Bug 223600

Summary: Installation sources in offline mode
Product: [openSUSE] openSUSE 10.2 Reporter: Marcel Hilzinger <marcel>
Component: YaST2Assignee: Duncan Mac-Vicar <dmacvicar>
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX QA Contact: Jiri Srain <jsrain>
Severity: Major    
Priority: P5 - None CC: aj, bluedzins, bugz57, christian.jaeger, f-perret, fred.blaise, fremenzone, kkaempf, lslezak, mrmazda, opensuse, pallotta, uwe.hering
Version: RC 1   
Target Milestone: ---   
Hardware: Other   
OS: Other   
Whiteboard: libzypp2
Found By: Other Services Priority:
Business Priority: Blocker: ---
Marketing QA Status: --- IT Deployment: ---

Description Marcel Hilzinger 2006-11-24 12:25:40 UTC
If you start the installation source module without internet connection, YaST checks for each source, if it's available and prompts for OK, Cancel, Skip.

If you choose "Skip", YaST asks, if it should remove the installation source immediately. If you choose here "No" (for not removing) the installation source does not show up anymore. So YaST did remove it.

YaST does not remove the source indeed, but as it does not show up, most users may think, that it did so. If you have several sources set up, this might be _very_ annoying, that's why I marked the bug as Critical. This bug is probably related to bug #23598.

As this behaviour is totally new, you should at least add some comments to the release notes.
Comment 1 Ladislav Slezák 2006-11-24 15:06:29 UTC
I agree, the unavailable sources should be diplayed in the overview. But I don't think that it's necessary to mention this particular problem in the release notes, the sources are not removed and when the network is available again they will show up there.
Comment 2 Marcel Hilzinger 2006-11-24 15:50:11 UTC
Linux is often two steps forward and one behind. That's what most users find annoying....

If the sources are displayed also in offline mode, then it's nut neccessary, right. but....

YaSTs behaviour until now was: all sources were selectable and all sources were displayed. How do you think, user joe will know, that these things are features and not bugs (btw. I still consider this handling as bug)? 

Such a fundamental change _must_ be mentioned after the disaster with package management under 10.1. Most users just will not understand, why sometimes YaST gives them all the possibilities, another time not. Maybe they do not even think, that it's related to the internet connection.

And how will YaST react, if you are using networkmanager and NM gives you a Pseudo-IP (Windows style)?
Comment 3 Andreas Jaeger 2006-11-24 17:32:33 UTC
This looks really confusing.  Can't we do this better?
Comment 4 Marcel Hilzinger 2006-11-25 11:02:00 UTC
Btw. Just checked with KNetworkManager: If you get a pseudo IP (169.254.49.182), then YaST thinks your online and gives all possibilities to choose a new source. Nevertheless, extisting network sources are not displayed, as they cannot be reached. So it's a mess this way, too.
Comment 5 Stanislav Visnovsky 2006-11-29 12:42:27 UTC
We plan to do better, but not for 10.2, it's too late.

The plan is to provide a way to manage catalogs themselves only, without
any refreshing or other outside dependencies of the system (if user does
not explicitly ask for it, e.g. initiating refresh action manually).
Comment 6 Marcel Hilzinger 2006-11-29 12:51:41 UTC
Can you for 10.2 (I know it's late) at lest leave off the confusing dialog. So YaST will _not_ remove any source automatically, just not show them.

Or change the text to something like:

"You are in offline mode: YaST will only display local installation sources."

No "Yes" or "NO" button is needed, only "OK"

Comment 7 Ladislav Slezák 2006-11-29 13:15:57 UTC
*** Bug 223893 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 8 Ladislav Slezák 2006-11-29 13:26:50 UTC
Yast does _not_ remove any source automatically, user is asked whether the sources which could not be initialized should be removed or not.

The problem is that the broken sources cannot be changed (yast is even unable to get the information about them so they cannot be displayed).
Comment 9 Ladislav Slezák 2006-11-29 13:30:55 UTC
*** Bug 223743 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 10 Marcel Hilzinger 2006-11-29 13:31:44 UTC
I know but it's about usability:
If I click on "Yes" I will not see the sources
If I click on "No" I will not see the sources

So in both cases the visible result is the same. That's why I call it a confusing dialog. Omitting the dialog and not delet anything would make things more clear.
Comment 11 Stanislav Visnovsky 2006-11-29 13:41:53 UTC
Not really. Users will ask what happened to their sources anyway.
Comment 12 Ladislav Slezák 2006-11-29 13:51:30 UTC
In some cases you really want to remove a broken source (e.g. the server or the repository has been removed) otherwise you will see the error messages again and again when starting the module. If a source is broken (unavailable) it is not displayed, if it is not displayed it cannot be removed...

It could be possible to somehow get list of the broken sources and display them in the dialog (and make them not editable), but it would be non-trivial and probably it is not worth of doing it (see comment #5).
Comment 13 Marcel Hilzinger 2006-11-29 14:13:15 UTC
To #11: That's why I suggested to change the text in the dialog to:
You are in offline mode: YaST will only display local installation sources.

Why is it so hard to accept an easy fix???


To #12. This has nothing to do with the initial problem. As sources are not showed anyway, you cannot remove them. You can only remove online sources in online mode now, right?

If you are in online mode and a source is broken, you will get troubles with the timeout. That's why Bug 223893 is actually a different bug. There are two problems

A) YaST does not show sources in offline mode (this bug)
B) You cannot really remove broken sources in online mode (Bug  223893)

As problem B) cannot be fixed in 10.2. Let's at least fix problem A)  with the solution I wrote in comment #6. Please.
Comment 14 Ladislav Slezák 2006-11-29 14:40:57 UTC
Sorry, we cannot change any text now, the texts would be untranslated.
Comment 16 Ladislav Slezák 2007-01-15 08:25:21 UTC
*** Bug 230725 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 17 Ladislav Slezák 2007-01-17 06:54:43 UTC
*** Bug 231964 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 18 Ladislav Slezák 2007-01-19 09:18:37 UTC
*** Bug 233523 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 19 Ladislav Slezák 2007-01-29 07:02:09 UTC
*** Bug 239372 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 20 Ladislav Slezák 2007-01-31 15:54:52 UTC
*** Bug 240575 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 21 macias - 2007-01-31 18:51:14 UTC
Since my report is now a duplicate of this one, simple solution (imho):

Please, do not refresh repos when IS is launched. Do it only when SM is launched.
Comment 22 Duncan Mac-Vicar 2007-02-05 09:28:48 UTC
"do not refresh repos when IS is launched. Do it only when SM is
launched."

This requires the refactoring for 10.3
Comment 23 Ladislav Slezák 2007-02-27 15:56:20 UTC
*** Bug 249353 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 24 Ladislav Slezák 2007-03-01 15:51:25 UTC
*** Bug 249767 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 25 Ladislav Slezák 2007-03-02 13:36:26 UTC
*** Bug 249773 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 26 Dirk Stoecker 2007-03-03 13:51:11 UTC
When I join similar themes in one bug report I get a comment, that each one should have an individual report. When I splitt them, you mark them as duplicates of one report ...

But this are two topics:
a) hidden, non-reachable installation sources, when updating fails
b) Updating of deactivated installation sources when refresh is active.

Where a is only relevant for the installation source management and b also for the installation itself.

b should be fixable easily it think:
if(xxx->doRefresh())
to
if(xxx->isActivate() && xxx->dorefresh())
Comment 27 Matej Horvath 2007-03-08 14:22:02 UTC
*** Bug 252486 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 28 Ladislav Slezák 2007-03-20 14:19:39 UTC
*** Bug 251133 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 29 Ladislav Slezák 2007-04-18 12:25:29 UTC
*** Bug 265276 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 30 Ladislav Slezák 2007-04-19 13:08:09 UTC
*** Bug 263136 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 31 Matej Horvath 2007-04-23 07:08:28 UTC
*** Bug 266864 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 32 Scott Couston 2007-04-28 07:58:28 UTC
RE comment #22
'This requires the refactoring for 10.3' 

and status changed to 'resolved later'

There are great deal of resolved later towards the release of a new version.

Please clarify either

"wontfix for 10.2"

OR

"Resolved in 10.3" and resolved how - due no apparent activity and reminants of slight confusion as in comment #5 and #13

otherwise the bug indicates changes need to be made to RC 10.3 with no assignment nor resolution of actual bug and this will remain a major issue in both versions. Perhaps for clarity we need the above status indicators

This is not helpful for all those who have contributed to this and duplicate bugs reports.
Comment 33 Scott Couston 2007-04-28 07:59:54 UTC
QA - Please comment on #22
Comment 34 Duncan Mac-Vicar 2007-05-21 16:17:57 UTC
Tobe fixed with 10.3 refactoring
Comment 35 Stephan Kulow 2008-06-25 09:19:25 UTC
mass reopening all 10.2 LATER+REMIND bugs.
Comment 36 Stephan Kulow 2008-06-25 09:23:41 UTC
close all 10.2 LATER/REMIND bugs as WONTFIX. Reopen yourself if you still plan to work on it.