[torqueusers] torque daemons can not be stopeed during uninstall

Steve Young chemadm at hamilton.edu
Tue Dec 9 14:45:42 MST 2008


Ahh.. I guess I mis-understood I was under the impression this  
"onceihave"??? was getting an rpm version of torque from somewhere. If  
he's building it himself then why not just modify the rpm to suit his  
own needs... Ok Garrick I gotcha.. put me down on your side =). Sorry  
for the confusion.. my bad.

-Steve



On Dec 9, 2008, at 4:39 PM, Garrick Staples wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 04:32:39PM -0500, Steve Young alleged:
>> 	No I don't use rpm versions of torque server because too many times
>> you get all sorts of dependancy problems. I'd rather compile it
>> against the libs I currently have installed on the server.
>
> Again, we are talking about rpms that you are building.  You can not  
> build rpms
> against libs that aren't on your own machine.
>
>
>> I do expect that for rpm packages (that I do use), when I tell it to
>> remove the package that it actually does stop the daemon and remove
>> the package. That seems to be the way most rpm's work. I would be a
>> little confused to remove the rpm and find that afterwards there is
>> still the daemon running? I could see using an rpm package for the
>> client nodes (pbs_mom).  There I would still expect that a uninstall
>> would stop the daemon and then remove the package.
>
> How about a compromise?  How about printing a warning message?
>
>
>> 	For me, It's much easier to compile the app and when I need to make
>> changes/upgrades I can compile another version and a quick stop of  
>> the
>> daemon and start of the new daemon will get me running. If there are
>> problems I can quickly revert back to the previous version. Suppose I
>> remove the rpm package and try to install a new version only to find
>> out that because of dependancies that I can't install the new  
>> version.
>> Now I'm stuck and I hope I can re-install the old version of the
>> package and get everything configured back the way I had it. This is
>> why I don't like to use rpm's for certain server applications.
>
> Again, you *are* compiling the app.  CRI doesn't distribute binary  
> rpms.
>
> And that stuff about deps is silly.  Rpms are upgraded with 'rpm -U'  
> which does
> the uninstall of the old package *after* installing the new  
> package.  You can't
> remove a package because you don't have the deps for the new package.
>
> Of course, you are free to use whatever you want.  I'm not actually  
> saying that
> you should be using rpms.  I would just hate for you to make that  
> decision with
> bad information!
>
>
>> 	I do understand your point Garrick, and I agree with you about
>> torque. It can be a tricky beast sometimes. I'm just pointing out  
>> that
>> as an Admin I would actually expect that an rpm package would stop  
>> the
>> daemon and remove it.  Why would anyone not want it removed if that's
>> what they asked for?
>
> Well, there are 2 possible scenerios.
>
> *shrug*
>
> -- 
> Garrick Staples, GNU/Linux HPCC SysAdmin
> University of Southern California
>
> See the Dishonor Roll at http://www.californiansagainsthate.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> torqueusers mailing list
> torqueusers at supercluster.org
> http://www.supercluster.org/mailman/listinfo/torqueusers



More information about the torqueusers mailing list