Re: More Fedora mock breakage
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 08:41:17PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 06:48:54PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Mathieu Bridon (bochecha) boche...@fedoraproject.org writes: ERROR with rpm_check_debug vs depsolve: rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) is needed by exim-4.69-12.fc12.x86_64 I had the same on F11, building in a Rawhide mock. I was advised to update rpm to 4.7.1 that was in updates-testing, which fixed the problem. [ consults CVS... ] So XZ support in F-11's rpm is less than a week old, there is *no* support in F-10, and we're already requiring the capability in order to do useful development work? All I can say is WTF. Did you have a better plan for migrating to an XZ payload for F12 in time for Alpha? IMHO there should be a much larger window between providing an new feature in RPM, and requiring it for development. eg, new features should go into RPM in rawhide F11 at least 2-3 months before we require them. Yes this would have required XZ support to be merged much sooner in the F12 schedule, or alternatively merge XZ support in F12, but don't use it till F13. Daniel -- |: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :| -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: More Fedora mock breakage
Daniel P. Berrange berra...@redhat.com writes: On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 08:41:17PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 06:48:54PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: [ consults CVS... ] So XZ support in F-11's rpm is less than a week old, there is *no* support in F-10, and we're already requiring the capability in order to do useful development work? All I can say is WTF. Did you have a better plan for migrating to an XZ payload for F12 in time for Alpha? IMHO there should be a much larger window between providing an new feature in RPM, and requiring it for development. eg, new features should go into RPM in rawhide F11 at least 2-3 months before we require them. Yes this would have required XZ support to be merged much sooner in the F12 schedule, or alternatively merge XZ support in F12, but don't use it till F13. I would be satisfied if there was any window at all. The upthread suggestions that it's okay to expect every individual Fedora packager to cope with this for themselves were insane, not to say insulting. I have real work to do, and dealing with that sort of make-work is not it. regards, tom lane -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: More Fedora mock breakage
Tom Lane píše v So 01. 08. 2009 v 00:09 -0400: Bastien Nocera bnoc...@redhat.com writes: On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 18:48 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: [ consults CVS... ] So XZ support in F-11's rpm is less than a week old, there is *no* support in F-10, and we're already requiring the capability in order to do useful development work? All I can say is WTF. An rpm with Xz support is in F11 updates-testing. I'm pretty sure it's also in updates-testing for F10. It is not in F-10's package CVS, let alone in updates-testing. Yes, I looked before complaining. This was not well-managed. rpm with xz support for F-10 is available at http://fedora.danny.cz/rpm/ Dan -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
More Fedora mock breakage
I'm getting a pile of these: ERROR with rpm_check_debug vs depsolve: rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) is needed by exim-4.69-12.fc12.x86_64 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) is needed by crontabs-1.10-31.fc12.noarch rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) is needed by logrotate-3.7.8-3.fc12.x86_64 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) is needed by tar-2:1.22-6.fc12.x86_64 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) is needed by openldap-2.4.16-2.fc12.x86_64 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) is needed by ncurses-libs-5.7-3.20090207.fc12.x86_64 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) is needed by grep-2.5.3-5.fc12.x86_64 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) is needed by ncurses-base-5.7-3.20090207.fc12.x86_64 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) is needed by gdbm-1.8.0-33.fc12.x86_64 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) is needed by xz-4.999.8-0.8.beta.fc12.x86_64 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) is needed by ustr-1.0.4-9.fc12.x86_64 ... while trying to build rawhide packages under mock. Host is a fully up2date Fedora 10 x86_64 system, selected mock config is fedora-rawhide-x86_64. What's especially curious is that it seems to work if I rm -rf the contents of /var/lib/mock and /var/cache/mock first... but I'm not eager to re-download all that stuff every time. regards, tom lane -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: More Fedora mock breakage
ERROR with rpm_check_debug vs depsolve: rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) is needed by exim-4.69-12.fc12.x86_64 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) is needed by crontabs-1.10-31.fc12.noarch rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) is needed by logrotate-3.7.8-3.fc12.x86_64 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) is needed by tar-2:1.22-6.fc12.x86_64 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) is needed by openldap-2.4.16-2.fc12.x86_64 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) is needed by ncurses-libs-5.7-3.20090207.fc12.x86_64 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) is needed by grep-2.5.3-5.fc12.x86_64 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) is needed by ncurses-base-5.7-3.20090207.fc12.x86_64 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) is needed by gdbm-1.8.0-33.fc12.x86_64 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) is needed by xz-4.999.8-0.8.beta.fc12.x86_64 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) is needed by ustr-1.0.4-9.fc12.x86_64 ... while trying to build rawhide packages under mock. Host is a fully up2date Fedora 10 x86_64 system, selected mock config is fedora-rawhide-x86_64. I had the same on F11, building in a Rawhide mock. I was advised to update rpm to 4.7.1 that was in updates-testing, which fixed the problem. -- Mathieu Bridon (bochecha) -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: More Fedora mock breakage
2009/7/31 Tom Lane t...@redhat.com: I'm getting a pile of these: ERROR with rpm_check_debug vs depsolve: rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) is needed by exim-4.69-12.fc12.x86_64 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) is needed by crontabs-1.10-31.fc12.noarch rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) is needed by logrotate-3.7.8-3.fc12.x86_64 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) is needed by tar-2:1.22-6.fc12.x86_64 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) is needed by openldap-2.4.16-2.fc12.x86_64 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) is needed by ncurses-libs-5.7-3.20090207.fc12.x86_64 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) is needed by grep-2.5.3-5.fc12.x86_64 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) is needed by ncurses-base-5.7-3.20090207.fc12.x86_64 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) is needed by gdbm-1.8.0-33.fc12.x86_64 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) is needed by xz-4.999.8-0.8.beta.fc12.x86_64 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) is needed by ustr-1.0.4-9.fc12.x86_64 ... while trying to build rawhide packages under mock. Host is a fully up2date Fedora 10 x86_64 system, selected mock config is fedora-rawhide-x86_64. What's especially curious is that it seems to work if I rm -rf the contents of /var/lib/mock and /var/cache/mock first... but I'm not eager to re-download all that stuff every time. I think this is down to the new xz/lzma compression for rpms in f12 as mentioned here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/XZRpmPayloads Probably need a more recent version of rpm with xz support. -- There are 10 kinds of people in the world: Those who understand binary and those who don't... -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: More Fedora mock breakage
Mathieu Bridon (bochecha) boche...@fedoraproject.org writes: ERROR with rpm_check_debug vs depsolve: rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) is needed by exim-4.69-12.fc12.x86_64 I had the same on F11, building in a Rawhide mock. I was advised to update rpm to 4.7.1 that was in updates-testing, which fixed the problem. [ consults CVS... ] So XZ support in F-11's rpm is less than a week old, there is *no* support in F-10, and we're already requiring the capability in order to do useful development work? All I can say is WTF. regards, tom lane -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: More Fedora mock breakage
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 06:48:54PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: Mathieu Bridon (bochecha) boche...@fedoraproject.org writes: ERROR with rpm_check_debug vs depsolve: rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) is needed by exim-4.69-12.fc12.x86_64 I had the same on F11, building in a Rawhide mock. I was advised to update rpm to 4.7.1 that was in updates-testing, which fixed the problem. [ consults CVS... ] So XZ support in F-11's rpm is less than a week old, there is *no* support in F-10, and we're already requiring the capability in order to do useful development work? All I can say is WTF. Did you have a better plan for migrating to an XZ payload for F12 in time for Alpha? josh -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: More Fedora mock breakage
Bastien Nocera bnoc...@redhat.com writes: On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 18:48 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: [ consults CVS... ] So XZ support in F-11's rpm is less than a week old, there is *no* support in F-10, and we're already requiring the capability in order to do useful development work? All I can say is WTF. An rpm with Xz support is in F11 updates-testing. I'm pretty sure it's also in updates-testing for F10. It is not in F-10's package CVS, let alone in updates-testing. Yes, I looked before complaining. This was not well-managed. regards, tom lane -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: More Fedora mock breakage
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 12:09 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Bastien Nocera writes: On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 18:48 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: [ consults CVS... ] So XZ support in F-11's rpm is less than a week old, there is *no* support in F-10, and we're already requiring the capability in order to do useful development work? All I can say is WTF. An rpm with Xz support is in F11 updates-testing. I'm pretty sure it's also in updates-testing for F10. It is not in F-10's package CVS, let alone in updates-testing. Yes, I looked before complaining. This was not well-managed. Is this such a big issue to whine about? The same thing happened to many of us. Just grab the SRPM and build your RPM. Here, I did it for you: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1571414 Orcan -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
