regarding complex variable
> definitions recently. I recommend to use latest WPKG version from SVN:
>
> <http://wpkg.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/wpkg/wpkg/stable/src/main/resources/wpkg/>
>
>
> > 2012-09-06 14:43:53, ERROR : Could not process (downgrade)
>
> Finally the checks fail since no changes were performed to the system (performed
> downgrade, no commands, no system change, checks fail).
>
>
> HTH,
> Rainer
Hi Rainer
Your explanation makes a lot of sense to me, Thanks!
Actually, in the first e-mail, i was asking for how to get even more
info than 0xFF, because i was not understanding why i was having a
'downgrade'.
Here is my libreoffice.xml file:
----------------------------------------------
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<packages
xmlns:xsi="http://www.wpkg.org/packages"
xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="../xsd/packages.xsd" >
<package id="libreoffice"
name="LibreOffice"
revision="%PKG_VERSION%"
reboot="false"
priority="10">
<variable name="shortversion" value="3.6.1" />
<variable name="PKG_VERSION" value="%shortversion
%-0" />
<variable name="PKG_SOURCE" value="%SOFTWARE%
\libreoffice\3.6" />
<depends package-id="java7" />
<check type="uninstall" condition="versiongreaterorequal"
path="LibreOffice .+" value="%shortversion%" />
<install cmd='msiexec /qn /i "%PKG_SOURCE%\LibO_%shortversion%
_Win_x86_install_multi.msi" ALLUSERS=1 CREATEDESKTOPLINK=1
REGISTER_ALL_MSO_TYPES=0 ISCHECKFORPRODUCTUPDATE=0
REGISTER_NO_MSO_TYPES=1' />
<upgrade include="install" />
<remove cmd='msiexec /qn /x "%PKG_SOURCE%\LibO_%shortversion%
_Win_x86_install_multi.msi" ' />
</package>
</packages>
----------------------------------------------
Is the same i was using on a previous version of LibO, just updating the
version (and the 3.6 directory) (at least in theory).
As you can see, i use revision="%PKG_VERSION%",
PKG_VERSION = "%shortversion%-0" and
shortversion="3.6.1"
so the revision should be '3.6.1-0' vs '3.5.x-y'; that's why i don't
understand why i'm having a downgrade.
i have updated today this file, to include a downgrade command (include
install) as you have suggested.
reviewing the logs of the affected computers, i found something (i
think):
Installed revision '%shortversion%-0'|Available revision: '3.6.1-0'
as i can understand, it is not expanding %shortversion% to 3.5.4. It
makes me think that maybe i was having a wrong ['] vs. ["] in the
variable definitions on an earlier version of this file, and wpkg is
matching '%shorversion%' literally and not the content of the variable
%shortversion%.
¿can this be the source of the trouble?
is the only thing i can find that would make WPKG to think about a
downgrade instead of an upgrade.
Best Regards
--
Carlos Pasqualini
Administración de Redes
Facultad de Ciencias de la Alimentación
Universidad Nacional de Entre Ríos
0345-423-1440 int 399
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Porque así se facilita el seguimiento del tema tratado. |
| > ¿Por qué? |
| > > Es preferible escribir debajo del párrafo al que se responde. |
| > > > ¿Entonces qué se hace? |
| > > > > No. |
| > > > > > ¿Es bueno hacer "top-posting"? |
| +info http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-posting |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
More information about the wpkg-users
mailing list