Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Guido Aulisi]

Il giorno gio, 28/02/2019 alle 10.22 +0100, Miroslav Suchý ha scritto:
> Do you want to make Fedora 30 better? Please spend 1 minute of your
> time and try to run:
> 
>   sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30
> --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
> 
> If you get this prompt:
> 
>   ...
>   Total download size: XXX M
>   Is this ok [y/N]:
> 
> you can answer N and nothing happens, no need to test the real
> upgrade. Upgrades will be fine for you.
> 
> But very likely you get some dependency problem now. In that case
> please report it against appropriate package.
> 
> Thank you
> 
> Miroslav

I got this:

Errore: 
 Problema: problem with installed package rubygem-asciidoctor-pdf-
1.5.0-0.9.alpha.16.fc30.noarch
  - rubygem-asciidoctor-pdf-1.5.0-0.9.alpha.16.fc30.noarch does not
belong to a distupgrade repository
  - nothing provides (rubygem(concurrent-ruby) >= 1.1.0 with
rubygem(concurrent-ruby) < 1.2) needed by rubygem-asciidoctor-pdf-
1.5.0-0.10.alpha.18.fc31.noarch
  - nothing provides (rubygem(treetop) >= 1.5.0 with rubygem(treetop) <
1.6) needed by rubygem-asciidoctor-pdf-1.5.0-0.10.alpha.18.fc31.noarch
(try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)

Ciao
Guido
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Ankur Sinha]

Hello,

I updated 2 systems today to F30 using dnf system-upgrade. Ran into a
few issues, but nothing major. I worked around them by removing the
offending packages and then proceeding with the upgrade. Here are the
bugs I filed:

- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1700307:
  package Mayavi-4.6.2-3.fc30.x86_64 requires python3-mayavi, but none
  of the providers can be installed

- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1674843:
  ekiga is FTBFS in F30

- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1700305:
  (Apparently fixed in testing, but I haven't been able to test yet.)
  package hamcrest-1.3-25.fc30.noarch requires hamcrest-core =
  1.3-25.fc30, but none of the providers can be installed -
  hamcrest-1.3-24.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade
  repository

- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1700310:
  package python2-envisage-4.6.0-1.fc29.noarch requires
  python2-ipykernel, but none of the providers can be installed

- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1700286:
  package ghc-hoopl-3.10.2.2-70.fc29.x86_64 requires
  libHSarray-0.5.2.0-ghc8.2.2.so()(64bit), but none of the providers can
  be installed

- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1686746:
  python3-fsleyes uninstallable because of missing deps: we're looking
  into this now.


-- 
Thanks,
Regards,

Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD"
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha

Time zone: Europe/London


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Robert-André Mauchin]

On Sunday, 14 April 2019 08:55:32 CEST Hirotaka Wakabayashi wrote:
> Hello
> 
> I tested upgrades from F29 to F30. I use the following images:
> https://download.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/releases/29/Cloud/x86_64
> /images/Fedora-Cloud-Base-Vagrant-29-1.2.x86_64.vagrant-virtualbox.box
> https://download.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/releases/29/Cloud/x86_6
> 4/images/Fedora-Cloud-Base-29-1.2.x86_64.qcow2
> 
> On the image for Vagrant, I failed upgrades  I usually use this image for
> rpm packaging.``` [vagrant@fedora29 ~]$ sudo dnf --releasever=30
> --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 --enablerepo=updates-testing
> distro-sync Fedora Modular 30 -
> x86_64 
>650 kB/s | 2.3 MB
> 00:03 Fedora Modular 30 - x86_64 -
> Updates
>   219  B/s | 257  B 00:01 Fedora
> 30 - x86_64 - Test
> Updates
>  1.8 MB/s |  14 MB 00:07
> Fedora 30 - x86_64 -
> Updates
>   234  B/s | 257  B
> 00:01 Fedora 30 -
> x86_64 
>1.1 MB/s |  54
> MB 00:48 Error:
>  Problem 1: problem with installed package
> gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.21.rc1.fc29.noarch -
> gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.21.rc1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade
> repository - nothing provides python2.7dist(git) needed by
> gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch - nothing provides
> python2.7dist(hglib) needed by gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch -
> nothing provides python2.7dist(koji) needed by
> gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch - nothing provides
> python2.7dist(python-gitdb) needed by
> gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch - nothing provides
> python2.7dist(tarfile) needed by gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch -
> nothing provides python2.7dist(urllib2) needed by
> gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch Problem 2: problem with installed
> package gofed-gofedlib-1.0.0-0.21.rc1.fc29.x86_64 -
> gofed-gofedlib-1.0.0-0.21.rc1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
> repository - nothing provides python2.7dist(jinja2) = 2.8 needed by
> gofed-gofedlib-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.x86_64 - nothing provides
> python2.7dist(markupsafe) = 0.23 needed by
> gofed-gofedlib-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.x86_64 Problem 3: problem with installed
> package gofed-1.0.0-0.21.rc1.fc29.x86_64 - package
> gofed-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.x86_64 requires gofed-infra =
> 1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30, but none of the providers can be installed -
> gofed-1.0.0-0.21.rc1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
> repository - nothing provides python2.7dist(git) needed by
> gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch - nothing provides
> python2.7dist(hglib) needed by gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch -
> nothing provides python2.7dist(koji) needed by
> gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch - nothing provides
> python2.7dist(python-gitdb) needed by
> gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch - nothing provides
> python2.7dist(tarfile) needed by gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch -
> nothing provides python2.7dist(urllib2) needed by
> gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch Problem 4: problem with installed
> package gofed-resources-1.0.0-0.21.rc1.fc29.noarch - package
> gofed-resources-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch requires gofed-gofedlib =
> 1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30, but none of the providers can be installed -
> gofed-resources-1.0.0-0.21.rc1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade
> repository - nothing provides python2.7dist(jinja2) = 2.8 needed by
> gofed-gofedlib-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.x86_64 - nothing provides
> python2.7dist(markupsafe) = 0.23 needed by
> gofed-gofedlib-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.x86_64 (try to add '--skip-broken' to
> skip uninstallable packages)
> ```
> 
> On the image for OpenStack, dependencies are successfully resolved.
>  ```
> Transaction Summary
> 
> 
> == Install   20 Packages
> Upgrade  392 Packages
> 
> ...
> 
> Total download size: 282 M
> Is this ok [y/N]:
> Operation aborted.
> ```
> 
> Upgrades are successfully completed while I found scriptlets in dbus-daemon
> and systemd are failed because of "Failed to reload daemon: Access
> denied".```
> Transaction Summary
> 
> 
> == Install   20 Packages
> Upgrade  392 Packages
> 
> Total 

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Adam Williamson]

On Mon, 2019-04-15 at 14:37 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On 4/15/19 2:31 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Mon, 2019-04-15 at 12:46 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > > On 4/14/19 10:41 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > > > On 15. 04. 19 3:27, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > > > MongoDB has been removed from Fedora:
> > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/MongoDB_Removal
> > > > 
> > > > Except it was not:
> > > > 
> > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677379
> > > 
> > > It should now be blocked in f30 as well (it was blocked in f31)
> > > and I made a update for fedora-package-obsoletes to obsolete it.
> > > (Of course that needs to go stable)
> > 
> > Can you mark the update as being associated with the bug? That needs to
> > be done for it to get pulled into the normal blocker / FE request
> > process. Thanks!
> 
> Well, fedora-obsolete-packages requires a bug, so I filed:
> 
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1700073
> 
> for the update. I thought we didn't want to use "change" bugs as
> blockers/exceptions? (since they would get closed before they perhaps
> should be?).

Oh, yes, good point.

> I can add the change bug if you like tho... or we could transfer the FE
> to the other bug?

Yeah, let's do that.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Kevin Fenzi]

On 4/15/19 2:31 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-04-15 at 12:46 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> On 4/14/19 10:41 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
>>> On 15. 04. 19 3:27, Neal Gompa wrote:
 MongoDB has been removed from Fedora:
 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/MongoDB_Removal
>>>
>>> Except it was not:
>>>
>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677379
>>
>> It should now be blocked in f30 as well (it was blocked in f31)
>> and I made a update for fedora-package-obsoletes to obsolete it.
>> (Of course that needs to go stable)
> 
> Can you mark the update as being associated with the bug? That needs to
> be done for it to get pulled into the normal blocker / FE request
> process. Thanks!

Well, fedora-obsolete-packages requires a bug, so I filed:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1700073

for the update. I thought we didn't want to use "change" bugs as
blockers/exceptions? (since they would get closed before they perhaps
should be?).

I can add the change bug if you like tho... or we could transfer the FE
to the other bug?

kevin



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Adam Williamson]

On Mon, 2019-04-15 at 12:46 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On 4/14/19 10:41 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > On 15. 04. 19 3:27, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > MongoDB has been removed from Fedora:
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/MongoDB_Removal
> > 
> > Except it was not:
> > 
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677379
> 
> It should now be blocked in f30 as well (it was blocked in f31)
> and I made a update for fedora-package-obsoletes to obsolete it.
> (Of course that needs to go stable)

Can you mark the update as being associated with the bug? That needs to
be done for it to get pulled into the normal blocker / FE request
process. Thanks!
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Kevin Fenzi]

On 4/14/19 10:41 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 15. 04. 19 3:27, Neal Gompa wrote:

>> MongoDB has been removed from Fedora:
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/MongoDB_Removal
> 
> Except it was not:
> 
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677379

It should now be blocked in f30 as well (it was blocked in f31)
and I made a update for fedora-package-obsoletes to obsolete it.
(Of course that needs to go stable)

kevin




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Miro Hrončok]

On 15. 04. 19 3:10, Garry T. Williams wrote:

Error:
  Problem 1: package python2-cinderclient-3.5.0-1.fc29.noarch requires 
python2-oslo-i18n >= 3.15.3, but none of the providers can be installed
   - python2-oslo-i18n-3.19.0-1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
   - problem with installed package python2-cinderclient-3.5.0-1.fc29.noarch


Fixed in https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-46aa341001


  Problem 2: problem with installed package mongodb-4.0.3-3.fc29.x86_64
   - package mongodb-4.0.3-3.fc30.x86_64 requires 
libboost_filesystem.so.1.66.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be 
installed
   - mongodb-4.0.3-3.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
   - boost-filesystem-1.66.0-14.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
  Problem 3: problem with installed package mongodb-server-4.0.3-3.fc29.x86_64
   - package mongodb-server-4.0.3-3.fc30.x86_64 requires 
libboost_program_options.so.1.66.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be 
installed
   - mongodb-server-4.0.3-3.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
   - boost-program-options-1.66.0-14.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a 
distupgrade repository
(try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)
garry@ifr$

Perhaps mondodb is not upgradable?


See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677379

Mongodb should have been removed from Fedora 30, but it was not removed 
completely. Instead, it has broken upgrade.


--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Miro Hrončok]

On 15. 04. 19 3:27, Neal Gompa wrote:

On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 9:11 PM Garry T. Williams  wrote:


On Thursday, February 28, 2019 4:22:51 AM EDT Miroslav Suchý wrote:

Do you want to make Fedora 30 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and 
try to run:

   sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 
--enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync


garry@ifr$ sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 
--enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
[sudo] password for garry:
Fedora 30 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64 1.3 kB/s | 542  B 00:00
Fedora 30 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64 160 kB/s | 1.6 kB 00:00
Importing GPG key 0xCFC659B9:
  Userid : "Fedora (30) "
  Fingerprint: F1D8 EC98 F241 AAF2 0DF6 9420 EF3C 111F CFC6 59B9
  From   : /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-30-x86_64
Is this ok [y/N]: y
Fedora 30 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64 6.4 kB/s | 5.1 kB 00:00
Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Test Updates4.3 MB/s |  14 MB 00:03
Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Updates  98 kB/s |  18 kB 00:00
Fedora 30 - x86_64   3.1 MB/s |  54 MB 00:17
google-chrome 35 kB/s | 1.3 kB 00:00
google-chrome 46 kB/s | 3.4 kB 00:00
Copr repo for qt5-qtbase-print-dialog-advanced o 112 kB/s | 100 kB 00:00
RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Free - Updates 68 kB/s |  71 kB 00:01
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-free-updates'
RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Free  1.1 MB/s | 737 kB 00:00
RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Nonfree - Updates 185 kB/s |  71 kB 00:00
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-nonfree-updates'
RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Nonfree   148 kB/s | 227 kB 00:01
Visual Studio Code20 kB/s | 2.9 kB 00:00
Visual Studio Code   203 kB/s | 2.1 MB 00:10
Ignoring repositories: rpmfusion-free-updates, rpmfusion-nonfree-updates
Error:
  Problem 1: package python2-cinderclient-3.5.0-1.fc29.noarch requires 
python2-oslo-i18n >= 3.15.3, but none of the providers can be installed
   - python2-oslo-i18n-3.19.0-1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
   - problem with installed package python2-cinderclient-3.5.0-1.fc29.noarch
  Problem 2: problem with installed package mongodb-4.0.3-3.fc29.x86_64
   - package mongodb-4.0.3-3.fc30.x86_64 requires 
libboost_filesystem.so.1.66.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be 
installed
   - mongodb-4.0.3-3.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
   - boost-filesystem-1.66.0-14.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
  Problem 3: problem with installed package mongodb-server-4.0.3-3.fc29.x86_64
   - package mongodb-server-4.0.3-3.fc30.x86_64 requires 
libboost_program_options.so.1.66.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be 
installed
   - mongodb-server-4.0.3-3.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
   - boost-program-options-1.66.0-14.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a 
distupgrade repository
(try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)
garry@ifr$

Perhaps mondodb is not upgradable?



MongoDB has been removed from Fedora:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/MongoDB_Removal


Except it was not:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677379

--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Neal Gompa]

On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 9:11 PM Garry T. Williams  wrote:
>
> On Thursday, February 28, 2019 4:22:51 AM EDT Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> > Do you want to make Fedora 30 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time 
> > and try to run:
> >
> >   sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 
> > --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
>
> garry@ifr$ sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 
> --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
> [sudo] password for garry:
> Fedora 30 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64 1.3 kB/s | 542  B 00:00
> Fedora 30 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64 160 kB/s | 1.6 kB 00:00
> Importing GPG key 0xCFC659B9:
>  Userid : "Fedora (30) "
>  Fingerprint: F1D8 EC98 F241 AAF2 0DF6 9420 EF3C 111F CFC6 59B9
>  From   : /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-30-x86_64
> Is this ok [y/N]: y
> Fedora 30 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64 6.4 kB/s | 5.1 kB 00:00
> Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Test Updates4.3 MB/s |  14 MB 00:03
> Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Updates  98 kB/s |  18 kB 00:00
> Fedora 30 - x86_64   3.1 MB/s |  54 MB 00:17
> google-chrome 35 kB/s | 1.3 kB 00:00
> google-chrome 46 kB/s | 3.4 kB 00:00
> Copr repo for qt5-qtbase-print-dialog-advanced o 112 kB/s | 100 kB 00:00
> RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Free - Updates 68 kB/s |  71 kB 00:01
> Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-free-updates'
> RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Free  1.1 MB/s | 737 kB 00:00
> RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Nonfree - Updates 185 kB/s |  71 kB 00:00
> Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-nonfree-updates'
> RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Nonfree   148 kB/s | 227 kB 00:01
> Visual Studio Code20 kB/s | 2.9 kB 00:00
> Visual Studio Code   203 kB/s | 2.1 MB 00:10
> Ignoring repositories: rpmfusion-free-updates, rpmfusion-nonfree-updates
> Error:
>  Problem 1: package python2-cinderclient-3.5.0-1.fc29.noarch requires 
> python2-oslo-i18n >= 3.15.3, but none of the providers can be installed
>   - python2-oslo-i18n-3.19.0-1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade 
> repository
>   - problem with installed package python2-cinderclient-3.5.0-1.fc29.noarch
>  Problem 2: problem with installed package mongodb-4.0.3-3.fc29.x86_64
>   - package mongodb-4.0.3-3.fc30.x86_64 requires 
> libboost_filesystem.so.1.66.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be 
> installed
>   - mongodb-4.0.3-3.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
>   - boost-filesystem-1.66.0-14.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade 
> repository
>  Problem 3: problem with installed package mongodb-server-4.0.3-3.fc29.x86_64
>   - package mongodb-server-4.0.3-3.fc30.x86_64 requires 
> libboost_program_options.so.1.66.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be 
> installed
>   - mongodb-server-4.0.3-3.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade 
> repository
>   - boost-program-options-1.66.0-14.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a 
> distupgrade repository
> (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)
> garry@ifr$
>
> Perhaps mondodb is not upgradable?
>

MongoDB has been removed from Fedora:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/MongoDB_Removal


-- 
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Garry T. Williams]

On Thursday, February 28, 2019 4:22:51 AM EDT Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Do you want to make Fedora 30 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and 
> try to run:
> 
>   sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 
> --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync

garry@ifr$ sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 
--enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
[sudo] password for garry:
Fedora 30 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64 1.3 kB/s | 542  B 00:00
Fedora 30 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64 160 kB/s | 1.6 kB 00:00
Importing GPG key 0xCFC659B9:
 Userid : "Fedora (30) "
 Fingerprint: F1D8 EC98 F241 AAF2 0DF6 9420 EF3C 111F CFC6 59B9
 From   : /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-30-x86_64
Is this ok [y/N]: y
Fedora 30 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64 6.4 kB/s | 5.1 kB 00:00
Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Test Updates4.3 MB/s |  14 MB 00:03
Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Updates  98 kB/s |  18 kB 00:00
Fedora 30 - x86_64   3.1 MB/s |  54 MB 00:17
google-chrome 35 kB/s | 1.3 kB 00:00
google-chrome 46 kB/s | 3.4 kB 00:00
Copr repo for qt5-qtbase-print-dialog-advanced o 112 kB/s | 100 kB 00:00
RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Free - Updates 68 kB/s |  71 kB 00:01
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-free-updates'
RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Free  1.1 MB/s | 737 kB 00:00
RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Nonfree - Updates 185 kB/s |  71 kB 00:00
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-nonfree-updates'
RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Nonfree   148 kB/s | 227 kB 00:01
Visual Studio Code20 kB/s | 2.9 kB 00:00
Visual Studio Code   203 kB/s | 2.1 MB 00:10
Ignoring repositories: rpmfusion-free-updates, rpmfusion-nonfree-updates
Error:
 Problem 1: package python2-cinderclient-3.5.0-1.fc29.noarch requires 
python2-oslo-i18n >= 3.15.3, but none of the providers can be installed
  - python2-oslo-i18n-3.19.0-1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
  - problem with installed package python2-cinderclient-3.5.0-1.fc29.noarch
 Problem 2: problem with installed package mongodb-4.0.3-3.fc29.x86_64
  - package mongodb-4.0.3-3.fc30.x86_64 requires 
libboost_filesystem.so.1.66.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be 
installed
  - mongodb-4.0.3-3.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - boost-filesystem-1.66.0-14.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
 Problem 3: problem with installed package mongodb-server-4.0.3-3.fc29.x86_64
  - package mongodb-server-4.0.3-3.fc30.x86_64 requires 
libboost_program_options.so.1.66.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be 
installed
  - mongodb-server-4.0.3-3.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
  - boost-program-options-1.66.0-14.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a 
distupgrade repository
(try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)
garry@ifr$

Perhaps mondodb is not upgradable?

-- 
Garry T. Williams


___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Miro Hrončok]

On 14. 04. 19 20:21, Raphael Groner wrote:

$ sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 
--enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
[...]
  Problem 2: package python2-testify-0.11.0-12.fc29.noarch requires 
python2-flake8, but none of the providers can be installed
   - python2-flake8-3.5.0-6.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
   - problem with installed package python2-testify-0.11.0-12.fc29.noarch


Fixed: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-46aa341001

--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Raphael Groner]

$ sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 
--enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
[...]
 Problem 1: package lxqt-l10n-0.13.0-1.fc29.noarch requires libfm-qt-l10n = 
0.13.0-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
  - libfm-qt-l10n-0.13.0-1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
  - problem with installed package lxqt-l10n-0.13.0-1.fc29.noarch
 Problem 2: package python2-testify-0.11.0-12.fc29.noarch requires 
python2-flake8, but none of the providers can be installed
  - python2-flake8-3.5.0-6.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
  - problem with installed package python2-testify-0.11.0-12.fc29.noarch
 Problem 3: problem with installed package hamcrest-1.3-24.fc29.noarch
  - package hamcrest-1.3-25.fc30.noarch requires hamcrest-core = 1.3-25.fc30, 
but none of the providers can be installed
  - hamcrest-1.3-24.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - package hamcrest-core-1.3-25.fc30.noarch is excluded
 Problem 4: problem with installed package maven-wagon-ssh-3.1.0-2.fc29.noarch
  - package maven-wagon-ssh-3.2.0-2.fc30.noarch requires 
mvn(org.apache.maven.wagon:wagon-provider-api) = 3.2.0, but none of the 
providers can be installed
  - maven-wagon-ssh-3.1.0-2.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
  - package maven-wagon-provider-api-3.2.0-2.fc30.noarch is excluded
 Problem 5: problem with installed package 
maven-wagon-ssh-common-3.1.0-2.fc29.noarch
  - package maven-wagon-ssh-common-3.2.0-2.fc30.noarch requires 
mvn(org.apache.maven.wagon:wagon-provider-api) = 3.2.0, but none of the 
providers can be installed
  - maven-wagon-ssh-common-3.1.0-2.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
  - package maven-wagon-provider-api-3.2.0-2.fc30.noarch is excluded
(try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)
[root@builder29 ~]# 
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Wells, Roger K.]

On 4/13/19 10:42 PM, Phil Wyett wrote:
On Fri, 2019-03-01 at 13:52 +0800, Robin Lee wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 5:23 PM Miroslav Suchý 
>  wrote:
>>
>> Do you want to make Fedora 30 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and
>> try to run:
>>
>>   sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 --
>> enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
>>
>> If you get this prompt:
>>
>>   ...
>>   Total download size: XXX M
>>   Is this ok [y/N]:
>>
>> you can answer N and nothing happens, no need to test the real upgrade.
>> Upgrades will be fine for you.
>>
>> But very likely you get some dependency problem now. In that case please
>> report it against appropriate package.

A quick upgrade test this morning with 30 beta and all current updates on a
'workstation' install.

Issue:

Downgrading:
 freerdp-libs x86_64 2:2.0.0-48.20190228gitce386c8.fc30
 libwinpr x86_64 2:2.0.0-48.20190228gitce386c8.fc30

Info:

Rawhide, f29 and f28 are all on -49, but 30 is not and no updates pending in
testing.

Regards

Phil


results here:

Transaction Summary
==
Install  62 Packages
Upgrade2260 Packages
Remove4 Packages
Downgrade 2 Packages

Total download size: 2.6 G
Is this ok [y/N]:

HTH

> ___ > devel mailing list -- 
> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To 
> unsubscribe send an email to 
> devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
>  > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html > List 
> Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List 
> Archives: 
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
--
Roger Wells, P.E.
leidos
221 Third St
Newport, RI 02840
401-847-4210 (voice)
401-849-1585 (fax)
roger.k.we...@leidos.com

___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Miro Hrončok]

On 14. 04. 19 8:55, Hirotaka Wakabayashi wrote:

Hello

I tested upgrades from F29 to F30. I use the following images:
https://download.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/releases/29/Cloud/x86_64/images/Fedora-Cloud-Base-Vagrant-29-1.2.x86_64.vagrant-virtualbox.box
https://download.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/releases/29/Cloud/x86_64/images/Fedora-Cloud-Base-29-1.2.x86_64.qcow2

On the image for Vagrant, I failed upgrades I usually use this image for rpm 
packaging.

```
[vagrant@fedora29 ~]$ sudo dnf --releasever=30 
--setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
Fedora Modular 30 - 
x86_64
650 kB/s | 2.3 MB 00:03
Fedora Modular 30 - x86_64 - 
Updates  
219  B/s | 257  B 00:01
Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Test 
Updates 
1.8 MB/s |  14 MB 00:07
Fedora 30 - x86_64 - 
Updates  
234  B/s | 257  B 00:01
Fedora 30 - 
x86_64
1.1 MB/s |  54 MB 00:48

Error:
  Problem 1: problem with installed package 
gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.21.rc1.fc29.noarch
   - gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.21.rc1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
   - nothing provides python2.7dist(git) needed by 
gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch
   - nothing provides python2.7dist(hglib) needed by 
gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch
   - nothing provides python2.7dist(koji) needed by 
gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch
   - nothing provides python2.7dist(python-gitdb) needed by 
gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch
   - nothing provides python2.7dist(tarfile) needed by 
gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch
   - nothing provides python2.7dist(urllib2) needed by 
gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch
  Problem 2: problem with installed package 
gofed-gofedlib-1.0.0-0.21.rc1.fc29.x86_64
   - gofed-gofedlib-1.0.0-0.21.rc1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
   - nothing provides python2.7dist(jinja2) = 2.8 needed by 
gofed-gofedlib-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.x86_64
   - nothing provides python2.7dist(markupsafe) = 0.23 needed by 
gofed-gofedlib-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.x86_64

  Problem 3: problem with installed package gofed-1.0.0-0.21.rc1.fc29.x86_64
   - package gofed-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.x86_64 requires gofed-infra = 
1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30, but none of the providers can be installed

   - gofed-1.0.0-0.21.rc1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
   - nothing provides python2.7dist(git) needed by 
gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch
   - nothing provides python2.7dist(hglib) needed by 
gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch
   - nothing provides python2.7dist(koji) needed by 
gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch
   - nothing provides python2.7dist(python-gitdb) needed by 
gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch
   - nothing provides python2.7dist(tarfile) needed by 
gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch
   - nothing provides python2.7dist(urllib2) needed by 
gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch
  Problem 4: problem with installed package 
gofed-resources-1.0.0-0.21.rc1.fc29.noarch
   - package gofed-resources-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch requires gofed-gofedlib 
= 1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30, but none of the providers can be installed
   - gofed-resources-1.0.0-0.21.rc1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
   - nothing provides python2.7dist(jinja2) = 2.8 needed by 
gofed-gofedlib-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.x86_64
   - nothing provides python2.7dist(markupsafe) = 0.23 needed by 
gofed-gofedlib-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.x86_64

(try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)
```



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1698452

--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Hirotaka Wakabayashi]

Hello

I tested upgrades from F29 to F30. I use the following images:
https://download.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/releases/29/Cloud/x86_64/images/Fedora-Cloud-Base-Vagrant-29-1.2.x86_64.vagrant-virtualbox.box
https://download.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/releases/29/Cloud/x86_64/images/Fedora-Cloud-Base-29-1.2.x86_64.qcow2

On the image for Vagrant, I failed upgrades  I usually use this image for rpm 
packaging.```
[vagrant@fedora29 ~]$ sudo dnf --releasever=30 
--setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 --enablerepo=updates-testing 
distro-sync
Fedora Modular 30 - x86_64  
  650 kB/s | 
2.3 MB 00:03   
Fedora Modular 30 - x86_64 - Updates
  219  B/s | 
257  B 00:01   
Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Test Updates   
  1.8 MB/s |  
14 MB 00:07   
Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Updates
  234  B/s | 
257  B 00:01   
Fedora 30 - x86_64  
  1.1 MB/s |  
54 MB 00:48   
Error:
 Problem 1: problem with installed package 
gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.21.rc1.fc29.noarch
  - gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.21.rc1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
  - nothing provides python2.7dist(git) needed by 
gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch
  - nothing provides python2.7dist(hglib) needed by 
gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch
  - nothing provides python2.7dist(koji) needed by 
gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch
  - nothing provides python2.7dist(python-gitdb) needed by 
gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch
  - nothing provides python2.7dist(tarfile) needed by 
gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch
  - nothing provides python2.7dist(urllib2) needed by 
gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch
 Problem 2: problem with installed package 
gofed-gofedlib-1.0.0-0.21.rc1.fc29.x86_64
  - gofed-gofedlib-1.0.0-0.21.rc1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
  - nothing provides python2.7dist(jinja2) = 2.8 needed by 
gofed-gofedlib-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.x86_64
  - nothing provides python2.7dist(markupsafe) = 0.23 needed by 
gofed-gofedlib-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.x86_64
 Problem 3: problem with installed package gofed-1.0.0-0.21.rc1.fc29.x86_64
  - package gofed-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.x86_64 requires gofed-infra = 
1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30, but none of the providers can be installed
  - gofed-1.0.0-0.21.rc1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - nothing provides python2.7dist(git) needed by 
gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch
  - nothing provides python2.7dist(hglib) needed by 
gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch
  - nothing provides python2.7dist(koji) needed by 
gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch
  - nothing provides python2.7dist(python-gitdb) needed by 
gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch
  - nothing provides python2.7dist(tarfile) needed by 
gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch
  - nothing provides python2.7dist(urllib2) needed by 
gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch
 Problem 4: problem with installed package 
gofed-resources-1.0.0-0.21.rc1.fc29.noarch
  - package gofed-resources-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch requires gofed-gofedlib 
= 1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30, but none of the providers can be installed
  - gofed-resources-1.0.0-0.21.rc1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
  - nothing provides python2.7dist(jinja2) = 2.8 needed by 
gofed-gofedlib-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.x86_64
  - nothing provides python2.7dist(markupsafe) = 0.23 needed by 
gofed-gofedlib-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.x86_64
(try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)
```

On the image for OpenStack, dependencies are successfully resolved. 
 ```
Transaction Summary
==
Install   20 Packages
Upgrade  392 Packages

...

Total download size: 282 M
Is this ok [y/N]:
Operation aborted.
```

Upgrades are successfully completed while I found scriptlets in dbus-daemon and 
systemd are failed 
because of "Failed to reload daemon: Access denied".```
Transaction Summary
==
Install   20 Packages
Upgrade  392 Packages

Total download size: 282 M
Is this ok [y/N]: y

...(snip)...
Upgraded: dbus-daemon-1:1.12.10-1.fc29.x86_64
  Running scriptlet: dbus-daemon-1:1.12.10-1.fc29.x86_64   

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Phil Wyett]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 2019-03-01 at 13:52 +0800, Robin Lee wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 5:23 PM Miroslav Suchý  wrote:
> > 
> > Do you want to make Fedora 30 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and
> > try to run:
> > 
> >   sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 --
> > enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
> > 
> > If you get this prompt:
> > 
> >   ...
> >   Total download size: XXX M
> >   Is this ok [y/N]:
> > 
> > you can answer N and nothing happens, no need to test the real upgrade.
> > Upgrades will be fine for you.
> > 
> > But very likely you get some dependency problem now. In that case please
> > report it against appropriate package.

A quick upgrade test this morning with 30 beta and all current updates on a
'workstation' install.

Issue:

Downgrading:
 freerdp-libs x86_64 2:2.0.0-48.20190228gitce386c8.fc30
 libwinpr x86_64 2:2.0.0-48.20190228gitce386c8.fc30

Info:

Rawhide, f29 and f28 are all on -49, but 30 is not and no updates pending in
testing.

Regards

Phil

- -- 
*** If this is a mailing list, I am subscribed, no need to CC me.***

Playing the game for the games sake.

Twitter: kathenasorg
IRC: kathenas
Web: https://kathenas.org
Github: https://github.com/kathenas
GitLab: https://gitlab.com/kathenas

GPG: A0C3 4C6A AC2B B8F4 F1E5 EDF4 333F 60DC B0B9 BB77
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
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=ZnW2
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Glenn Johnson]

Transaction Summary
===
Install34 Packages
Upgrade  1681 Packages
Remove  5 Packages

Total download size: 1.8 G
Is this ok [y/N]: n
Operation aborted.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Jaroslav Mracek]

On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 3:17 AM Adam Williamson 
wrote:

> On Mon, 2019-03-04 at 08:47 +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> > Dne 04. 03. 19 v 7:36 Richard W.M. Jones napsal(a):
> > > Why is the --setopt parameter needed?  Couldn't that be based on
> > > $releasever?
> >
> > For the record - we are speaking about:
> >
> >   --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30
> >
> > I spoke to DNF team and:
> >
> >   * there is no definition of platform_id
> >   * while it seams that it can be constructed from $RELEASEVER, there is
> no guarantee that it will be this way in future
> > (even soft gurantee, i.e. there is no documentation)
> >   * it is only defined that module_platform_id is derived from
> PLATFORM_ID from /etc/os-release
> >   * that package we get only after upgrade
> >   * but for the upgrade we need new PLATFORM_ID
> >   * DNF cannot construct it, because the construction method is not
> defined
> >
> > ... and circle is closed. So yes, we need it until there will be
> documentation how to derive PLATFORM_ID of (next) release.
>
> Well, we have had a bug open on this for some time - at least, as I
> understand it, they're the same:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1656509
>
> which suggests that this is intended to be a fix for it:
>
> https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf-plugins-extras/pull/143
>
> though it seems like it may not exactly be complete...
>
> It would be good if DNF team could clarify this, because if they are
> expecting that this will stay as-is and people will need to explicitly
> specify the module_platform_id on upgrade, we are gonna need to have a
> conversation about that and, if it sticks, update the documentation and
> also ensure GNOME Software DTRT for graphical upgrades.
>

I agree, this behavior is not nice. DNF team cannot do much here because
1. Format of the platform ID cannot be generated from releasever. The
definition of platform string is too general. It only requires ":" inside
therefore we cannot predict if missing module require is platform or not.
2. There were also discussions about providing the platform ID from
metadata, but I have no information about the state of the initiative.

I am going to reopen the issue with Modularity team and I hope for the best.

Jaroslav


-- 
> Adam Williamson
> Fedora QA Community Monkey
> IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
> http://www.happyassassin.net
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
>
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[mastaiza wufam]

sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30
--enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
Copr repo for bumblebee owned by chenxiaolong   126  B/s | 341  B
 00:02
Не удается синхронизировать кэш для репозитория «chenxiaolong-bumblebee»
Copr repo for flat-remix owned by daniruiz  177  B/s | 341  B
 00:01
Не удается синхронизировать кэш для репозитория «daniruiz-flat-remix»
Copr repo for Riot owned by taw 176  B/s | 341  B
 00:01
Не удается синхронизировать кэш для репозитория «taw-Riot»
Fedora 30 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64151  B/s | 543  B
 00:03
Fedora 30 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_641.6 MB/s | 1.6 kB
 00:00
Импорт GPG-ключа 0xCFC659B9:
Идентификатор пользователя:  "Fedora (30) <
fedora-30-prim...@fedoraproject.org>"
Отпечаток: F1D8 EC98 F241 AAF2 0DF6 9420 EF3C 111F CFC6 59B9
Источник:  /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-30-x86_64
Продолжить? [д/Н]: y
Fedora 30 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64976  B/s | 5.1 kB
 00:05
Fedora Modular 30 - x86_64  491 kB/s | 2.4 MB
 00:04
negativo17 - Multimedia 1.9 kB/s | 2.6 kB
 00:01
Не удается синхронизировать кэш для репозитория «fedora-multimedia»
negativo17 - Nvidia  41 kB/s | 115 kB
 00:02
Fedora Modular 30 - x86_64 - Updates 62  B/s | 257  B
 00:04
Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Test Updates69  B/s | 257  B
 00:03
Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Updates 68  B/s | 257  B
 00:03
Fedora 30 - x86_64  3.3 MB/s |  61 MB
 00:18
RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Free tainted  47 kB/s |  71 kB
 00:01
Не удается синхронизировать кэш для репозитория «rpmfusion-free-tainted»
RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Free - Updates46 kB/s |  71 kB
 00:01
Не удается синхронизировать кэш для репозитория «rpmfusion-free-updates»
RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Free  46 kB/s |  71 kB
 00:01
Не удается синхронизировать кэш для репозитория «rpmfusion-free»
RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Nonfree - NVIDIA Dri  46 kB/s |  71 kB
 00:01
Не удается синхронизировать кэш для репозитория
«rpmfusion-nonfree-nvidia-driver»
RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Nonfree tainted   46 kB/s |  71 kB
 00:01
Не удается синхронизировать кэш для репозитория «rpmfusion-nonfree-tainted»
RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Nonfree - Updates 47 kB/s |  71 kB
 00:01
Не удается синхронизировать кэш для репозитория «rpmfusion-nonfree-updates»
RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Nonfree   46 kB/s |  71 kB
 00:01
Не удается синхронизировать кэш для репозитория «rpmfusion-nonfree»
RPM Sphere - Basearch   1.1 kB/s | 3.0 kB
 00:02
RPM Sphere - Noarch 1.1 kB/s | 3.0 kB
 00:02
Russian Fedora for Fedora 30 - Free - Updates70  B/s |  81  B
 00:01
Не удается синхронизировать кэш для репозитория «russianfedora-free-updates»
Russian Fedora for Fedora 30 - Free  55  B/s |  64  B
 00:01
Не удается синхронизировать кэш для репозитория «russianfedora-free»
Russian Fedora for Fedora 30 - Nonfree - Update  72  B/s |  84  B
 00:01
Не удается синхронизировать кэш для репозитория
«russianfedora-nonfree-updates»
Russian Fedora for Fedora 30 - Nonfree   58  B/s |  67  B
 00:01
Не удается синхронизировать кэш для репозитория «russianfedora-nonfree»
Ignoring repositories: chenxiaolong-bumblebee, daniruiz-flat-remix,
taw-Riot, fedora-multimedia, rpmfusion-free-tainted,
rpmfusion-free-updates, rpmfusion-free, rpmfusion-nonfree-nvidia-driver,
rpmfusion-nonfree-tainted, rpmfusion-nonfree-updates, rpmfusion-nonfree,
russianfedora-free-updates, russianfedora-free,
russianfedora-nonfree-updates, russianfedora-nonfree
Ошибка:
 Проблема 1: problem with installed package klavaro-3.03-6.fc29.x86_64
  - klavaro-3.03-6.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - nothing provides libgtkdataboks.so.0()(64bit) needed by
klavaro-3.04-1.fc30.x86_64
 Проблема 2: package compat-ffmpeg-libs-1:3.4.5-2.fc29.x86_64 requires
libtesseract.so.3()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - tesseract-3.05.02-1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - problem with installed package compat-ffmpeg-libs-1:3.4.5-2.fc29.x86_64
 Проблема 3: package guvcview-2.0.6-1.fc29.x86_64 requires
libavcodec.so.58()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package guvcview-2.0.6-1.fc29.x86_64 requires
libavcodec.so.58(LIBAVCODEC_58)(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
  - package guvcview-2.0.6-1.fc29.x86_64 requires libavutil.so.56()(64bit),
but none of the providers can be installed
  - package guvcview-2.0.6-1.fc29.x86_64 requires
libavutil.so.56(LIBAVUTIL_56)(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
  - ffmpeg-libs-1:4.1.1-1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - problem with installed package guvcview-2.0.6-1.fc29.x86_64
 Проблема 4: package mpv-1:0.29.1-4.fc29.x86_64 requires
libavdevice.so.58()(64bit), but none of t

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Adam Williamson]

On Tue, 2019-03-05 at 14:20 +, Christophe de Dinechin wrote:
> Note sure if you care about this test from F28, but this is a heavily loaded 
> machine where I never find the time to upgrade. Just in case it's of any use:
> 
> sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 
> --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
> Main config did not have a module_platform_id attr. before setopt
> Main config did not have a module_platform_id attr. before setopt
> Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Test Updates   706  B/s | 257  B 00:00   
>  
> Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Updates657  B/s | 257  B 00:00   
>  
> Fedora 30 - x86_64  721 kB/s |  61 MB 01:26   
>  
> Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'docker-ce-stable', disabling.
> Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'fedora-multimedia', disabling.
> Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-free-updates', disabling.
> Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-free', disabling.
> Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-nonfree-updates', disabling.
> Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-nonfree', disabling.
> Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'zfs', disabling.
> Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:00 ago on Tue 05 Mar 2019 03:11:31 PM 
> CET.
> Error: 
>  Problem 1: package compat-ffmpeg-libs-1:3.4.5-2.fc28.x86_64 requires 
> libass.so.5()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>   - libass-0.13.4-6.fc28.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
>   - problem with installed package compat-ffmpeg-libs-1:3.4.5-2.fc28.x86_64
>  Problem 2: package ffmpeg-libs-1:4.1.1-1.fc28.x86_64 requires 
> libtesseract.so.3()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>   - tesseract-3.05.02-1.fc28.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade 
> repository
>   - problem with installed package ffmpeg-libs-1:4.1.1-1.fc28.x86_64
>  Problem 3: package rpmfusion-free-release-28-1.noarch requires 
> system-release(28), but none of the providers can be installed
>   - fedora-release-28-6.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
>   - problem with installed package rpmfusion-free-release-28-1.noarch
>  Problem 4: package vlc-1:3.0.6-1.fc28.x86_64 requires 
> libplacebo.so.4()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>   - libplacebo-0.4.0-1.fc28.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
>   - problem with installed package vlc-1:3.0.6-1.fc28.x86_64
>  Problem 5: package fedora-release-28-6.noarch requires fedora-repos(28) >= 
> 1, but none of the providers can be installed
>   - package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-28-1.noarch requires 
> system-release(28), but none of the providers can be installed
>   - fedora-repos-28-5.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
>   - problem with installed package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-28-1.noarch
>  Problem 6: package vlc-1:3.0.6-1.fc28.x86_64 requires libixml.so.2()(64bit), 
> but none of the providers can be installed
>   - package vlc-devel-1:3.0.6-1.fc28.x86_64 requires libvlc.so.5()(64bit), 
> but none of the providers can be installed
>   - libupnp-1.6.25-1.fc28.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
>   - problem with installed package vlc-devel-1:3.0.6-1.fc28.x86_64
>  Problem 7: package ffmpeg-libs-1:4.1.1-1.fc28.x86_64 requires 
> libtesseract.so.3()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>   - package tesseract-3.05.02-1.fc28.x86_64 requires 
> libicudata.so.60()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>   - package ffmpeg-1:4.1.1-1.fc28.x86_64 requires ffmpeg-libs(x86-64) = 
> 1:4.1.1-1.fc28, but none of the providers can be installed
>   - libicu-60.2-2.fc28.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
>   - problem with installed package ffmpeg-1:4.1.1-1.fc28.x86_64
>  Problem 8: cannot install both tesseract-4.0.0-3.fc30.x86_64 and 
> tesseract-3.05.02-1.fc28.x86_64
>   - package opencv-contrib-3.4.4-5.fc30.x86_64 requires 
> libtesseract.so.4()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>   - package compat-ffmpeg-libs-1:3.4.5-2.fc28.x86_64 requires 
> libtesseract.so.3()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>   - package gstreamer1-plugins-bad-1:1.14.1-7.fc28.x86_64 requires 
> libopencv_aruco.so.3.4()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>   - package gstreamer1-libav-1:1.14.1-1.fc28.x86_64 requires 
> libavcodec.so.57()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>   - opencv-contrib-3.4.1-3.fc28.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade 
> repository
>   - problem with installed package 
> gstreamer1-plugins-bad-1:1.14.1-7.fc28.x86_64
>   - problem with installed package gstreamer1-libav-1:1.14.1-1.fc28.x86_64
>  Problem 9: cannot install both libicu-63.1-2.fc30.x86_64 and 
> libicu-60.2-2.fc28.x86_64
>   - package tesseract-3.05.02-1.fc28.x86_64 requires 
> libicudata.so.60()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>   - package boost-graph-1.69.0-6.fc30.x86_64 requires 
> li

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Christophe de Dinechin]

Note sure if you care about this test from F28, but this is a heavily loaded 
machine where I never find the time to upgrade. Just in case it's of any use:

sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 
--enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
Main config did not have a module_platform_id attr. before setopt
Main config did not have a module_platform_id attr. before setopt
Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Test Updates   706  B/s | 257  B 00:00
Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Updates657  B/s | 257  B 00:00
Fedora 30 - x86_64  721 kB/s |  61 MB 01:26
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'docker-ce-stable', disabling.
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'fedora-multimedia', disabling.
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-free-updates', disabling.
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-free', disabling.
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-nonfree-updates', disabling.
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-nonfree', disabling.
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'zfs', disabling.
Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:00 ago on Tue 05 Mar 2019 03:11:31 PM CET.
Error: 
 Problem 1: package compat-ffmpeg-libs-1:3.4.5-2.fc28.x86_64 requires 
libass.so.5()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - libass-0.13.4-6.fc28.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package compat-ffmpeg-libs-1:3.4.5-2.fc28.x86_64
 Problem 2: package ffmpeg-libs-1:4.1.1-1.fc28.x86_64 requires 
libtesseract.so.3()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - tesseract-3.05.02-1.fc28.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package ffmpeg-libs-1:4.1.1-1.fc28.x86_64
 Problem 3: package rpmfusion-free-release-28-1.noarch requires 
system-release(28), but none of the providers can be installed
  - fedora-release-28-6.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package rpmfusion-free-release-28-1.noarch
 Problem 4: package vlc-1:3.0.6-1.fc28.x86_64 requires 
libplacebo.so.4()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - libplacebo-0.4.0-1.fc28.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package vlc-1:3.0.6-1.fc28.x86_64
 Problem 5: package fedora-release-28-6.noarch requires fedora-repos(28) >= 1, 
but none of the providers can be installed
  - package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-28-1.noarch requires system-release(28), 
but none of the providers can be installed
  - fedora-repos-28-5.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-28-1.noarch
 Problem 6: package vlc-1:3.0.6-1.fc28.x86_64 requires libixml.so.2()(64bit), 
but none of the providers can be installed
  - package vlc-devel-1:3.0.6-1.fc28.x86_64 requires libvlc.so.5()(64bit), but 
none of the providers can be installed
  - libupnp-1.6.25-1.fc28.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package vlc-devel-1:3.0.6-1.fc28.x86_64
 Problem 7: package ffmpeg-libs-1:4.1.1-1.fc28.x86_64 requires 
libtesseract.so.3()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package tesseract-3.05.02-1.fc28.x86_64 requires libicudata.so.60()(64bit), 
but none of the providers can be installed
  - package ffmpeg-1:4.1.1-1.fc28.x86_64 requires ffmpeg-libs(x86-64) = 
1:4.1.1-1.fc28, but none of the providers can be installed
  - libicu-60.2-2.fc28.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package ffmpeg-1:4.1.1-1.fc28.x86_64
 Problem 8: cannot install both tesseract-4.0.0-3.fc30.x86_64 and 
tesseract-3.05.02-1.fc28.x86_64
  - package opencv-contrib-3.4.4-5.fc30.x86_64 requires 
libtesseract.so.4()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package compat-ffmpeg-libs-1:3.4.5-2.fc28.x86_64 requires 
libtesseract.so.3()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package gstreamer1-plugins-bad-1:1.14.1-7.fc28.x86_64 requires 
libopencv_aruco.so.3.4()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package gstreamer1-libav-1:1.14.1-1.fc28.x86_64 requires 
libavcodec.so.57()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - opencv-contrib-3.4.1-3.fc28.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
  - problem with installed package gstreamer1-plugins-bad-1:1.14.1-7.fc28.x86_64
  - problem with installed package gstreamer1-libav-1:1.14.1-1.fc28.x86_64
 Problem 9: cannot install both libicu-63.1-2.fc30.x86_64 and 
libicu-60.2-2.fc28.x86_64
  - package tesseract-3.05.02-1.fc28.x86_64 requires libicudata.so.60()(64bit), 
but none of the providers can be installed
  - package boost-graph-1.69.0-6.fc30.x86_64 requires libicuuc.so.63()(64bit), 
but none of the providers can be installed
  - package ffmpeg-libs-1:4.1.1-1.fc28.x86_64 requires 
libtesseract.so.3()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - problem with installed package boost

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Christophe de Dinechin]

# sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 
--enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
Fedora Modular 30 - x86_64  187 kB/s | 2.4 MB 00:12
Fedora Modular 30 - x86_64 - Updates 35  B/s | 257  B 00:07
Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Test Updates36  B/s | 257  B 00:07
Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Updates 40  B/s | 257  B 00:06
Fedora 30 - x86_64  429 kB/s |  61 MB 02:26
RCM Tools for Fedora 30 (RPMs)  0.0  B/s |   0  B 00:01
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rcm-tools-fedora-rpms'
RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Free - Updates24 kB/s |  71 kB 00:02
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-free-updates'
RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Free  32 kB/s |  71 kB 00:02
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-free'
RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Nonfree - Updates 25 kB/s |  71 kB 00:02
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-nonfree-updates'
RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Nonfree   19 kB/s |  71 kB 00:03
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-nonfree'
Ignoring repositories: rcm-tools-fedora-rpms, rpmfusion-free-updates, 
rpmfusion-free, rpmfusion-nonfree-updates, rpmfusion-nonfree
Error: 
Problem 1: package python2-rpkg-1.57-6.fc29.noarch requires rpkg-common = 
1.57-6.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
 - rpkg-common-1.57-6.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
 - problem with installed package python2-rpkg-1.57-6.fc29.noarch
Problem 2: package rpmfusion-free-release-29-1.noarch requires 
system-release(29), but none of the providers can be installed
 - fedora-release-29-7.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
 - problem with installed package rpmfusion-free-release-29-1.noarch
Problem 3: package vlc-core-1:3.0.6-16.fc29.x86_64 requires 
libprotobuf-lite.so.15()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
 - protobuf-lite-3.5.0-8.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
 - problem with installed package vlc-core-1:3.0.6-16.fc29.x86_64
Problem 4: package fedora-release-29-7.noarch requires fedora-repos(29) >= 1, 
but none of the providers can be installed
 - package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-29-1.noarch requires system-release(29), 
but none of the providers can be installed
 - fedora-repos-29-3.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
 - problem with installed package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-29-1.noarch
Problem 5: cannot install both rpkg-common-1.57-6.fc30.noarch and 
rpkg-common-1.57-6.fc29.noarch
 - package python3-rpkg-1.57-6.fc30.noarch requires rpkg-common = 1.57-6.fc30, 
but none of the providers can be installed
 - package python2-rpkg-1.57-6.fc29.noarch requires rpkg-common = 1.57-6.fc29, 
but none of the providers can be installed
 - problem with installed package python3-rpkg-1.57-6.fc29.noarch
 - package rhpkg-1.35-7.fc28eng.noarch requires python2-rpkg >= 1.57, but none 
of the providers can be installed
 - python3-rpkg-1.57-6.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
 - problem with installed package rhpkg-1.35-7.fc28eng.noarch
(try to add '--allowerasing' to command line to replace conflicting packages or 
'--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Adam Williamson]

On Mon, 2019-03-04 at 08:47 +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Dne 04. 03. 19 v 7:36 Richard W.M. Jones napsal(a):
> > Why is the --setopt parameter needed?  Couldn't that be based on
> > $releasever?
> 
> For the record - we are speaking about:
> 
>   --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30
> 
> I spoke to DNF team and:
> 
>   * there is no definition of platform_id
>   * while it seams that it can be constructed from $RELEASEVER, there is no 
> guarantee that it will be this way in future
> (even soft gurantee, i.e. there is no documentation)
>   * it is only defined that module_platform_id is derived from PLATFORM_ID 
> from /etc/os-release
>   * that package we get only after upgrade
>   * but for the upgrade we need new PLATFORM_ID
>   * DNF cannot construct it, because the construction method is not defined
> 
> ... and circle is closed. So yes, we need it until there will be 
> documentation how to derive PLATFORM_ID of (next) release.

Well, we have had a bug open on this for some time - at least, as I
understand it, they're the same:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1656509

which suggests that this is intended to be a fix for it:

https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf-plugins-extras/pull/143

though it seems like it may not exactly be complete...

It would be good if DNF team could clarify this, because if they are
expecting that this will stay as-is and people will need to explicitly
specify the module_platform_id on upgrade, we are gonna need to have a
conversation about that and, if it sticks, update the documentation and
also ensure GNOME Software DTRT for graphical upgrades.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Sergio Durigan Junior]

On Monday, March 04 2019, Miroslav Suchý wrote:

> Dne 04. 03. 19 v 7:36 Richard W.M. Jones napsal(a):
>> Why is the --setopt parameter needed?  Couldn't that be based on
>> $releasever?
>
> For the record - we are speaking about:
>
>   --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30
>
> I spoke to DNF team and:
>
>   * there is no definition of platform_id
>   * while it seams that it can be constructed from $RELEASEVER, there is no 
> guarantee that it will be this way in future
> (even soft gurantee, i.e. there is no documentation)
>   * it is only defined that module_platform_id is derived from PLATFORM_ID 
> from /etc/os-release
>   * that package we get only after upgrade
>   * but for the upgrade we need new PLATFORM_ID
>   * DNF cannot construct it, because the construction method is not defined
>
> ... and circle is closed. So yes, we need it until there will be 
> documentation how to derive PLATFORM_ID of (next) release.

FWIW, I was bit by this a few days ago:

  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1656509

The workaround is to use the --setopt option above.

Thanks,

-- 
Sergio
GPG key ID: 237A 54B1 0287 28BF 00EF  31F4 D0EB 7628 65FC 5E36
Please send encrypted e-mail if possible
http://sergiodj.net/
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Miroslav Suchý]

Dne 04. 03. 19 v 7:36 Richard W.M. Jones napsal(a):
> Why is the --setopt parameter needed?  Couldn't that be based on
> $releasever?

For the record - we are speaking about:

  --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30

I spoke to DNF team and:

  * there is no definition of platform_id
  * while it seams that it can be constructed from $RELEASEVER, there is no 
guarantee that it will be this way in future
(even soft gurantee, i.e. there is no documentation)
  * it is only defined that module_platform_id is derived from PLATFORM_ID from 
/etc/os-release
  * that package we get only after upgrade
  * but for the upgrade we need new PLATFORM_ID
  * DNF cannot construct it, because the construction method is not defined

... and circle is closed. So yes, we need it until there will be documentation 
how to derive PLATFORM_ID of (next) release.

Miroslav
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Richard W.M. Jones]

On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:22:51AM +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Do you want to make Fedora 30 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and 
> try to run:
> 
>   sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 
> --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync

Why is the --setopt parameter needed?  Couldn't that be based on
$releasever?

Rich.

-- 
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com
virt-p2v converts physical machines to virtual machines.  Boot with a
live CD or over the network (PXE) and turn machines into KVM guests.
http://libguestfs.org/virt-v2v
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Marcin Juszkiewicz]

W dniu 01.03.2019 o 13:28, Miroslav Suchý pisze:
> Dne 01. 03. 19 v 12:59 Marcin Juszkiewicz napsal(a):
>> My system was Fedora 19 when first time I installed Fedora. Now I
>> have packages from each release from F20 to F29 ;d
> 
> In fedora-upgrade(8) I run
> 
> package-cleanup --orphans | grep -v kernel
> 
> which:
> 
> --orphans List installed packages which are not available from
> currently configured repositories.  Maps to dnf repoquery --extras.
In case someone tries to run it - do yourself a favour and do 'dnf
update' first. Tool lists not updated packages as orphans.

Went from 215 to 85 on my system.

Anyway it is quite dangerous tool as it lists also all out-of-fedora
packages as orphans. Copr ones, rpmfusion ones etc.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Miro Hrončok]

On 02. 03. 19 20:16, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
Problem 6: package python2-ipaclient-4.7.2-1.1.fc29.noarch requires 
freeipa-client-common = 4.7.2-1.1.fc29, but none of the providers can be 
installed
 - freeipa-client-common-4.7.2-1.1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a 
distupgrade repository

 - problem with installed package python2-ipaclient-4.7.2-1.1.fc29.noarch
Problem 7: package python2-ipalib-4.7.2-1.1.fc29.noarch requires 
freeipa-common = 4.7.2-1.1.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
 - freeipa-common-4.7.2-1.1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository

 - problem with installed package python2-ipalib-4.7.2-1.1.fc29.noarch
Problem 8: package python2-libipa_hbac-2.0.0-5.fc29.x86_64 requires 
libipa_hbac = 2.0.0-5.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed

 - libipa_hbac-2.0.0-5.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
 - problem with installed package python2-libipa_hbac-2.0.0-5.fc29.x86_64

* https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684819 *

---

Problem 9: package python2-libsss_nss_idmap-2.0.0-5.fc29.x86_64 requires 
libsss_nss_idmap = 2.0.0-5.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
 - libsss_nss_idmap-2.0.0-5.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository

 - problem with installed package python2-libsss_nss_idmap-2.0.0-5.fc29.x86_64

* https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684820 *


For both freeipa and sssd bugs above we already have %obsolete
statements in fedora-obsolete-packages in F30 and rawhide. It is
interesting that this is not enough. However, I have no idea what should
be done here to make those obsoletes working properly.


python2-ipaclient-4.7.2-1.1.fc29 yet only < 4.7.0-6 is obsoleted.

When you update freeipa in stable release, you need to bump the obsolete 
version-release in fedora-obsolete-packages.


--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Alexander Bokovoy]

On Sat, 02 Mar 2019, Tomasz Torcz wrote:

On Sat, Mar 02, 2019 at 08:03:21AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:

On Sat, 2019-03-02 at 16:59 +0100, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:22:51AM +0100, Miroslav Such?? wrote:
> > Do you want to make Fedora 30 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time 
and try to run:
> >
> >   sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 
--enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
> >
> > If you get this prompt:
> >
> >   ...
> >   Total download size: XXX M
> >   Is this ok [y/N]:
> >
> > you can answer N and nothing happens, no need to test the real upgrade. 
Upgrades will be fine for you.
> >
> > But very likely you get some dependency problem now. In that case please 
report it against appropriate package.
>
>   15 problems??? ceph, freeipa, sssd, mainly in conjuction with python2 
packages.
> So core elements of distribution ??? I guess it is not worth to file bugs
> for them, it could hardly be overlook during normal QA process.

No, please do file bugs if you have the time.


 All right, then.



[]



---

Problem 6: package python2-ipaclient-4.7.2-1.1.fc29.noarch requires 
freeipa-client-common = 4.7.2-1.1.fc29, but none of the providers can be 
installed
 - freeipa-client-common-4.7.2-1.1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
 - problem with installed package python2-ipaclient-4.7.2-1.1.fc29.noarch
Problem 7: package python2-ipalib-4.7.2-1.1.fc29.noarch requires freeipa-common 
= 4.7.2-1.1.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
 - freeipa-common-4.7.2-1.1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
 - problem with installed package python2-ipalib-4.7.2-1.1.fc29.noarch
Problem 8: package python2-libipa_hbac-2.0.0-5.fc29.x86_64 requires libipa_hbac 
= 2.0.0-5.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
 - libipa_hbac-2.0.0-5.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
 - problem with installed package python2-libipa_hbac-2.0.0-5.fc29.x86_64

* https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684819 *

---

Problem 9: package python2-libsss_nss_idmap-2.0.0-5.fc29.x86_64 requires 
libsss_nss_idmap = 2.0.0-5.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
 - libsss_nss_idmap-2.0.0-5.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
 - problem with installed package python2-libsss_nss_idmap-2.0.0-5.fc29.x86_64

* https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684820 *


For both freeipa and sssd bugs above we already have %obsolete
statements in fedora-obsolete-packages in F30 and rawhide. It is
interesting that this is not enough. However, I have no idea what should
be done here to make those obsoletes working properly.


--
/ Alexander Bokovoy
Sr. Principal Software Engineer
Security / Identity Management Engineering
Red Hat Limited, Finland
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Tomasz Torcz]

On Sat, Mar 02, 2019 at 08:03:21AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sat, 2019-03-02 at 16:59 +0100, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:22:51AM +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> > > Do you want to make Fedora 30 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time 
> > > and try to run:
> > > 
> > >   sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 
> > > --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
> > > 
> > > If you get this prompt:
> > > 
> > >   ...
> > >   Total download size: XXX M
> > >   Is this ok [y/N]:
> > > 
> > > you can answer N and nothing happens, no need to test the real upgrade. 
> > > Upgrades will be fine for you.
> > > 
> > > But very likely you get some dependency problem now. In that case please 
> > > report it against appropriate package.
> > 
> >   15 problems… ceph, freeipa, sssd, mainly in conjuction with python2 
> > packages.
> > So core elements of distribution – I guess it is not worth to file bugs
> > for them, it could hardly be overlook during normal QA process.
> 
> No, please do file bugs if you have the time. 

  All right, then.


 Problem 1: package hamcrest-1.3-25.fc30.noarch requires hamcrest-core = 
1.3-25.fc30, but none of the providers can be installed
  - cannot install the best update candidate for package 
hamcrest-1.3-24.fc29.noarch
  - package hamcrest-core-1.3-25.fc30.noarch is excluded
 Problem 13: problem with installed package hamcrest-1.3-24.fc29.noarch
  - package hamcrest-1.3-25.fc30.noarch requires hamcrest-core = 1.3-25.fc30, 
but none of the providers can be installed
  - hamcrest-1.3-24.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - package hamcrest-core-1.3-25.fc30.noarch is excluded
 

* https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684677 *

---

 Problem 2: package python-cephfs-1:12.2.11-1.fc29.x86_64 requires libcephfs2 = 
1:12.2.11-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
  - libcephfs2-1:12.2.11-1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
  - problem with installed package python-cephfs-1:12.2.11-1.fc29.x86_64
 
 Problem 3: package python-rados-1:12.2.11-1.fc29.x86_64 requires librados2 = 
1:12.2.11-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
  - librados2-1:12.2.11-1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
  - problem with installed package python-rados-1:12.2.11-1.fc29.x86_64
 
 Problem 4: package python-rbd-1:12.2.11-1.fc29.x86_64 requires librbd1 = 
1:12.2.11-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
  - librbd1-1:12.2.11-1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package python-rbd-1:12.2.11-1.fc29.x86_64
 
 Problem 5: package python-rgw-1:12.2.11-1.fc29.x86_64 requires librgw2 = 
1:12.2.11-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
  - librgw2-1:12.2.11-1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package python-rgw-1:12.2.11-1.fc29.x86_64
P
roblem 14: package ceph-mgr-2:14.0.1-4.fc30.x86_64 requires python3-pecan, but 
none of the providers can be installed
  - package python3-pecan-1.3.2-6.fc30.noarch conflicts with python2-pecan < 
1.3.2-5 provided by python2-pecan-1.3.2-4.fc29.noarch
  - cannot install the best update candidate for package 
ceph-mgr-1:12.2.11-1.fc29.x86_64
  - problem with installed package python2-pecan-1.3.2-4.fc29.noarch

 Problem 15: package python-cephfs-1:12.2.11-1.fc29.x86_64 requires libcephfs2 
= 1:12.2.11-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
  - cannot install both libcephfs2-2:14.0.1-4.fc30.x86_64 and 
libcephfs2-1:12.2.11-1.fc29.x86_64
  - package python-ceph-compat-1:12.2.11-1.fc29.x86_64 requires python-cephfs = 
1:12.2.11-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
  - cannot install the best update candidate for package 
libcephfs2-1:12.2.11-1.fc29.x86_64
  - problem with installed package python-ceph-compat-1:12.2.11-1.fc29.x86_64

* https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684818 *

---

 Problem 6: package python2-ipaclient-4.7.2-1.1.fc29.noarch requires 
freeipa-client-common = 4.7.2-1.1.fc29, but none of the providers can be 
installed
  - freeipa-client-common-4.7.2-1.1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a 
distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package python2-ipaclient-4.7.2-1.1.fc29.noarch
 Problem 7: package python2-ipalib-4.7.2-1.1.fc29.noarch requires 
freeipa-common = 4.7.2-1.1.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
  - freeipa-common-4.7.2-1.1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
  - problem with installed package python2-ipalib-4.7.2-1.1.fc29.noarch
 Problem 8: package python2-libipa_hbac-2.0.0-5.fc29.x86_64 requires 
libipa_hbac = 2.0.0-5.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
  - libipa_hbac-2.0.0-5.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package python2-libipa_hbac-2.0.0-5.fc29.x86_64
 
* https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684819 *

---

 Problem 9: package python2-libsss_nss_idma

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Richard Shaw]

On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 9:23 AM Adam Williamson 
wrote:

> >
> > This is a known issue. I'm stuck in dependency hell right now. Current
> > FreeCAD needs Python 2 packages (and a couple of other FTBFS packages
> from
> > f30). The pre-release of the next version has changed over to Python 3
> but
> > also requires PySide2 which is not in Fedora. I'm working on it as I have
> > time.
>
> Any Python 2 packages that FreeCAD required should not have been
> retired, under the policy (you're not supposed to retire them until
> nothing uses them any more, AIUI). You could ask for them to be
> resurrected on this basis, I guess.
>

Just tried to rebuild, vtk-devel has moved to qt5 but the current release
of freecad still needs qt4. My best bet it to wait until the new qt 5.12
(and related) packages are in f30/31, get PySIde2 in Fedora, and build the
pre-release.

Thanks,
Richard
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Adam Williamson]

On Sat, 2019-03-02 at 16:59 +0100, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:22:51AM +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> > Do you want to make Fedora 30 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time 
> > and try to run:
> > 
> >   sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 
> > --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
> > 
> > If you get this prompt:
> > 
> >   ...
> >   Total download size: XXX M
> >   Is this ok [y/N]:
> > 
> > you can answer N and nothing happens, no need to test the real upgrade. 
> > Upgrades will be fine for you.
> > 
> > But very likely you get some dependency problem now. In that case please 
> > report it against appropriate package.
> 
>   15 problems… ceph, freeipa, sssd, mainly in conjuction with python2 
> packages.
> So core elements of distribution – I guess it is not worth to file bugs
> for them, it could hardly be overlook during normal QA process.

No, please do file bugs if you have the time. There is always the
possibility that some specific combination of packages is less common
than you think. Also, the automated FreeIPA upgrade test is currently
stuck on https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1674045 , so we're
not getting package issue reports from it; I guess I should make that
bug into a soft-fail for openQA or something. I was expecting it to get
fixed faster...
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Tomasz Torcz]

On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:22:51AM +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Do you want to make Fedora 30 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and 
> try to run:
> 
>   sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 
> --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
> 
> If you get this prompt:
> 
>   ...
>   Total download size: XXX M
>   Is this ok [y/N]:
> 
> you can answer N and nothing happens, no need to test the real upgrade. 
> Upgrades will be fine for you.
> 
> But very likely you get some dependency problem now. In that case please 
> report it against appropriate package.

  15 problems… ceph, freeipa, sssd, mainly in conjuction with python2 packages.
So core elements of distribution – I guess it is not worth to file bugs
for them, it could hardly be overlook during normal QA process.

-- 
Tomasz Torcz   ,,(...) today's high-end is tomorrow's embedded processor.''
xmpp: zdzich...@chrome.pl  -- Mitchell Blank on LKML
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Adam Williamson]

On Sat, 2019-03-02 at 07:13 -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 4:16 AM David Abdurachmanov <
> david.abdurachma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 10:39 AM Nicolas Chauvet  wrote:
> > > Le jeu. 28 févr. 2019 à 10:23, Miroslav Suchý  a
> > écrit :
> > > > Do you want to make Fedora 30 better? Please spend 1 minute of your
> > time and try to run:
> > > >   sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30
> > --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
> > > As the issue was raised already, please remind that RPM Fusion
> > > (free/nonfree) users can use the following command:
> > > sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30
> > > --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
> > > --enablerepo=rpmfusion-free-rawhide,rpmfusion-nonfree-rawhide
> > 
> > I tried this command and basically was hit by two issues:
> > 
> > - freecad is not rebuild for new boost version (1.66 -> 1.69).
> > 
> 
> This is a known issue. I'm stuck in dependency hell right now. Current
> FreeCAD needs Python 2 packages (and a couple of other FTBFS packages from
> f30). The pre-release of the next version has changed over to Python 3 but
> also requires PySide2 which is not in Fedora. I'm working on it as I have
> time.

Any Python 2 packages that FreeCAD required should not have been
retired, under the policy (you're not supposed to retire them until
nothing uses them any more, AIUI). You could ask for them to be
resurrected on this basis, I guess.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Adam Williamson]

On Sat, 2019-03-02 at 18:27 +1000, Brendan Shephard wrote:
> So, do we want Bugzilla's for each of the failed deps?

Anything that isn't related to RPM Fusion and doesn't seem to have been
already addressed, yes please! It might also be nice to have a tracker
where we can collect them all...
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Richard Shaw]

On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 4:16 AM David Abdurachmanov <
david.abdurachma...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 10:39 AM Nicolas Chauvet  wrote:
> >
> > Le jeu. 28 févr. 2019 à 10:23, Miroslav Suchý  a
> écrit :
> > >
> > > Do you want to make Fedora 30 better? Please spend 1 minute of your
> time and try to run:
> > >
> > >   sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30
> --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
> >
> > As the issue was raised already, please remind that RPM Fusion
> > (free/nonfree) users can use the following command:
> > sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30
> > --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
> > --enablerepo=rpmfusion-free-rawhide,rpmfusion-nonfree-rawhide
>
> I tried this command and basically was hit by two issues:
>
> - freecad is not rebuild for new boost version (1.66 -> 1.69).
>

This is a known issue. I'm stuck in dependency hell right now. Current
FreeCAD needs Python 2 packages (and a couple of other FTBFS packages from
f30). The pre-release of the next version has changed over to Python 3 but
also requires PySide2 which is not in Fedora. I'm working on it as I have
time.

Thanks,
Richard
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[David Abdurachmanov]

On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 10:39 AM Nicolas Chauvet  wrote:
>
> Le jeu. 28 févr. 2019 à 10:23, Miroslav Suchý  a écrit :
> >
> > Do you want to make Fedora 30 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time 
> > and try to run:
> >
> >   sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 
> > --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
>
> As the issue was raised already, please remind that RPM Fusion
> (free/nonfree) users can use the following command:
> sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30
> --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
> --enablerepo=rpmfusion-free-rawhide,rpmfusion-nonfree-rawhide

I tried this command and basically was hit by two issues:

- freecad is not rebuild for new boost version (1.66 -> 1.69).
  Looking at Koji I see that freecad failed to rebuilt, but not logs
are available to look at.
  During installation it looks for:

  boost-atomic-1.66.0-14.fc29.x86_64
  boost-chrono-1.66.0-14.fc29.x86_64

- python2-rpkg is not replaced (or something) by python3-rpkg:

 Problem 1: package python2-rpkg-1.57-6.fc29.noarch requires
rpkg-common = 1.57-6.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
  - rpkg-common-1.57-6.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package python2-rpkg-1.57-6.fc29.noarch

david
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Mattia Verga]

Here some new errors:

Errore: 
>>> Already reported by others, fix in progress
 Problema 1: package python2-blockdev-2.21-1.fc29.x86_64 requires 
libblockdev(x86-64) = 2.21-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
  - libblockdev-2.21-1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package python2-blockdev-2.21-1.fc29.x86_64

>>> Already reported by others, fix in progress
 Problema 2: package whois-mkpasswd-5.4.1-1.fc29.x86_64 requires whois-nls = 
5.4.1-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
  - whois-nls-5.4.1-1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package whois-mkpasswd-5.4.1-1.fc29.x86_64

>>> Reported at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684767
 Problema 3: package python2-flake8-3.6.0-2.fc30.noarch requires 
python2.7dist(pycodestyle) < 2.5.0, but none of the providers can be installed
  - problem with installed package python2-flake8-3.5.0-6.fc29.noarch
  - python2-pycodestyle-2.4.0-3.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
  - python2-flake8-3.5.0-6.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository

>>> Not sure it's the same as above
 Problema 4: package python3-flake8-3.6.0-2.fc30.noarch requires 
python3.7dist(pycodestyle) < 2.5.0, but none of the providers can be installed
  - problem with installed package python3-flake8-3.5.0-6.fc29.noarch
  - python3-pycodestyle-2.4.0-3.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
  - python3-flake8-3.5.0-6.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository

>>> FTB in Rawhide/F30 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1675322
 Problema 5: package linphone-3.6.1-28.fc30.x86_64 requires 
libreadline.so.7()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - problem with installed package linphone-3.6.1-28.fc29.x86_64
  - readline-7.0-12.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - linphone-3.6.1-28.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository

>>> FTB in Rawhide/F30 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1675336
 Problema 6: problem with installed package luminance-hdr-2.5.1-15.fc29.x86_64
  - package luminance-hdr-2.5.1-15.fc29.x86_64 requires 
libboost_atomic.so.1.66.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - boost-atomic-1.66.0-14.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository

>>> FTB in Rawhide/F30 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1674809
 Problema 7: problem with installed package digikam-libs-5.9.0-2.fc29.x86_64
  - package digikam-libs-5.9.0-2.fc29.x86_64 requires libexiv2.so.26()(64bit), 
but none of the providers can be installed
  - exiv2-libs-0.26-12.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository

>>> Not sure about this, maybe related to the next error about wesnoth
 Problema 8: cannot install both readline-8.0-2.fc30.x86_64 and 
readline-7.0-12.fc29.x86_64
  - package wesnoth-1.14.5-3.fc30.x86_64 requires libhistory.so.7()(64bit), but 
none of the providers can be installed
  - package NetworkManager-1:1.16.0-0.1.fc30.x86_64 requires 
libreadline.so.8()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - problem with installed package wesnoth-1.14.5-1.fc29.x86_64
  - problem with installed package NetworkManager-1:1.12.6-5.fc29.x86_64
  - wesnoth-1.14.5-1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - NetworkManager-1:1.12.6-5.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository

>>> Not sure about this, maybe related to the previous error
 Problema 9: package wesnoth-1.14.5-3.fc30.x86_64 requires 
libhistory.so.7()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - cannot install both readline-8.0-2.fc30.x86_64 and 
readline-7.0-12.fc29.x86_64
  - package wesnoth-data-1.14.5-3.fc30.noarch requires wesnoth = 1.14.5, but 
none of the providers can be installed
  - package bc-1.07.1-8.fc30.x86_64 requires libreadline.so.8()(64bit), but 
none of the providers can be installed
  - problem with installed package wesnoth-data-1.14.5-1.fc29.noarch
  - package wesnoth-1.14.5-1.fc29.x86_64 requires 
libboost_filesystem.so.1.66.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be 
installed
  - problem with installed package bc-1.07.1-6.fc29.x86_64
  - wesnoth-data-1.14.5-1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
  - boost-filesystem-1.66.0-14.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
  - bc-1.07.1-6.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository

>>> FTB in Rawhide/F30 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1674809
 Problema 10: problem with installed package digikam-5.9.0-2.fc29.x86_64
  - package digikam-5.9.0-2.fc29.x86_64 requires libexiv2.so.26()(64bit), but 
none of the providers can be installed
  - cannot install both exiv2-libs-0.27.0-3.fc30.x86_64 and 
exiv2-libs-0.26-12.fc29.x86_64
  - package exiv2-0.27.0-3.fc30.x86_64 requires libexiv2.so.27()(64bit), but 
none of the providers can be installed
  - package exiv2-0.27.0-3.fc30.x86_64 require

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Nicolas Chauvet]

Le jeu. 28 févr. 2019 à 10:23, Miroslav Suchý  a écrit :
>
> Do you want to make Fedora 30 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and 
> try to run:
>
>   sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 
> --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync

As the issue was raised already, please remind that RPM Fusion
(free/nonfree) users can use the following command:
sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30
--enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
--enablerepo=rpmfusion-free-rawhide,rpmfusion-nonfree-rawhide

This until fedora 30 is branched on our side (which should be done in
the next weeks, once the mass rebuild is done).
Then please remind to forward any issue to the related
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org

Thx in advances.

-- 
-

Nicolas (kwizart)
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Brendan Shephard]

So, do we want Bugzilla's for each of the failed deps?



brendan shephard

Technical Support engineer

Red Hat Asia-Pacific Pty Ltd 

Level 1, 193 North Quay

Brisbane 4000, QLD

Australia




On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 7:24 PM Miroslav Suchý  wrote:

> Do you want to make Fedora 30 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time
> and try to run:
>
>   sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30
> --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
>
> If you get this prompt:
>
>   ...
>   Total download size: XXX M
>   Is this ok [y/N]:
>
> you can answer N and nothing happens, no need to test the real upgrade.
> Upgrades will be fine for you.
>
> But very likely you get some dependency problem now. In that case please
> report it against appropriate package.
>
> Thank you
>
> Miroslav
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
>
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Phil Wyett]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 2019-02-28 at 10:22 +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Do you want to make Fedora 30 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and
> try to run:
> 
>   sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 --
> enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
> 
> If you get this prompt:
> 
>   ...
>   Total download size: XXX M
>   Is this ok [y/N]:
> 
> you can answer N and nothing happens, no need to test the real upgrade.
> Upgrades will be fine for you.
> 
> But very likely you get some dependency problem now. In that case please
> report it against appropriate package.
> 
> Thank you
> 
> Miroslav
> 

As of todays f30 (2019-03-01) branch packages, I get past dep checking and to
the upgrade without issue in fairly vanilla f29 workstation VM.

Issues:

Downgrades:

firefox - I expect this to be fixed quickly so not worried.

kronosnet - rawhide/f30 is version 1.5 when f29 is 1.7.

Bug filed: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684716

Regards

Phil

- -- 
*** If this is a mailing list, I am subscribed, no need to CC me.***

Playing the game for the games sake.

IRC: kathenas

Web: https://kathenas.org

Github: https://github.com/kathenas

GitLab: https://gitlab.com/kathenas

Twitter: kathenasorg

GPG: A0C3 4C6A AC2B B8F4 F1E5 EDF4 333F 60DC B0B9 BB77
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
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=0AFj
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Miro Hrončok]

On 01. 03. 19 16:36, Adam Williamson wrote:

On Fri, 2019-03-01 at 00:35 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:


More generally, the *flood* of Python 2 dep issues here is something I
was definitely concerned about with the Python 2 retirement policy
explicitly deciding not to say anything about obsoleting Python 2
subpackages :(


I wanted the py3 packages to obsolte the py2, but i was outvoted.

I now manually add those to fedora-obsoelte-packages, but I do it in batches.
I wait for a compose now to make another batch (fora rawhide and f30).


I think where the upgrade fails because the python2 package is a
subpackage and has a version-specific dependency on another subpackage
from the same source package, that other subpackage should obsolete it.

That's what I did for blockdev: python2-blockdev requires libblockdev
of the same version, so to me it makes sense for libblockdev to
obsolete python2-blockdev in builds where python2-blockdev is not
built:

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libblockdev/c/46c87cc14b2e4783555221d49fbdff7138fb6c0f?branch=master

do you see any issues with that?


I don't. I completely agree with this approach.


Cool. FWIW, reading the ticket you linked, *this* approach was not
considered (only 'python3 package has obsoletes' versus 'fedora-
obsolete-packages has obsoletes' scenarios seem to have been
considered), so I'm going to consider that it's fine until someone
tells me to stop. ;)


According to the package guidelines, you should stick with a hardcoded
version-release here.



However if you update the package in previous Fedoras, you need to raise the
hardcoded version. I consider that a great PITA.


I do not see that anywhere in the guidelines. In fact there's an
explicit example that uses *this* pattern in the guidelines:

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#renaming-or-replacing-existing-packages

Provides: oldpackagename = $provEVR
Obsoletes: oldpackagename < $obsEVR

OK, that's not the precise same situation, but it seems to establish a
precedent that relative obsoletes are fine...


The $obsEVR variable here represent the harcoded value if I understand it 
correctly.

"$obsEVR is an (Epoch-)Version-Release tuple arranged so that there is a clean 
upgrade path but without gratuitously polluting the version space upwards. You 
usually do not use macros for this as you’re simply trying to advance beyond the 
last known release under the old name."


It says "usually", so I guess you are good.


See the entire discussion in https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/754


Thanks! I don't see any note here that any decision was actually made
on the version question, though. The question was asked, but no
resolution to it was reported back to the ticket AFAICS.

Reading the meeting log, it seems like it's more of a policy of tibbs'
that obsoletes in fedora-obsolete-packages should be versioned? Which
is kind of a different thing. I haven't had any need to tell him he's
wrong about that yet. ;) But of course, that's a drawback of f-o-p: you
*can't* do something like "Obsoletes: python2-foo < %{version}-
%{release}" in f-o-p.

Another thing I note from the meeting log is that, AFAICS, no actual
vote was ever taken on any policy or declaration. I don't think your
comment on the issue - "The resolution from the meeting was the
following:

When removing py2 package, don't obsolete it from py3, but rather
obsolete it from fedora-obsolete-packages but only if keeping that
package installed is likely to cause problems on upgrades." - is
actually *correct*. From the log, nothing like that text was ever
actually proposed or voted on at all. The only quasi-formal outcome of
the entire discussion was geppetto's:

#info mhroncok to help tibbs co-maintain fedora-obsolete-packages
#info We acknowledge that there are likely to be a lot of py2 packages
added to fedora-obsolete-packages in the near future


You are right. I wasn't fighting for a formal resolution because I was not happy 
about the outcome.


--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Adam Williamson]

On Fri, 2019-03-01 at 00:35 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:

> > > > More generally, the *flood* of Python 2 dep issues here is something I
> > > > was definitely concerned about with the Python 2 retirement policy
> > > > explicitly deciding not to say anything about obsoleting Python 2
> > > > subpackages :(
> > > 
> > > I wanted the py3 packages to obsolte the py2, but i was outvoted.
> > > 
> > > I now manually add those to fedora-obsoelte-packages, but I do it in 
> > > batches.
> > > I wait for a compose now to make another batch (fora rawhide and f30).
> > 
> > I think where the upgrade fails because the python2 package is a
> > subpackage and has a version-specific dependency on another subpackage
> > from the same source package, that other subpackage should obsolete it.
> > 
> > That's what I did for blockdev: python2-blockdev requires libblockdev
> > of the same version, so to me it makes sense for libblockdev to
> > obsolete python2-blockdev in builds where python2-blockdev is not
> > built:
> > 
> > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libblockdev/c/46c87cc14b2e4783555221d49fbdff7138fb6c0f?branch=master
> > 
> > do you see any issues with that?
> 
> I don't. I completely agree with this approach.

Cool. FWIW, reading the ticket you linked, *this* approach was not
considered (only 'python3 package has obsoletes' versus 'fedora-
obsolete-packages has obsoletes' scenarios seem to have been
considered), so I'm going to consider that it's fine until someone
tells me to stop. ;)

> According to the package guidelines, you should stick with a hardcoded 
> version-release here.

> However if you update the package in previous Fedoras, you need to raise the 
> hardcoded version. I consider that a great PITA.

I do not see that anywhere in the guidelines. In fact there's an
explicit example that uses *this* pattern in the guidelines:

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#renaming-or-replacing-existing-packages

Provides: oldpackagename = $provEVR
Obsoletes: oldpackagename < $obsEVR

OK, that's not the precise same situation, but it seems to establish a
precedent that relative obsoletes are fine...

> See the entire discussion in https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/754

Thanks! I don't see any note here that any decision was actually made
on the version question, though. The question was asked, but no
resolution to it was reported back to the ticket AFAICS.

Reading the meeting log, it seems like it's more of a policy of tibbs'
that obsoletes in fedora-obsolete-packages should be versioned? Which
is kind of a different thing. I haven't had any need to tell him he's
wrong about that yet. ;) But of course, that's a drawback of f-o-p: you
*can't* do something like "Obsoletes: python2-foo < %{version}-
%{release}" in f-o-p.

Another thing I note from the meeting log is that, AFAICS, no actual
vote was ever taken on any policy or declaration. I don't think your
comment on the issue - "The resolution from the meeting was the
following:

When removing py2 package, don't obsolete it from py3, but rather
obsolete it from fedora-obsolete-packages but only if keeping that
package installed is likely to cause problems on upgrades." - is
actually *correct*. From the log, nothing like that text was ever
actually proposed or voted on at all. The only quasi-formal outcome of
the entire discussion was geppetto's:

#info mhroncok to help tibbs co-maintain fedora-obsolete-packages
#info We acknowledge that there are likely to be a lot of py2 packages
added to fedora-obsolete-packages in the near future
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Miroslav Suchý]

Dne 01. 03. 19 v 12:59 Marcin Juszkiewicz napsal(a):
> My system was Fedora 19 when first time I installed Fedora. Now I have 
> packages from 
> each release from F20 to F29 ;d

In fedora-upgrade(8) I run

package-cleanup --orphans | grep -v kernel

which:

   --orphans
  List installed packages which are not available from currently 
configured repositories.  Maps to dnf
repoquery --extras.


However, in F29 I just found that there is a regression:
  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684517

Miroslav
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Marcin Juszkiewicz]

W dniu 28.02.2019 o 10:22, Miroslav Suchý pisze:
> Do you want to make Fedora 30 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and 
> try to run:
> 
>   sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 
> --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync

On my system it had 13 problems, 3 of them related to rpmfusion. So I did 'dnf 
update' first.

Now it says (5, 8, 9 were rpmfusion related):

 Problem 1: package mbox2eml-0.1.2-17.fc29.x86_64 requires 
libboost_filesystem.so.1.66.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be 
installed
  - boost-filesystem-1.66.0-14.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
  - problem with installed package mbox2eml-0.1.2-17.fc29.x86_64

 Problem 2: package python2-oslo-i18n-3.19.0-1.fc29.noarch requires 
python-oslo-i18n-lang = 3.19.0-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be 
installed
  - python-oslo-i18n-lang-3.19.0-1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
  - problem with installed package python2-oslo-i18n-3.19.0-1.fc29.noarch

 Problem 3: package python2-oslo-utils-3.35.1-1.fc29.noarch requires 
python-oslo-utils-lang = 3.35.1-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be 
installed
  - python-oslo-utils-lang-3.35.1-1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a 
distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package python2-oslo-utils-3.35.1-1.fc29.noarch

 Problem 4: package python2-rpkg-1.57-6.fc29.noarch requires rpkg-common = 
1.57-6.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
  - rpkg-common-1.57-6.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package python2-rpkg-1.57-6.fc29.noarch

 Problem 6: package system-config-date-1.10.9-2.fc24.noarch requires 
python-slip >= 0.2.21, but none of the providers can be installed
  - python2-slip-0.6.4-12.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
  - problem with installed package system-config-date-1.10.9-2.fc24.noarch

 Problem 7: package system-config-services-0.111.4-2.fc24.noarch requires 
python-slip-dbus >= 0.2.8, but none of the providers can be installed
  - python2-slip-dbus-0.6.4-12.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
  - problem with installed package system-config-services-0.111.4-2.fc24.noarch

 Problem 10: package python3-flake8-3.6.0-2.fc30.noarch requires 
python3.7dist(pycodestyle) < 2.5.0, but none of the providers can be installed
  - problem with installed package python3-flake8-3.5.0-6.fc29.noarch
  - python3-pycodestyle-2.4.0-3.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
  - python3-flake8-3.5.0-6.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository

 Problem 11: cannot install both python-oslo-i18n-lang-3.19.0-3.fc30.noarch and 
python-oslo-i18n-lang-3.19.0-1.fc29.noarch
  - package python3-oslo-i18n-3.19.0-3.fc30.noarch requires 
python-oslo-i18n-lang = 3.19.0-3.fc30, but none of the providers can be 
installed
  - package python2-oslo-i18n-3.19.0-1.fc29.noarch requires 
python-oslo-i18n-lang = 3.19.0-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be 
installed
  - problem with installed package python3-oslo-i18n-3.19.0-1.fc29.noarch
  - package python2-glanceclient-1:2.10.0-1.fc29.noarch requires 
python2-oslo-i18n >= 3.15.3, but none of the providers can be installed
  - python3-oslo-i18n-3.19.0-1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
  - problem with installed package python2-glanceclient-1:2.10.0-1.fc29.noarch

 Problem 12: cannot install both python-oslo-utils-lang-3.35.1-3.fc30.noarch 
and python-oslo-utils-lang-3.35.1-1.fc29.noarch
  - package python3-oslo-utils-3.35.1-3.fc30.noarch requires 
python-oslo-utils-lang = 3.35.1-3.fc30, but none of the providers can be 
installed
  - package python2-oslo-utils-3.35.1-1.fc29.noarch requires 
python-oslo-utils-lang = 3.35.1-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be 
installed
  - problem with installed package python3-oslo-utils-3.35.1-1.fc29.noarch
  - package python2-oslo-serialization-2.24.0-1.fc29.noarch requires 
python2-oslo-utils >= 3.33.0, but none of the providers can be installed
  - python3-oslo-utils-3.35.1-1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
  - problem with installed package 
python2-oslo-serialization-2.24.0-1.fc29.noarch

Then I removed 'system-config-date system-config-services' from system.

My system was Fedora 19 when first time I installed Fedora. Now I have packages 
from 
each release from F20 to F29 ;d
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Miroslav Suchý]

Dne 01. 03. 19 v 12:11 Diogo Galvao napsal(a):
>  Problem 4: package darktable-2.6.0-2.fc30.x86_64 requires
> libexiv2.so.26()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>   - problem with installed package darktable-2.6.0-2.fc29.x86_64
>   - exiv2-libs-0.26-12.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
>   - darktable-2.6.0-2.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
> 
> If that's the case, do I file the bug reports as Fedora 30 for whois
> and darktable components, respectively? Is it enough to just mention
> this output?

This one is being addressed as part of:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1674787

Generally yes - you should file bugs for Fedora 30 release. Usually it is 
enough pasting the output and stating that you
get this when trying to upgrade from F29 to F30.

Miroslav
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Didier Fabert]

Hi,

Last metadata expiration check: 0:05:26 ago on Fri Mar  1 12:17:22 2019.
Error:
Problem 1: package rpmfusion-free-release-29-1.noarch requires
system-release(29), but none of the providers can be installed
  - fedora-release-29-7.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package rpmfusion-free-release-29-1.noarch
Problem 2: package vlc-core-1:3.0.6-16.fc29.x86_64 requires
libprotobuf-lite.so.15()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - protobuf-lite-3.5.0-8.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - problem with installed package vlc-core-1:3.0.6-16.fc29.x86_64
Problem 3: package whois-mkpasswd-5.4.1-1.fc29.x86_64 requires whois-nls
= 5.4.1-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
  - whois-nls-5.4.1-1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - problem with installed package whois-mkpasswd-5.4.1-1.fc29.x86_64
Problem 4: package fedora-release-29-7.noarch requires fedora-repos(29)
>= 1, but none of the providers can be installed
  - package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-29-1.noarch requires
system-release(29), but none of the providers can be installed
  - fedora-repos-29-3.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-29-1.noarch

Best regards

Didier.

Le 28/02/2019 à 10:22, Miroslav Suchý a écrit :
> Do you want to make Fedora 30 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and 
> try to run:
>
>   sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 
> --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
>
> If you get this prompt:
>
>   ...
>   Total download size: XXX M
>   Is this ok [y/N]:
>
> you can answer N and nothing happens, no need to test the real upgrade. 
> Upgrades will be fine for you.
>
> But very likely you get some dependency problem now. In that case please 
> report it against appropriate package.
>
> Thank you
>
> Miroslav
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives: 
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Miro Hrončok]

On 01. 03. 19 12:11, Diogo Galvao wrote:

On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 6:23 AM Miroslav Suchý  wrote:


But very likely you get some dependency problem now. In that case please report 
it against appropriate package.



Could you please confirm if these two issues should really be reported
before I submit them to Bugzilla?

  Problem 3: package whois-mkpasswd-5.4.1-1.fc29.x86_64 requires
whois-nls = 5.4.1-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
   - whois-nls-5.4.1-1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
   - problem with installed package whois-mkpasswd-5.4.1-1.fc29.x86_64


This one was fixed by 
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/whois/c/6325aeb58e79e98dfb8f94925f18f7b7c7fec424?branch=master


--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Diogo Galvao]

On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 6:23 AM Miroslav Suchý  wrote:
>
> But very likely you get some dependency problem now. In that case please 
> report it against appropriate package.
>

Could you please confirm if these two issues should really be reported
before I submit them to Bugzilla?

 Problem 3: package whois-mkpasswd-5.4.1-1.fc29.x86_64 requires
whois-nls = 5.4.1-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
  - whois-nls-5.4.1-1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package whois-mkpasswd-5.4.1-1.fc29.x86_64

 Problem 4: package darktable-2.6.0-2.fc30.x86_64 requires
libexiv2.so.26()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - problem with installed package darktable-2.6.0-2.fc29.x86_64
  - exiv2-libs-0.26-12.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - darktable-2.6.0-2.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository

If that's the case, do I file the bug reports as Fedora 30 for whois
and darktable components, respectively? Is it enough to just mention
this output?

The problems 1 and 2 not listed above are related to rpmfusion repos
so I supposed I should ignore them for now.

Best regards
Diogo
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Miro Hrončok]

On 01. 03. 19 8:26, Miroslav Suchý wrote:

Dne 28. 02. 19 v 18:55 Kalev Lember napsal(a):

It's difficult to obsolete subpackages correctly from
fedora-obsolete-packages when F29 keeps moving and bumping package
versions; the versioned obsoletes in fedora-obsolete-packages


The rule of versioned obsolete is that the version is the last known version of 
obsoleted version.
But in this case the obsoleted version is still moving so it is worth to look 
*why* the obsolete should be versioned.

It is because you have package bar-2.0, which become obsolete by package foo-1.0. 
So we want to obsolete only bar <
2.1-1 because some time in future somebody can resurect package bar and create 
version 3.0. This is unlikely, but can
happen.

In the case of massively obsoleting python2-* packages it is *very* unlikely 
that somebody will come in near future and
resurect package named python2-foo. Ergo - I do not think that in this specific 
case we need to obsolete the package using:

   Obsoletes: python2-blah < %{version}-%{release}

but you can use fairly big number of version instead. Like current version plus 
two.

That will get you rid of the "moving target". It is very unlikely that it will 
cause an issue in near future and at the
same time it will allows somebody to resurect that package in far future (which 
is hard to predict).


IIRC people argued with external repos and self built python2 packages.

--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Miroslav Suchý]

Dne 28. 02. 19 v 18:55 Kalev Lember napsal(a):
> It's difficult to obsolete subpackages correctly from
> fedora-obsolete-packages when F29 keeps moving and bumping package
> versions; the versioned obsoletes in fedora-obsolete-packages

The rule of versioned obsolete is that the version is the last known version of 
obsoleted version.
But in this case the obsoleted version is still moving so it is worth to look 
*why* the obsolete should be versioned.

It is because you have package bar-2.0, which become obsolete by package 
foo-1.0. So we want to obsolete only bar <
2.1-1 because some time in future somebody can resurect package bar and create 
version 3.0. This is unlikely, but can
happen.

In the case of massively obsoleting python2-* packages it is *very* unlikely 
that somebody will come in near future and
resurect package named python2-foo. Ergo - I do not think that in this specific 
case we need to obsolete the package using:

  Obsoletes: python2-blah < %{version}-%{release}

but you can use fairly big number of version instead. Like current version plus 
two.

That will get you rid of the "moving target". It is very unlikely that it will 
cause an issue in near future and at the
same time it will allows somebody to resurect that package in far future (which 
is hard to predict).

Miroslav
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Robin Lee]

On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 5:23 PM Miroslav Suchý  wrote:
>
> Do you want to make Fedora 30 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and 
> try to run:
>
>   sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 
> --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
>
> If you get this prompt:
>
>   ...
>   Total download size: XXX M
>   Is this ok [y/N]:
>
> you can answer N and nothing happens, no need to test the real upgrade. 
> Upgrades will be fine for you.
>
> But very likely you get some dependency problem now. In that case please 
> report it against appropriate package.
Tested on Fedora 28:

 Problem 1: problem with installed package python2-pungi-4.1.32-3.fc28.noarch
  - python2-pungi-4.1.32-3.fc28.noarch does not belong to a
distupgrade repository
  - nothing provides python2.7dist(dict.sorted) needed by
python2-pungi-4.1.33-2.fc30.noarch
 ...
 Problem 3: package python-cephfs-1:12.2.10-1.fc28.x86_64 requires
libcephfs2 = 1:12.2.10-1.fc28, but none of the providers can be
installed
  - libcephfs2-1:12.2.10-1.fc28.x86_64 does not belong to a
distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package python-cephfs-1:12.2.10-1.fc28.x86_64
 Problem 4: package python-rados-1:12.2.10-1.fc28.x86_64 requires
librados2 = 1:12.2.10-1.fc28, but none of the providers can be
installed
  - librados2-1:12.2.10-1.fc28.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - problem with installed package python-rados-1:12.2.10-1.fc28.x86_64
 Problem 5: package python-rbd-1:12.2.10-1.fc28.x86_64 requires
librbd1 = 1:12.2.10-1.fc28, but none of the providers can be installed
  - librbd1-1:12.2.10-1.fc28.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package python-rbd-1:12.2.10-1.fc28.x86_64
 Problem 6: package python-rgw-1:12.2.10-1.fc28.x86_64 requires
librgw2 = 1:12.2.10-1.fc28, but none of the providers can be installed
  - librgw2-1:12.2.10-1.fc28.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package python-rgw-1:12.2.10-1.fc28.x86_64
 ...
 Problem 8: package python2-pylint-1.7.5-1.fc28.noarch requires
python2-isort, but none of the providers can be installed
  - python2-isort-4.3.4-2.fc28.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - problem with installed package python2-pylint-1.7.5-1.fc28.noarch
 Problem 9: package python2-rpkg-1.57-6.fc28.noarch requires
rpkg-common = 1.57-6.fc28, but none of the providers can be installed
  - rpkg-common-1.57-6.fc28.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package python2-rpkg-1.57-6.fc28.noarch
 Problem 10: package python3-PyXB-1.2.6-2.fc28.noarch requires
python(abi) = 3.6, but none of the providers can be installed
  - python3-3.6.8-2.fc28.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package python3-PyXB-1.2.6-2.fc28.noarch
 ...
 Problem 13: problem with installed package pungi-legacy-4.1.32-3.fc28.noarch
  - package pungi-legacy-4.1.33-2.fc30.noarch requires python2-pungi =
4.1.33-2.fc30, but none of the providers can be installed
  - pungi-legacy-4.1.32-3.fc28.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - nothing provides python2.7dist(dict.sorted) needed by
python2-pungi-4.1.33-2.fc30.noarch
 Problem 14: package dnf-yum-4.1.0-1.fc30.noarch conflicts with yum
provided by yum-3.4.3-521.fc30.noarch
  - problem with installed package yum-3.4.3-517.fc28.noarch
  - problem with installed package dnf-yum-2.7.5-12.fc28.noarch
  - yum-3.4.3-517.fc28.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - dnf-yum-2.7.5-12.fc28.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
>
> Thank you
>
> Miroslav
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives: 
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Dario Lesca]

Il giorno gio, 28/02/2019 alle 10.22 +0100, Miroslav Suchý ha scritto:
> But very likely you get some dependency problem now. In that case
> please report it against appropriate package.

This is my result:

Errore:  Problema 1: problem with installed package rubygem-rhc-1.38.7-
6.fc29.noarch  - rubygem-rhc-1.38.7-6.fc29.noarch does not belong to a
distupgrade repository  - nothing provides (rubygem(commander) >= 4.0
with rubygem(commander) < 4.3.0) needed by rubygem-rhc-1.38.7-
7.fc30.noarch  - nothing provides (rubygem(httpclient) >= 2.4.0 with
rubygem(httpclient) < 2.7.0) needed by rubygem-rhc-1.38.7-
7.fc30.noarch Problema 2: package amule-2.3.2-16.fc29.x86_64 requires
libwx_baseu-2.8.so.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed  - package amule-2.3.2-16.fc29.x86_64 requires libwx_baseu-
2.8.so.0(WXU_2.8)(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed  -
package amule-2.3.2-16.fc29.x86_64 requires libwx_baseu_net-
2.8.so.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed  -
package amule-2.3.2-16.fc29.x86_64 requires libwx_baseu_net-
2.8.so.0(WXU_2.8)(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed  -
wxBase-2.8.12-31.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository  - problem with installed package amule-2.3.2-
16.fc29.x86_64 Problema 3: package amule-nogui-2.3.2-16.fc29.x86_64
requires libreadline.so.7()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed  - readline-7.0-12.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a
distupgrade repository  - problem with installed package amule-nogui-
2.3.2-16.fc29.x86_64 Problema 4: package libopenshot-0.2.2-
1.fc29.x86_64 requires libMagickCore-6.Q16.so.5()(64bit), but none of
the providers can be installed  - package libopenshot-0.2.2-
1.fc29.x86_64 requires libMagickWand-6.Q16.so.5()(64bit), but none of
the providers can be installed  - ImageMagick-libs-1:6.9.9.38-
3.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository  - problem
with installed package libopenshot-0.2.2-1.fc29.x86_64 Problema 5:
package python2-blockdev-2.21-1.fc29.x86_64 requires libblockdev(x86-
64) = 2.21-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed  -
libblockdev-2.21-1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository  - problem with installed package python2-blockdev-2.21-
1.fc29.x86_64 Problema 6: package rpmfusion-free-release-29-1.noarch
requires system-release(29), but none of the providers can be
installed  - fedora-release-29-7.noarch does not belong to a
distupgrade repository  - problem with installed package rpmfusion-
free-release-29-1.noarch Problema 7: package vlc-core-1:3.0.6-
16.fc29.x86_64 requires libprotobuf-lite.so.15()(64bit), but none of
the providers can be installed  - protobuf-lite-3.5.0-8.fc29.x86_64
does not belong to a distupgrade repository  - problem with installed
package vlc-core-1:3.0.6-16.fc29.x86_64 Problema 8: package fedora-
release-29-7.noarch requires fedora-repos(29) >= 1, but none of the
providers can be installed  - package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-29-
1.noarch requires system-release(29), but none of the providers can be
installed  - fedora-repos-29-3.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade
repository  - problem with installed package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-
29-1.noarch Problema 9: package rubygem-commander-4.3.0-8.fc30.noarch
requires (rubygem(highline) >= 1.6.11 with rubygem(highline) < 1.7),
but none of the providers can be installed  - problem with installed
package rubygem-commander-4.3.0-7.fc29.noarch  - rubygem-highline-
1.6.21-7.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository  -
rubygem-commander-4.3.0-7.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade
repository Problema 10: package ImageMagick-1:6.9.10.28-1.fc30.x86_64
requires libMagickCore-6.Q16.so.6()(64bit), but none of the providers
can be installed  - package ImageMagick-1:6.9.10.28-1.fc30.x86_64
requires libMagickWand-6.Q16.so.6()(64bit), but none of the providers
can be installed  - package ImageMagick-1:6.9.10.28-1.fc30.x86_64
requires ImageMagick-libs(x86-64) = 1:6.9.10.28-1.fc30, but none of the
providers can be installed  - cannot install both ImageMagick-libs-
1:6.9.10.28-1.fc30.x86_64 and ImageMagick-libs-1:6.9.9.38-
3.fc29.x86_64  - problem with installed package ImageMagick-1:6.9.9.38-
3.fc29.x86_64  - package python3-libopenshot-0.2.2-1.fc29.x86_64
requires libMagickCore-6.Q16.so.5()(64bit), but none of the providers
can be installed  - package python3-libopenshot-0.2.2-1.fc29.x86_64
requires libMagickWand-6.Q16.so.5()(64bit), but none of the providers
can be installed  - ImageMagick-1:6.9.9.38-3.fc29.x86_64 does not
belong to a distupgrade repository  - problem with installed package
python3-libopenshot-0.2.2-1.fc29.x86_64 Problema 11: package dnf-yum-
4.1.0-1.fc30.noarch conflicts with yum provided by yum-3.4.3-
521.fc30.noarch  - problem with installed package yum-3.4.3-
518.fc29.noarch  - problem with installed package dnf-yum-4.1.0-
1.fc29.noarch  - yum-3.4.3-518.fc29.noarch does not belong to a
distupgrade repository  - dnf-y

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Miro Hrončok]

On 28. 02. 19 19:29, Adam Williamson wrote:

On Thu, 2019-02-28 at 18:05 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:

On 28. 02. 19 16:55, Adam Williamson wrote:

On Thu, 2019-02-28 at 07:51 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:

On Thu, 2019-02-28 at 06:46 -0800, Tom London wrote:

[root@localhost ~]# sudo dnf --releasever=30
--setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 --enablerepo=updates-testing
distro-sync
Fedora Modular 30 - x86_64  536 kB/s | 2.4 MB
00:04
Fedora Modular 30 - x86_64 - Updates 71  B/s | 257  B
00:03
Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Test Updates67  B/s | 257  B
00:03
Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Updates 62  B/s | 257  B
00:04
Fedora 30 - x86_64  7.4 MB/s |  61 MB
00:08
Fedora 30 - x86_64 - VirtualBox 3.2 kB/s | 6.9 kB
00:02
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'virtualbox'
Ignoring repositories: virtualbox
Error:
   Problem 1: package python2-blockdev-2.21-1.fc29.x86_64 requires
libblockdev(x86-64) = 2.21-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be
installed
- libblockdev-2.21-1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
- problem with installed package python2-blockdev-2.21-1.fc29.x86_64


https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33105158 ought to fix this.


More generally, the *flood* of Python 2 dep issues here is something I
was definitely concerned about with the Python 2 retirement policy
explicitly deciding not to say anything about obsoleting Python 2
subpackages :(


I wanted the py3 packages to obsolte the py2, but i was outvoted.

I now manually add those to fedora-obsoelte-packages, but I do it in batches.
I wait for a compose now to make another batch (fora rawhide and f30).


I think where the upgrade fails because the python2 package is a
subpackage and has a version-specific dependency on another subpackage
from the same source package, that other subpackage should obsolete it.

That's what I did for blockdev: python2-blockdev requires libblockdev
of the same version, so to me it makes sense for libblockdev to
obsolete python2-blockdev in builds where python2-blockdev is not
built:

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libblockdev/c/46c87cc14b2e4783555221d49fbdff7138fb6c0f?branch=master

do you see any issues with that?


I don't. I completely agree with this approach.

According to the package guidelines, you should stick with a hardcoded 
version-release here.


However if you update the package in previous Fedoras, you need to raise the 
hardcoded version. I consider that a great PITA.


See the entire discussion in https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/754

--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Garry Williams]

No updates-testing installed on this system:

$ sudo dnf --disablerepo=fedora-cisco-openh264 --skip-broken
--allowerasing -b --assumeno --releasever=30
--setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 distro-sync
...
Transaction Summary


Install  82 Packages
Upgrade2710 Packages
Remove   15 Packages
Downgrade 2 Packages

Total download size: 2.3 G
Operation aborted.

Up to date with updates-testing on this machine:

Transaction Summary


Install  77 Packages
Upgrade2197 Packages
Remove7 Packages
Downgrade12 Packages

Total download size: 1.9 G
Operation aborted.

On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 1:36 PM Xose Vazquez Perez
 wrote:
>
> Miroslav wrote:
>
> > Do you want to make Fedora 30 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time 
> > and try to run:
>
>
> # dnf --skip-broken --allowerasing -b --assumeno --releasever=30 
> --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 distro-sync
>
> https://paste.fedoraproject.org/paste/Bxyko5K7Okrzst4k8Qn6bw
>
> Transaction Summary
> 
> Install  61 Packages
> Upgrade3628 Packages
> Remove   23 Packages
> Downgrade34 Packages
>
> Total download size: 3.9 G
> Operation aborted.
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives: 
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org



-- 
Garry Williams
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Xose Vazquez Perez]

Miroslav wrote:

> Do you want to make Fedora 30 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and 
> try to run:


# dnf --skip-broken --allowerasing -b --assumeno --releasever=30 
--setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 distro-sync

https://paste.fedoraproject.org/paste/Bxyko5K7Okrzst4k8Qn6bw

Transaction Summary

Install  61 Packages
Upgrade3628 Packages
Remove   23 Packages
Downgrade34 Packages

Total download size: 3.9 G
Operation aborted.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Adam Williamson]

On Thu, 2019-02-28 at 19:15 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 2/28/19 6:55 PM, Kalev Lember wrote:
> > On 2/28/19 18:05, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > > On 28. 02. 19 16:55, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > > More generally, the *flood* of Python 2 dep issues here is something I
> > > > was definitely concerned about with the Python 2 retirement policy
> > > > explicitly deciding not to say anything about obsoleting Python 2
> > > > subpackages :(
> > > 
> > > I wanted the py3 packages to obsolte the py2, but i was outvoted.
> > 
> > I completely agree with you. I think you should have gone to FESCo and
> > ask them to overrule the FPC in this case.
> 
> With all due respect, this would be an utter act of violence.
> 
> You can not obsolete packages which are still used by other packages nor 
> can you obsolete packages which do not functionally replace other packages.

Sure you can. It is clearly semantically incorrect for 'foo' to
*provide* 'bar' if foo does not, in fact, do whatever bar did. But it
is not at all incorrect for 'foo' to *obsolete* 'bar' in this case - if
'foo' does in some sense render 'bar' obsolete.

Since libblockdev dropped its python2 subpackage, the new version of
libblockdev clearly *does* render python2-libblockdev 'obsolete',
because the two cannot co-exist. It cannot be said to 'provide'
python2-libblockdev, but it certainly *obsoletes* it.

Note that *not* doing explicit obsoletes forces people upgrading their
systems to do a much more "violent act" if they want the upgrade to
work: either manually remove all not-properly-obsoleted packages, or
use --allowerasing , which can easily cause much worse problems in many
cases of packaging issues.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Adam Williamson]

On Thu, 2019-02-28 at 18:05 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 28. 02. 19 16:55, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2019-02-28 at 07:51 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2019-02-28 at 06:46 -0800, Tom London wrote:
> > > > [root@localhost ~]# sudo dnf --releasever=30
> > > > --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 --enablerepo=updates-testing
> > > > distro-sync
> > > > Fedora Modular 30 - x86_64  536 kB/s | 2.4 MB
> > > > 00:04
> > > > Fedora Modular 30 - x86_64 - Updates 71  B/s | 257  B
> > > > 00:03
> > > > Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Test Updates67  B/s | 257  B
> > > > 00:03
> > > > Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Updates 62  B/s | 257  B
> > > > 00:04
> > > > Fedora 30 - x86_64  7.4 MB/s |  61 MB
> > > > 00:08
> > > > Fedora 30 - x86_64 - VirtualBox 3.2 kB/s | 6.9 kB
> > > > 00:02
> > > > Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'virtualbox'
> > > > Ignoring repositories: virtualbox
> > > > Error:
> > > >   Problem 1: package python2-blockdev-2.21-1.fc29.x86_64 requires
> > > > libblockdev(x86-64) = 2.21-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be
> > > > installed
> > > >- libblockdev-2.21-1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
> > > > repository
> > > >- problem with installed package python2-blockdev-2.21-1.fc29.x86_64
> > > 
> > > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33105158 ought to fix 
> > > this.
> > 
> > More generally, the *flood* of Python 2 dep issues here is something I
> > was definitely concerned about with the Python 2 retirement policy
> > explicitly deciding not to say anything about obsoleting Python 2
> > subpackages :(
> 
> I wanted the py3 packages to obsolte the py2, but i was outvoted.
> 
> I now manually add those to fedora-obsoelte-packages, but I do it in batches.
> I wait for a compose now to make another batch (fora rawhide and f30).

I think where the upgrade fails because the python2 package is a
subpackage and has a version-specific dependency on another subpackage
from the same source package, that other subpackage should obsolete it.

That's what I did for blockdev: python2-blockdev requires libblockdev
of the same version, so to me it makes sense for libblockdev to
obsolete python2-blockdev in builds where python2-blockdev is not
built:

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libblockdev/c/46c87cc14b2e4783555221d49fbdff7138fb6c0f?branch=master

do you see any issues with that?
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Kalev Lember]

On 2/28/19 19:15, Ralf Corsepius wrote:

On 2/28/19 6:55 PM, Kalev Lember wrote:

On 2/28/19 18:05, Miro Hrončok wrote:

On 28. 02. 19 16:55, Adam Williamson wrote:

More generally, the *flood* of Python 2 dep issues here is something I
was definitely concerned about with the Python 2 retirement policy
explicitly deciding not to say anything about obsoleting Python 2
subpackages :(


I wanted the py3 packages to obsolte the py2, but i was outvoted.


I completely agree with you. I think you should have gone to FESCo and
ask them to overrule the FPC in this case.


With all due respect, this would be an utter act of violence.

You can not obsolete packages which are still used by other packages nor 
can you obsolete packages which do not functionally replace other packages.


It's also not OK to not do anything and make F29 to F30 upgrades fail.

Kalev
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Ralf Corsepius]

On 2/28/19 6:55 PM, Kalev Lember wrote:

On 2/28/19 18:05, Miro Hrončok wrote:

On 28. 02. 19 16:55, Adam Williamson wrote:

More generally, the *flood* of Python 2 dep issues here is something I
was definitely concerned about with the Python 2 retirement policy
explicitly deciding not to say anything about obsoleting Python 2
subpackages :(


I wanted the py3 packages to obsolte the py2, but i was outvoted.


I completely agree with you. I think you should have gone to FESCo and
ask them to overrule the FPC in this case.


With all due respect, this would be an utter act of violence.

You can not obsolete packages which are still used by other packages nor 
can you obsolete packages which do not functionally replace other packages.


Ralf
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Kalev Lember]

On 2/28/19 18:05, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 28. 02. 19 16:55, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> More generally, the *flood* of Python 2 dep issues here is something I
>> was definitely concerned about with the Python 2 retirement policy
>> explicitly deciding not to say anything about obsoleting Python 2
>> subpackages :(
> 
> I wanted the py3 packages to obsolte the py2, but i was outvoted.

I completely agree with you. I think you should have gone to FESCo and
ask them to overrule the FPC in this case.

It's difficult to obsolete subpackages correctly from
fedora-obsolete-packages when F29 keeps moving and bumping package
versions; the versioned obsoletes in fedora-obsolete-packages
don't stay current for very long like this. It would be much easier and
much more correct to do "Obsoletes: python2-blah < %{version}-%{release}"
from the same package spec file.

Kalev
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Patrick Diehl]

[root@ossus Survey2]# sudo dnf --releasever=30
--setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 --enablerepo=updates-testing
distro-sync
Fedora Modular 30 - x86_64  522 kB/s | 2.4 MB
00:04
Fedora Modular 30 - x86_64 - Updates 99  B/s | 257  B
00:02
Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Test Updates   207  B/s | 257  B
00:01
Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Updates131  B/s | 257  B
00:01
Fedora 30 - x86_64   20 MB/s |  61 MB
00:03
RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Free - Updates52 kB/s |  71 kB
00:01
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-free-updates'
RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Free 194 kB/s |  71 kB
00:00
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-free'
RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Nonfree - Updates194 kB/s |  71 kB
00:00
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-nonfree-updates'
RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Nonfree  193 kB/s |  71 kB
00:00
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-nonfree'
Ignoring repositories: rpmfusion-free-updates, rpmfusion-free,
rpmfusion-nonfree-updates, rpmfusion-nonfree
Error:
 Problem 1: package libibcm-16.2-3.fc28.x86_64 requires
rdma-core(x86-64) = 16.2-3.fc28, but none of the providers can be installed
  - rdma-core-16.2-3.fc28.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package libibcm-16.2-3.fc28.x86_64
 Problem 2: package rpmfusion-free-release-29-1.noarch requires
system-release(29), but none of the providers can be installed
  - fedora-release-29-7.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package rpmfusion-free-release-29-1.noarch
 Problem 3: package vlc-core-1:3.0.6-16.fc29.x86_64 requires
libprotobuf-lite.so.15()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - protobuf-lite-3.5.0-8.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - problem with installed package vlc-core-1:3.0.6-16.fc29.x86_64
 Problem 4: package whois-mkpasswd-5.4.1-1.fc29.x86_64 requires
whois-nls = 5.4.1-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
  - whois-nls-5.4.1-1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - problem with installed package whois-mkpasswd-5.4.1-1.fc29.x86_64
 Problem 5: package fedora-release-29-7.noarch requires fedora-repos(29)
>= 1, but none of the providers can be installed
  - package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-29-1.noarch requires
system-release(29), but none of the providers can be installed
  - fedora-repos-29-3.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-29-1.noarch
 Problem 6: package eclipse-cdt-2:9.6.0-5.fc30.x86_64 requires hamcrest,
but none of the providers can be installed
  - problem with installed package eclipse-cdt-2:9.6.0-4.fc29.x86_64
  - package hamcrest-1.3-25.fc30.noarch requires hamcrest-core =
1.3-25.fc30, but none of the providers can be installed
  - hamcrest-1.3-24.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - eclipse-cdt-2:9.6.0-4.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - package hamcrest-core-1.3-25.fc30.noarch is excluded
 Problem 7: package eclipse-epp-logging-2.0.7-6.fc30.noarch requires
osgi(org.apache.httpcomponents.httpclient-cache), but none of the
providers can be installed
  - problem with installed package eclipse-epp-logging-2.0.7-5.fc29.noarch
  - package httpcomponents-client-cache-4.5.6-3.fc30.noarch requires
mvn(org.apache.httpcomponents:httpclient) = 4.5.6, but none of the
providers can be installed
  - httpcomponents-client-cache-4.5.5-5.fc29.noarch does not belong to a
distupgrade repository
  - eclipse-epp-logging-2.0.7-5.fc29.noarch does not belong to a
distupgrade repository
  - package httpcomponents-client-4.5.6-3.fc30.noarch is excluded
 Problem 8: package eclipse-recommenders-2.5.4-3.fc30.noarch requires
maven-resolver-transport-file, but none of the providers can be installed
  - package eclipse-recommenders-2.5.4-3.fc30.noarch requires
osgi(org.apache.maven.resolver.transport.file), but none of the
providers can be installed
  - problem with installed package eclipse-recommenders-2.5.4-2.fc29.noarch
  - package maven-resolver-transport-file-1:1.3.1-2.fc30.noarch requires
mvn(org.apache.maven.resolver:maven-resolver-spi) = 1.3.1, but none of
the providers can be installed
  - maven-resolver-transport-file-1:1.1.1-3.fc29.noarch does not belong
to a distupgrade repository
  - eclipse-recommenders-2.5.4-2.fc29.noarch does not belong to a
distupgrade repository
  - package maven-resolver-spi-1:1.3.1-2.fc30.noarch is excluded
 Problem 9: problem with installed package
maven-resolver-transport-http-1:1.1.1-3.fc29.noarch
  - package maven-resolver-transport-http-1:1.3.1-2.fc30.noarch requires
mvn(org.apache.maven.resolver:maven-resolver-util) = 1.3.1, but none of
the providers can be installed
  - maven-resolver-transport-http-1:1.1.1-3.fc29.noarch does not belong
to a distupgrade repository
  - package maven-resolve

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Miro Hrončok]

On 28. 02. 19 16:55, Adam Williamson wrote:

On Thu, 2019-02-28 at 07:51 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:

On Thu, 2019-02-28 at 06:46 -0800, Tom London wrote:

[root@localhost ~]# sudo dnf --releasever=30
--setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 --enablerepo=updates-testing
distro-sync
Fedora Modular 30 - x86_64  536 kB/s | 2.4 MB
00:04
Fedora Modular 30 - x86_64 - Updates 71  B/s | 257  B
00:03
Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Test Updates67  B/s | 257  B
00:03
Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Updates 62  B/s | 257  B
00:04
Fedora 30 - x86_64  7.4 MB/s |  61 MB
00:08
Fedora 30 - x86_64 - VirtualBox 3.2 kB/s | 6.9 kB
00:02
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'virtualbox'
Ignoring repositories: virtualbox
Error:
  Problem 1: package python2-blockdev-2.21-1.fc29.x86_64 requires
libblockdev(x86-64) = 2.21-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be
installed
   - libblockdev-2.21-1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
   - problem with installed package python2-blockdev-2.21-1.fc29.x86_64


https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33105158 ought to fix this.


More generally, the *flood* of Python 2 dep issues here is something I
was definitely concerned about with the Python 2 retirement policy
explicitly deciding not to say anything about obsoleting Python 2
subpackages :(


I wanted the py3 packages to obsolte the py2, but i was outvoted.

I now manually add those to fedora-obsoelte-packages, but I do it in batches.
I wait for a compose now to make another batch (fora rawhide and f30).

--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Adam Williamson]

On Thu, 2019-02-28 at 07:51 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-02-28 at 06:46 -0800, Tom London wrote:
> > [root@localhost ~]# sudo dnf --releasever=30
> > --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 --enablerepo=updates-testing
> > distro-sync
> > Fedora Modular 30 - x86_64  536 kB/s | 2.4 MB
> > 00:04
> > Fedora Modular 30 - x86_64 - Updates 71  B/s | 257  B
> > 00:03
> > Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Test Updates67  B/s | 257  B
> > 00:03
> > Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Updates 62  B/s | 257  B
> > 00:04
> > Fedora 30 - x86_64  7.4 MB/s |  61 MB
> > 00:08
> > Fedora 30 - x86_64 - VirtualBox 3.2 kB/s | 6.9 kB
> > 00:02
> > Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'virtualbox'
> > Ignoring repositories: virtualbox
> > Error:
> >  Problem 1: package python2-blockdev-2.21-1.fc29.x86_64 requires
> > libblockdev(x86-64) = 2.21-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be
> > installed
> >   - libblockdev-2.21-1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
> > repository
> >   - problem with installed package python2-blockdev-2.21-1.fc29.x86_64
> 
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33105158 ought to fix 
> this.

More generally, the *flood* of Python 2 dep issues here is something I
was definitely concerned about with the Python 2 retirement policy
explicitly deciding not to say anything about obsoleting Python 2
subpackages :(
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Adam Williamson]

On Thu, 2019-02-28 at 06:46 -0800, Tom London wrote:
> [root@localhost ~]# sudo dnf --releasever=30
> --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 --enablerepo=updates-testing
> distro-sync
> Fedora Modular 30 - x86_64  536 kB/s | 2.4 MB
> 00:04
> Fedora Modular 30 - x86_64 - Updates 71  B/s | 257  B
> 00:03
> Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Test Updates67  B/s | 257  B
> 00:03
> Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Updates 62  B/s | 257  B
> 00:04
> Fedora 30 - x86_64  7.4 MB/s |  61 MB
> 00:08
> Fedora 30 - x86_64 - VirtualBox 3.2 kB/s | 6.9 kB
> 00:02
> Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'virtualbox'
> Ignoring repositories: virtualbox
> Error:
>  Problem 1: package python2-blockdev-2.21-1.fc29.x86_64 requires
> libblockdev(x86-64) = 2.21-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be
> installed
>   - libblockdev-2.21-1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
> repository
>   - problem with installed package python2-blockdev-2.21-1.fc29.x86_64

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=33105158 ought to fix this.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Miro Hrončok]

On 28. 02. 19 16:03, Richard Shaw wrote:
I removed package problems that were obviously due to RPM Fusion not having 
branched yet...


Ignoring repositories: local, hobbes1069-JS8Call, hobbes1069-NBEMS, 
hobbes1069-WSJT, hobbes1069-mingw, rpmfusion-free-updates, rpmfusion-free, 
rpmfusion-nonfree-updates, rpmfusion-nonfree, virtualbox

Error:
  Problem 3: package python2-gdal-2.3.2-1.fc29.x86_64 requires gdal-libs(x86-64) 
= 2.3.2-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed

   - gdal-libs-2.3.2-1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
   - problem with installed package python2-gdal-2.3.2-1.fc29.x86_64
  Problem 4: package python2-pyproj-1.9.5.1-16.fc29.x86_64 requires 
libproj.so.12()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed

   - proj-4.9.3-6.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
   - problem with installed package python2-pyproj-1.9.5.1-16.fc29.x86_64
  Problem 5: package python2-rpkg-1.57-6.fc29.noarch requires rpkg-common = 
1.57-6.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed

   - rpkg-common-1.57-6.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
   - problem with installed package python2-rpkg-1.57-6.fc29.noarch
  Problem 6: package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires 
libvtkCommonColorPython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
   - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires 
libvtkCommonComputationalGeometryPython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the 
providers can be installed
   - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires 
libvtkCommonCorePython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
   - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires 
libvtkCommonDataModelPython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can be 
installed
   - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires 
libvtkCommonExecutionModelPython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can 
be installed
   - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires 
libvtkCommonMathPython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
   - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires 
libvtkCommonMiscPython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
   - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires 
libvtkCommonSystemPython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can be 
installed
   - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires 
libvtkCommonTransformsPython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can be 
installed
   - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires 
libvtkFiltersCorePython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
   - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires 
libvtkFiltersGeneralPython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can be 
installed
   - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires 
libvtkFiltersGeometryPython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can be 
installed
   - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires 
libvtkFiltersSourcesPython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can be 
installed
   - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires 
libvtkFiltersTexturePython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can be 
installed
   - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires 
libvtkRenderingCorePython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can be 
installed
   - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires 
libvtkRenderingFreeTypePython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can be 
installed
   - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires 
libvtkRenderingLabelPython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can be 
installed

   - python2-vtk-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
   - problem with installed package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64
  Problem 9: package blender-1:2.79b-10.fc30.x86_64 requires 
libboost_locale.so.1.66.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed

   - problem with installed package blender-1:2.79b-9.fc29.x86_64
   - boost-locale-1.66.0-14.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
   - blender-1:2.79b-9.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  Problem 13: package ImageMagick-1:6.9.10.28-1.fc30.x86_64 requires 
libMagickCore-6.Q16.so.6()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
   - package ImageMagick-1:6.9.10.28-1.fc30.x86_64 requires 
libMagickWand-6.Q16.so.6()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
   - package ImageMagick-1:6.9.10.28-1.fc30.x86_64 requires 
ImageMagick-libs(x86-64) = 1:6.9.10.28-1.fc30, but none of the providers can be 
installed
   - cannot install both ImageMagick-libs-1:6.9.10.28-1.fc30.x86_64 and 
ImageMagick-libs-1:6.9.9.38-3.fc29.x86_64

   - problem with installed package ImageMagick-1:6.9.9.38-3.fc29.x86_64
   - package python3-libopenshot-0.2.2-1.fc29.x86_64 requires 
libMagickCore-6.Q16.so.5()(64bit), but none of the p

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Jaroslav Reznik]

On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:24 AM Miroslav Suchý  wrote:
>
> Do you want to make Fedora 30 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and 
> try to run:
>
>   sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 
> --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync

(Some are related to missing RPM Fusion).

Error:
Problem 1: package rpmfusion-free-release-29-1.noarch requires
system-release(29), but none of the providers can be installed
 - fedora-release-29-7.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
 - problem with installed package rpmfusion-free-release-29-1.noarch
Problem 2: package vlc-core-1:3.0.6-16.fc29.x86_64 requires
libprotobuf-lite.so.15()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
 - protobuf-lite-3.5.0-8.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
 - problem with installed package vlc-core-1:3.0.6-16.fc29.x86_64
Problem 3: package whois-mkpasswd-5.4.1-1.fc29.x86_64 requires
whois-nls = 5.4.1-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
 - whois-nls-5.4.1-1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
 - problem with installed package whois-mkpasswd-5.4.1-1.fc29.x86_64
Problem 4: package blender-1:2.79b-10.fc30.x86_64 requires
libboost_locale.so.1.66.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
 - problem with installed package blender-1:2.79b-9.fc29.x86_64
 - boost-locale-1.66.0-14.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
 - blender-1:2.79b-9.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
Problem 5: package fedora-release-29-7.noarch requires
fedora-repos(29) >= 1, but none of the providers can be installed
 - package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-29-1.noarch requires
system-release(29), but none of the providers can be installed
 - fedora-repos-29-3.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
 - problem with installed package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-29-1.noarch
Problem 6: problem with installed package freecad-1:0.17-2.fc29.x86_64
 - package freecad-1:0.17-2.fc30.x86_64 requires
libboost_atomic.so.1.66.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
 - freecad-1:0.17-2.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
 - boost-atomic-1.66.0-14.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
Problem 7: package freecad-data-1:0.17-2.fc30.noarch requires freecad
= 1:0.17-2.fc30, but none of the providers can be installed
 - problem with installed package freecad-data-1:0.17-2.fc29.noarch
 - package freecad-1:0.17-2.fc30.x86_64 requires
libboost_chrono.so.1.66.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
 - freecad-data-1:0.17-2.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
 - boost-chrono-1.66.0-14.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository

Thanks,
Jaroslav

> If you get this prompt:
>
>   ...
>   Total download size: XXX M
>   Is this ok [y/N]:
>
> you can answer N and nothing happens, no need to test the real upgrade. 
> Upgrades will be fine for you.
>
> But very likely you get some dependency problem now. In that case please 
> report it against appropriate package.
>
> Thank you
>
> Miroslav
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives: 
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org



-- 
Jaroslav Řezník 
Engineering Program Manager

Office: +420 532 294 645
Mobile: +420 602 797 774
Red Hat, Inc.   http://www.redhat.com/
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Robert-André Mauchin]

On jeudi 28 février 2019 10:22:51 CET Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>   sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30
> --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync

It seems most of my problems come from the retirement of Python 2.
Gofed requires Python 2 packages and I think the maintainer jchaloup is too 
busy elsewhere now.


Error: 
 Problem 1: problem with installed package 
gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.21.rc1.fc29.noarch
  - gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.21.rc1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
  - nothing provides python2.7dist(git) needed by 
gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch
  - nothing provides python2.7dist(hglib) needed by 
gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch
  - nothing provides python2.7dist(koji) needed by 
gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch
  - nothing provides python2.7dist(python-gitdb) needed by 
gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch
  - nothing provides python2.7dist(tarfile) needed by 
gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch
  - nothing provides python2.7dist(urllib2) needed by 
gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch
 Problem 2: problem with installed package 
gofed-gofedlib-1.0.0-0.21.rc1.fc29.x86_64
  - gofed-gofedlib-1.0.0-0.21.rc1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
  - nothing provides python2.7dist(jinja2) = 2.8 needed by 
gofed-gofedlib-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.x86_64
  - nothing provides python2.7dist(markupsafe) = 0.23 needed by 
gofed-gofedlib-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.x86_64
 Problem 3: package python2-rpkg-1.57-6.fc29.noarch requires rpkg-common = 
1.57-6.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
  - rpkg-common-1.57-6.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package python2-rpkg-1.57-6.fc29.noarch
 Problem 4: package rpmfusion-free-release-29-1.noarch requires 
system-release(29), but none of the providers can be installed
  - fedora-release-29-7.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package rpmfusion-free-release-29-1.noarch
 Problem 5: package vlc-core-1:3.0.6-16.fc29.x86_64 requires 
libprotobuf-lite.so.15()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - protobuf-lite-3.5.0-8.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
  - problem with installed package vlc-core-1:3.0.6-16.fc29.x86_64
 Problem 6: package fedora-release-29-7.noarch requires fedora-repos(29) >= 1, 
but none of the providers can be installed
  - package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-29-1.noarch requires system-release(29), 
but none of the providers can be installed
  - fedora-repos-29-2.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-29-1.noarch
 Problem 7: problem with installed package gofed-1.0.0-0.21.rc1.fc29.x86_64
  - package gofed-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.x86_64 requires gofed-infra = 
1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30, but none of the providers can be installed
  - gofed-1.0.0-0.21.rc1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - nothing provides python2.7dist(git) needed by 
gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch
  - nothing provides python2.7dist(hglib) needed by 
gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch
  - nothing provides python2.7dist(koji) needed by 
gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch
  - nothing provides python2.7dist(python-gitdb) needed by 
gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch
  - nothing provides python2.7dist(tarfile) needed by 
gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch
  - nothing provides python2.7dist(urllib2) needed by 
gofed-infra-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch
 Problem 8: problem with installed package 
gofed-resources-1.0.0-0.21.rc1.fc29.noarch
  - package gofed-resources-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.noarch requires gofed-gofedlib 
= 1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30, but none of the providers can be installed
  - gofed-resources-1.0.0-0.21.rc1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
  - nothing provides python2.7dist(jinja2) = 2.8 needed by 
gofed-gofedlib-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.x86_64
  - nothing provides python2.7dist(markupsafe) = 0.23 needed by 
gofed-gofedlib-1.0.0-0.22.rc1.fc30.x86_64
 Problem 9: problem with installed package pyexiv2-0.3.2-34.fc29.x86_64
  - package pyexiv2-0.3.2-36.fc30.x86_64 requires 
libboost_python.so.1.66.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - pyexiv2-0.3.2-34.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - boost-python2-1.66.0-14.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
 Problem 10: problem with installed package 
nomacs-3.8.1-0.3.20180223git9b305e2.fc29.x86_64
  - package nomacs-3.8.1-0.3.20180223git9b305e2.fc29.x86_64 requires 
libexiv2.so.26()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - exiv2-libs-0.26-12.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
 Problem 11: cannot install both rpkg-common-1.57-6.fc30.noarch and 
rpkg-common-1.57-6.fc29.noarch
  - package python3-rpkg-1.57-6.fc30.noarch requires rpkg-common = 1.57-6.fc30, 
but none of the providers can be installed
  - package python2-r

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Richard Shaw]

I removed package problems that were obviously due to RPM Fusion not having
branched yet...

Ignoring repositories: local, hobbes1069-JS8Call, hobbes1069-NBEMS,
hobbes1069-WSJT, hobbes1069-mingw, rpmfusion-free-updates, rpmfusion-free,
rpmfusion-nonfree-updates, rpmfusion-nonfree, virtualbox
Error:
 Problem 3: package python2-gdal-2.3.2-1.fc29.x86_64 requires
gdal-libs(x86-64) = 2.3.2-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
  - gdal-libs-2.3.2-1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - problem with installed package python2-gdal-2.3.2-1.fc29.x86_64
 Problem 4: package python2-pyproj-1.9.5.1-16.fc29.x86_64 requires
libproj.so.12()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - proj-4.9.3-6.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package python2-pyproj-1.9.5.1-16.fc29.x86_64
 Problem 5: package python2-rpkg-1.57-6.fc29.noarch requires rpkg-common =
1.57-6.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
  - rpkg-common-1.57-6.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - problem with installed package python2-rpkg-1.57-6.fc29.noarch
 Problem 6: package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires
libvtkCommonColorPython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
  - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires
libvtkCommonComputationalGeometryPython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the
providers can be installed
  - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires
libvtkCommonCorePython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
  - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires
libvtkCommonDataModelPython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can
be installed
  - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires
libvtkCommonExecutionModelPython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the
providers can be installed
  - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires
libvtkCommonMathPython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
  - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires
libvtkCommonMiscPython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
  - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires
libvtkCommonSystemPython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
  - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires
libvtkCommonTransformsPython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers
can be installed
  - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires
libvtkFiltersCorePython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
  - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires
libvtkFiltersGeneralPython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can
be installed
  - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires
libvtkFiltersGeometryPython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can
be installed
  - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires
libvtkFiltersSourcesPython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can
be installed
  - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires
libvtkFiltersTexturePython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can
be installed
  - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires
libvtkRenderingCorePython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can
be installed
  - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires
libvtkRenderingFreeTypePython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers
can be installed
  - package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 requires
libvtkRenderingLabelPython27D.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can
be installed
  - python2-vtk-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - problem with installed package python2-vtk-qt-7.1.1-12.fc29.x86_64
 Problem 9: package blender-1:2.79b-10.fc30.x86_64 requires
libboost_locale.so.1.66.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
  - problem with installed package blender-1:2.79b-9.fc29.x86_64
  - boost-locale-1.66.0-14.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - blender-1:2.79b-9.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
 Problem 13: package ImageMagick-1:6.9.10.28-1.fc30.x86_64 requires
libMagickCore-6.Q16.so.6()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
  - package ImageMagick-1:6.9.10.28-1.fc30.x86_64 requires
libMagickWand-6.Q16.so.6()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
  - package ImageMagick-1:6.9.10.28-1.fc30.x86_64 requires
ImageMagick-libs(x86-64) = 1:6.9.10.28-1.fc30, but none of the providers
can be installed
  - cannot install both ImageMagick-libs-1:6.9.10.28-1.fc30.x86_64 and
ImageMagick-libs-1:6.9.9.38-3.fc29.x86_64
  - problem with installed package ImageMagick-1:6.9.9.38-3.fc29.x86_64
  - package python3-libopenshot-0.2.2-1.fc29.x86_64 requires
libMagickCore-6.Q16.so.5()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
  - package python3-libopenshot-0.2.2-1.fc29.x86_64 requires
libMagickWand-6.Q16.so.5()(64bit), but none o

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Ingo Hoffmann]

 $ sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30
--enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
 [14:51:21]
[sudo] password for iweiss:
Copr repo for better_fonts owned by dawid
 222  B/s | 341  B
00:01
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'dawid-better_fonts'
Docker CE Stable - x86_64
 464  B/s | 577  B
00:01
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'docker-ce-stable'
Fedora 30 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64
 183  B/s | 543  B
00:02
Fedora 30 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64
 1.6 MB/s | 1.6 kB
00:00
Importing GPG key 0xCFC659B9:
 Userid : "Fedora (30) "
 Fingerprint: F1D8 EC98 F241 AAF2 0DF6 9420 EF3C 111F CFC6 59B9
 From   : /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-30-x86_64
Is this ok [y/N]: y
Fedora 30 openh264 (From Cisco) - x86_64
 1.2 kB/s | 5.1 kB
00:04
Fedora Modular 30 - x86_64
 534 kB/s | 2.4 MB
00:04
Fedora Modular 30 - x86_64 - Updates
  63  B/s | 257  B
00:04
Fedora Modular 30 - x86_64 - Test Updates
  65  B/s | 257  B
00:03
Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Test Updates
  66  B/s | 257  B
00:03
Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Updates
  66  B/s | 257  B
00:03
Fedora 30 - x86_64
 6.2 MB/s |  61 MB
00:09
RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Free - Test Updates
 321 kB/s |  71 kB
00:00
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-free-updates-testing'
RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Free - Updates
  56 kB/s |  71 kB
00:01
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-free-updates'
RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Free
  63 kB/s |  71 kB
00:01
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-free'
RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Nonfree - Test Updates
  59 kB/s |  71 kB
00:01
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-nonfree-updates-testing'
RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Nonfree - Updates
  44 kB/s |  71 kB
00:01
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-nonfree-updates'
RPM Fusion for Fedora 30 - Nonfree
  61 kB/s |  71 kB
00:01
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-nonfree'
tlp RPM packages
 211  B/s | 242  B
00:01
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'tlp-updates'
tlp RPM packages
 205  B/s | 234  B
00:01
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'tlp'
Ignoring repositories: dawid-better_fonts, docker-ce-stable,
rpmfusion-free-updates-testing, rpmfusion-free-updates,
rpmfusion-free, rpmfusion-nonfree-updates-testing,
rpmfusion-nonfree-updates, rpmfusion-nonfree, tlp-updates, tlp
Error:
 Problem 1: package
chromium-libs-media-freeworld-71.0.3578.98-1.fc29.x86_64 requires
chromium-libs(x86-64) = 71.0.3578.98-1.fc29, but none of the providers
can be installed
  - chromium-libs-71.0.3578.98-1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a
distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package
chromium-libs-media-freeworld-71.0.3578.98-1.fc29.x86_64
 Problem 2: package rpmfusion-free-release-29-1.noarch requires
system-release(29), but none of the providers can be installed
  - fedora-release-29-7.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package rpmfusion-free-release-29-1.noarch
 Problem 3: package whois-mkpasswd-5.4.1-1.fc29.x86_64 requires
whois-nls = 5.4.1-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
  - whois-nls-5.4.1-1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package whois-mkpasswd-5.4.1-1.fc29.x86_64
 Problem 4: package fedora-release-29-7.noarch requires
fedora-repos(29) >= 1, but none of the providers can be installed
  - package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-29-1.noarch requires
system-release(29), but none of the providers can be installed
  - fedora-repos-29-3.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-29-1.noarch
(try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: ht

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Tom London]

[root@localhost ~]# sudo dnf --releasever=30
--setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 --enablerepo=updates-testing
distro-sync
Fedora Modular 30 - x86_64  536 kB/s | 2.4 MB
00:04
Fedora Modular 30 - x86_64 - Updates 71  B/s | 257  B
00:03
Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Test Updates67  B/s | 257  B
00:03
Fedora 30 - x86_64 - Updates 62  B/s | 257  B
00:04
Fedora 30 - x86_64  7.4 MB/s |  61 MB
00:08
Fedora 30 - x86_64 - VirtualBox 3.2 kB/s | 6.9 kB
00:02
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'virtualbox'
Ignoring repositories: virtualbox
Error:
 Problem 1: package python2-blockdev-2.21-1.fc29.x86_64 requires
libblockdev(x86-64) = 2.21-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be
installed
  - libblockdev-2.21-1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - problem with installed package python2-blockdev-2.21-1.fc29.x86_64
 Problem 2: package whois-mkpasswd-5.4.1-1.fc29.x86_64 requires whois-nls =
5.4.1-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
  - whois-nls-5.4.1-1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - problem with installed package whois-mkpasswd-5.4.1-1.fc29.x86_64
(try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)
[root@localhost ~]#


On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 4:34 AM Neal Becker  wrote:

> Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>
> > Do you want to make Fedora 30 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time
> > and try to run:
> >
> >   sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30
> >   --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
> >
> > If you get this prompt:
> >
> >   ...
> >   Total download size: XXX M
> >   Is this ok [y/N]:
> >
> > you can answer N and nothing happens, no need to test the real upgrade.
> > Upgrades will be fine for you.
> >
> > But very likely you get some dependency problem now. In that case please
> > report it against appropriate package.
> >
> > Thank you
> >
> > Miroslav
> > ___
> > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> > List Archives:
> >
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Error:
>  Problem 1: package python2-blockdev-2.21-1.fc29.x86_64 requires
> libblockdev(x86-64) = 2.21-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be
> installed
>   - libblockdev-2.21-1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
> repository
>   - problem with installed package python2-blockdev-2.21-1.fc29.x86_64
>  Problem 2: package python2-rpkg-1.57-6.fc29.noarch requires rpkg-common =
> 1.57-6.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
>   - rpkg-common-1.57-6.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade
> repository
>   - problem with installed package python2-rpkg-1.57-6.fc29.noarch
>  Problem 3: package rpmfusion-free-release-29-1.noarch requires system-
> release(29), but none of the providers can be installed
>   - fedora-release-29-7.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
>   - problem with installed package rpmfusion-free-release-29-1.noarch
>  Problem 4: package system-config-date-1.10.9-2.fc24.noarch requires
> python-
> slip >= 0.2.21, but none of the providers can be installed
>   - python2-slip-0.6.4-12.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade
> repository
>   - problem with installed package system-config-date-1.10.9-2.fc24.noarch
>  Problem 5: package vlc-core-1:3.0.6-16.fc29.x86_64 requires libprotobuf-
> lite.so.15()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>   - protobuf-lite-3.5.0-8.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
> repository
>   - problem with installed package vlc-core-1:3.0.6-16.fc29.x86_64
>  Problem 6: package whois-mkpasswd-5.4.1-1.fc29.x86_64 requires whois-nls
> =
> 5.4.1-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
>   - whois-nls-5.4.1-1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade
> repository
>   - problem with installed package whois-mkpasswd-5.4.1-1.fc29.x86_64
>  Problem 7: package fedora-release-29-7.noarch requires fedora-repos(29)
> >=
> 1, but none of the providers can be installed
>   - package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-29-1.noarch requires system-
> release(29), but none of the providers can be installed
>   - fedora-repos-29-3.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
>   - problem with installed package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-29-1.noarch
>  Problem 8: package python3-flake8-3.6.0-2.fc30.noarch requires
> python3.7dist(pycodestyle) < 2.5.0, but none of the providers can be
> installed
>   - problem with installed package python3-flake8-3.5.0-6.fc29.noarch
>   - python3-pycodestyle-2.4.0-3.fc29.noarch does not belong to a
> distupgrade
> repository
>   - python3-flake8-3.5.0-6.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade
> repository
>  Pr

Re: EXTERNAL: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Wells, Roger K.]

On 2/28/19 4:23 AM, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Do you want to make Fedora 30 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and 
> try to run:
>
>   sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 
> --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
>
> If you get this prompt:
>
>   ...
>   Total download size: XXX M
>   Is this ok [y/N]:
>
> you can answer N and nothing happens, no need to test the real upgrade. 
> Upgrades will be fine for you.
>
> But very likely you get some dependency problem now. In that case please 
> report it against appropriate package.
>
> Thank you
>
> Miroslav
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives: 
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

HTH:

Error:
 Problem 1: package rpmfusion-free-release-29-1.noarch requires
system-release(29), but none of the providers can be installed
  - fedora-release-29-7.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package rpmfusion-free-release-29-1.noarch
 Problem 2: package vlc-core-1:3.0.6-16.fc29.x86_64 requires
libprotobuf-lite.so.15()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - protobuf-lite-3.5.0-8.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - problem with installed package vlc-core-1:3.0.6-16.fc29.x86_64
 Problem 3: package whois-mkpasswd-5.4.1-1.fc29.x86_64 requires
whois-nls = 5.4.1-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
  - whois-nls-5.4.1-1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - problem with installed package whois-mkpasswd-5.4.1-1.fc29.x86_64
 Problem 4: problem with installed package digikam-libs-5.9.0-2.fc29.x86_64
  - package digikam-libs-5.9.0-2.fc29.x86_64 requires
libexiv2.so.26()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - exiv2-libs-0.26-12.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
 Problem 5: problem with installed package digikam-5.9.0-2.fc29.x86_64
  - package digikam-5.9.0-2.fc29.x86_64 requires
libexiv2.so.26()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - cannot install both exiv2-libs-0.27.0-3.fc30.x86_64 and
exiv2-libs-0.26-12.fc29.x86_64
  - package exiv2-0.27.0-3.fc30.x86_64 requires exiv2-libs(x86-64) =
0.27.0-3.fc30, but none of the providers can be installed
  - package exiv2-0.27.0-3.fc30.x86_64 requires libexiv2.so.27()(64bit),
but none of the providers can be installed
  - problem with installed package exiv2-0.26-12.fc29.x86_64
  - exiv2-0.26-12.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
 Problem 6: problem with installed package digikam-doc-5.9.0-2.fc29.noarch
  - package digikam-doc-5.9.0-2.fc29.noarch requires digikam =
5.9.0-2.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
  - package digikam-5.9.0-2.fc29.x86_64 requires
libexiv2.so.26()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - cannot install both exiv2-libs-0.27.0-3.fc30.x86_64 and
exiv2-libs-0.26-12.fc29.x86_64
  - package gnome-color-manager-3.30.0-3.fc30.x86_64 requires
libexiv2.so.27()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - problem with installed package gnome-color-manager-3.30.0-1.fc29.x86_64
  - gnome-color-manager-3.30.0-1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a
distupgrade repository

-- 
Roger Wells, P.E.
leidos
221 Third St
Newport, RI 02840
401-847-4210 (voice)
401-849-1585 (fax)
roger.k.we...@leidos.com

___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Neal Becker]

Miroslav Suchý wrote:

> Do you want to make Fedora 30 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time
> and try to run:
> 
>   sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30
>   --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
> 
> If you get this prompt:
> 
>   ...
>   Total download size: XXX M
>   Is this ok [y/N]:
> 
> you can answer N and nothing happens, no need to test the real upgrade.
> Upgrades will be fine for you.
> 
> But very likely you get some dependency problem now. In that case please
> report it against appropriate package.
> 
> Thank you
> 
> Miroslav
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
> 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Error: 
 Problem 1: package python2-blockdev-2.21-1.fc29.x86_64 requires 
libblockdev(x86-64) = 2.21-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be 
installed
  - libblockdev-2.21-1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
  - problem with installed package python2-blockdev-2.21-1.fc29.x86_64
 Problem 2: package python2-rpkg-1.57-6.fc29.noarch requires rpkg-common = 
1.57-6.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
  - rpkg-common-1.57-6.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
  - problem with installed package python2-rpkg-1.57-6.fc29.noarch
 Problem 3: package rpmfusion-free-release-29-1.noarch requires system-
release(29), but none of the providers can be installed
  - fedora-release-29-7.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package rpmfusion-free-release-29-1.noarch
 Problem 4: package system-config-date-1.10.9-2.fc24.noarch requires python-
slip >= 0.2.21, but none of the providers can be installed
  - python2-slip-0.6.4-12.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
  - problem with installed package system-config-date-1.10.9-2.fc24.noarch
 Problem 5: package vlc-core-1:3.0.6-16.fc29.x86_64 requires libprotobuf-
lite.so.15()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - protobuf-lite-3.5.0-8.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
  - problem with installed package vlc-core-1:3.0.6-16.fc29.x86_64
 Problem 6: package whois-mkpasswd-5.4.1-1.fc29.x86_64 requires whois-nls = 
5.4.1-1.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed
  - whois-nls-5.4.1-1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
  - problem with installed package whois-mkpasswd-5.4.1-1.fc29.x86_64
 Problem 7: package fedora-release-29-7.noarch requires fedora-repos(29) >= 
1, but none of the providers can be installed
  - package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-29-1.noarch requires system-
release(29), but none of the providers can be installed
  - fedora-repos-29-3.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-29-1.noarch
 Problem 8: package python3-flake8-3.6.0-2.fc30.noarch requires 
python3.7dist(pycodestyle) < 2.5.0, but none of the providers can be 
installed
  - problem with installed package python3-flake8-3.5.0-6.fc29.noarch
  - python3-pycodestyle-2.4.0-3.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
  - python3-flake8-3.5.0-6.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
 Problem 9: package dbus-common-1:1.12.12-2.fc30.noarch conflicts with 
fedora-release < 30-0.2 provided by fedora-release-29-7.noarch
  - package rpmfusion-free-release-29-1.noarch requires system-release(29), 
but none of the providers can be installed
  - problem with installed package dbus-common-1:1.12.12-1.fc29.noarch
  - package fedy-plugins-4.0.5-1.fc22.noarch requires rpmfusion-free-
release, but none of the providers can be installed
  - dbus-common-1:1.12.12-1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
  - problem with installed package fedy-plugins-4.0.5-1.fc22.noarch
 Problem 10: package dnf-yum-4.1.0-1.fc30.noarch conflicts with yum provided 
by yum-3.4.3-521.fc30.noarch
  - package yumex-3.0.17-2.fc23.noarch requires yum >= 3.2.23, but none of 
the providers can be installed
  - problem with installed package dnf-yum-4.1.0-1.fc29.noarch
  - yum-3.4.3-518.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - dnf-yum-4.1.0-1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - problem with installed package yumex-3.0.17-2.fc23.noarch
 Problem 11: package rpmfusion-free-release-29-1.noarch requires system-
release(29), but none of the providers can be installed
  - package dbus-daemon-1:1.12.12-2.fc30.x86_64 conflicts with fedora-
release < 30-0.2 provided by fedora-release-29-7.noarch
  - package fedy-plugins-4.0.5-1.fc22.noarch requires rpmfusion-free-
release, but none of the providers can be installed
  - problem with installed packa

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Marcin Juszkiewicz]

W dniu 28.02.2019 o 10:22, Miroslav Suchý pisze:
> Do you want to make Fedora 30 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and 
> try to run:
> 
>   sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 
> --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
> 
> If you get this prompt:
> 
>   ...
>   Total download size: XXX M
>   Is this ok [y/N]:
> 
> you can answer N and nothing happens, no need to test the real upgrade. 
> Upgrades will be fine for you.
> 
> But very likely you get some dependency problem now. In that case please 
> report it against appropriate package.

Worth doing 'sudo dnf update' first as some of issues could be already
solved. Also check bugzilla before reporting.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Kalev Lember]

On 2/28/19 11:08, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:

On Thursday, 28 February 2019 at 10:22, Miroslav Suchý wrote:

Do you want to make Fedora 30 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and 
try to run:

   sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 
--enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync


Is "dnf system-upgrade" not recommended anymore?


It is. What Miroslav is asking is to just test dependency resolving
using a custom command (not to do an actual upgrade) and file bugs.

Kalev
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski]

On Thursday, 28 February 2019 at 10:22, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Do you want to make Fedora 30 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and 
> try to run:
> 
>   sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 
> --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync

Is "dnf system-upgrade" not recommended anymore?

Regards,
Dominik
-- 
Fedora   https://getfedora.org  |  RPM Fusion  http://rpmfusion.org
There should be a science of discontent. People need hard times and
oppression to develop psychic muscles.
-- from "Collected Sayings of Muad'Dib" by the Princess Irulan
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

[Miroslav Suchý]

Do you want to make Fedora 30 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and 
try to run:

  sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 
--enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync

If you get this prompt:

  ...
  Total download size: XXX M
  Is this ok [y/N]:

you can answer N and nothing happens, no need to test the real upgrade. 
Upgrades will be fine for you.

But very likely you get some dependency problem now. In that case please report 
it against appropriate package.

Thank you

Miroslav
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org