Re: Broken dependencies in Fedora 11 - 2009-08-20
Michael Schwendt wrote: Indeed. A single tomboy build obsoleted more than a dozen Mono packages and actually got marked stable sometimes later without anyone adding a comment. I'd blame the tomboy maintainer for the chaos there. Before you push an update to a package, you MUST check for previous updates for the package (possibly filed by somebody else, Bodhi will NOT mail you about them, even if you are the maintainer!), and if it's a grouped update, you CANNOT push a new update for your package, you MUST get it updated in the group instead. Kevin Kofler -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Broken dependencies in Fedora 11 - 2009-08-20
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 03:07:47PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: Michael Schwendt wrote: Indeed. A single tomboy build obsoleted more than a dozen Mono packages and actually got marked stable sometimes later without anyone adding a comment. I'd blame the tomboy maintainer for the chaos there. Before you push an update to a package, you MUST check for previous updates for the package (possibly filed by somebody else, Bodhi will NOT mail you about them, even if you are the maintainer!), and if it's a grouped update, you CANNOT push a new update for your package, you MUST get it updated in the group instead. I'd blame the bad workflow and the unexpected beheaviour of bodhi. Btw. all your steps are not documented in the Package Update Howto[0] and are probably not valid anymore, since the auto obsoletion is disabled now. But I do not really know how Bodhi would behave now. Regards Till [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_update_HOWTO pgpe0kVTrakjl.pgp Description: PGP signature -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Broken dependencies in Fedora 11 - 2009-08-20
drago01 wrote: Sorry but the fail here is 100% on bodhi's side , why does a single package obsolete a complete group update? That is just broken, and this example clearly showed it. It's broken (we've had some fun with that with the KDE grouped updates too, we learned to be careful about what we push when), but a maintainer should know how to use our tools, which includes being aware of their limitations. Double-checking things both before and after filing an update (e.g. checking https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/thepackageyoureabouttopushanupdatefor before filing the new update request) definitely can't hurt (I always do that), and it will help avoiding issues you don't even know about, or at least catching them earlier than 2 months after the fact (as happened here). Kevin Kofler -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Broken dependencies in Fedora 11 - 2009-08-20
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 08:13:34PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: drago01 wrote: Sorry but the fail here is 100% on bodhi's side , why does a single package obsolete a complete group update? That is just broken, and this example clearly showed it. It's broken (we've had some fun with that with the KDE grouped updates too, we learned to be careful about what we push when), but a maintainer should know how to use our tools, which includes being aware of their limitations. I use bodhi every day. I have yet to find all it's limitations. There are known limitations that aren't even documented. I think it's a bit far reaching to say that maintainers should just know, when there is no good way for them to know without either reading the code or excessive use. Double-checking things both before and after filing an update (e.g. checking https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/thepackageyoureabouttopushanupdatefor before filing the new update request) definitely can't hurt (I always do that), and it will help avoiding issues you don't even know about, or at least catching them earlier than 2 months after the fact (as happened here). That's decent advice, but it will not catch quite a number of the problems that we see come up. josh -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Broken dependencies in Fedora 11 - 2009-08-20
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Kevin Koflerkevin.kof...@chello.at wrote: drago01 wrote: Sorry but the fail here is 100% on bodhi's side , why does a single package obsolete a complete group update? That is just broken, and this example clearly showed it. It's broken (we've had some fun with that with the KDE grouped updates too, we learned to be careful about what we push when), but a maintainer should know how to use our tools, which includes being aware of their limitations. Double-checking things both before and after filing an update (e.g. checking https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/thepackageyoureabouttopushanupdatefor before filing the new update request) definitely can't hurt (I always do that), and it will help avoiding issues you don't even know about, or at least catching them earlier than 2 months after the fact (as happened here). Sure if you know about a bug/limitation you can try to avoid it, but as Josh said you can't expect that every maintainer knows about all (undocumented) bugs/limitations. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Broken dependencies in Fedora 11 - 2009-08-20
Sorry but the fail here is 100% on bodhi's side , why does a single package obsolete a complete group update? That is just broken, and this example clearly showed it. It's broken (we've had some fun with that with the KDE grouped updates too, we learned to be careful about what we push when), but a maintainer should know how to use our tools, which includes being aware of their limitations. Double-checking things both before and after filing an update (e.g. checking https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/thepackageyoureabouttopushanupdatefor before filing the new update request) definitely can't hurt (I always do that), and it will help avoiding issues you don't even know about, or at least catching them earlier than 2 months after the fact (as happened here). Sure if you know about a bug/limitation you can try to avoid it, but as Josh said you can't expect that every maintainer knows about all (undocumented) bugs/limitations. Agreed, I ran into the issue a while ago. Not such a major issues as it would be for something like a KDE or mono update but annoying none the less. Peter -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Broken dependencies in Fedora 11 - 2009-08-20
On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 20:13:34 +0200, Kevin wrote: drago01 wrote: Sorry but the fail here is 100% on bodhi's side , why does a single package obsolete a complete group update? That is just broken, and this example clearly showed it. It's broken (we've had some fun with that with the KDE grouped updates too, we learned to be careful about what we push when), Pitfalls remain nevertheless. F10 ktorrent got marked stable with the KDE4 buildroot override packages still sitting in updates-testing. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Broken dependencies in Fedora 11 - 2009-08-20
Michael Schwendt wrote: Pitfalls remain nevertheless. F10 ktorrent got marked stable with the KDE4 buildroot override packages still sitting in updates-testing. Yeah, indeed, the maintainer screwed up big time there. :-/ He didn't talk to us at all before pushing that ktorrent update. :-( He used to be on #fedora-kde from time to time, but not anymore. He apparently didn't read our announcement about the KDE 4.3.0 buildroot override on the mailing list either. BTW, the update notes for that update are also completely worthless, when upstream even summarized the changes nicely in their newsitem (so there's really no excuse for not pasting them in). Kevin Kofler -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Broken dependencies in Fedora 11 - 2009-08-20
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Michael Schwendtmschwe...@gmail.com wrote: == The results in this summary consider Test Updates! == Summary of broken packages (by src.rpm name): beagle bmpx clipsmm f-spot fedora-business-cards kdeedu openmpi openvrml ppl R-RScaLAPACK rubygem-main rubygem-rails scheme2js tomboy Is it just me or are there some packages that seem to be eternally on this list? beage/f-spot/tomboy never seem to go anywhere. Peter -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Broken dependencies in Fedora 11 - 2009-08-20
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 10:19:39AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Michael Schwendtmschwe...@gmail.com wrote: == The results in this summary consider Test Updates! == Summary of broken packages (by src.rpm name): beagle bmpx clipsmm f-spot fedora-business-cards kdeedu openmpi openvrml ppl R-RScaLAPACK rubygem-main rubygem-rails scheme2js tomboy Is it just me or are there some packages that seem to be eternally on this list? beage/f-spot/tomboy never seem to go anywhere. They're eternally broken on ppc64. Mostly due to Mono being broken on ppc64. josh -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Broken dependencies in Fedora 11 - 2009-08-20
On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 07:18:50 -0400, Josh wrote: On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 10:19:39AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote: == The results in this summary consider Test Updates! == Summary of broken packages (by src.rpm name): beagle bmpx clipsmm f-spot fedora-business-cards kdeedu openmpi openvrml ppl R-RScaLAPACK rubygem-main rubygem-rails scheme2js tomboy Is it just me or are there some packages that seem to be eternally on this list? beage/f-spot/tomboy never seem to go anywhere. They're eternally broken on ppc64. Mostly due to Mono being broken on ppc64. Really? Then why has somebody added ppc64 to the ExclusiveArch list for many but not all of the Mono packages? I think that spec files from F-12 devel have been copied to F-11 without making sure that Mono has been built for ppc64 there. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Broken dependencies in Fedora 11 - 2009-08-20
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 01:31:47PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 07:18:50 -0400, Josh wrote: On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 10:19:39AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote: == The results in this summary consider Test Updates! == Summary of broken packages (by src.rpm name): beagle bmpx clipsmm f-spot fedora-business-cards kdeedu openmpi openvrml ppl R-RScaLAPACK rubygem-main rubygem-rails scheme2js tomboy Is it just me or are there some packages that seem to be eternally on this list? beage/f-spot/tomboy never seem to go anywhere. They're eternally broken on ppc64. Mostly due to Mono being broken on ppc64. Really? Then why has somebody added ppc64 to the ExclusiveArch list for many but not all of the Mono packages? I think that spec files from F-12 devel have been copied to F-11 without making sure that Mono has been built for ppc64 there. That could very well be. I also know that there was some work done during F11 development to make Mono work on ppc64 and it did for a while. Yet an update seems to have hose that? If people need access to a ppc64 box to fix Mono issues, just let me know. josh -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Broken dependencies in Fedora 11 - 2009-08-20
Rex Dieter wrote: Michael Schwendt wrote: == The results in this summary consider Test Updates! == Summary of broken packages (by src.rpm name): ... kdeedu As far as I can tell, this one is a false-positive, unless someone can enlighten me precisely what's wrong. Recent changes have been made to make this package safer multilib-wise (fixing bug #515087 being one) Ah, I think I found it (a missing Obsoletes, testing now). -- Rex -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Broken dependencies in Fedora 11 - 2009-08-20
I maintain beagle, and although I did add the Excludes directive to it, the reason I haven't pushed the update is because it doesn't actually fix anything other than prevent that annoying email from being sent out. Besides, beagle worked fine for PPC64 users on Fedora 11 at some point. -- Ing. Juan M. Rodriguez Moreno Desarrollador de Sistemas Abiertos Sitio: http://proyectofedora.org/mexico -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Broken dependencies in Fedora 11 - 2009-08-20
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.comwrote: On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 09:20:54 -0500, Juan wrote: I maintain beagle, and although I did add the Excludes directive to it, the reason I haven't pushed the update is because it doesn't actually fix anything other than prevent that annoying email from being sent out. Thanks for calling it annoying. :-/ It's people like you that make me look forward to the autoqa team taking over the broken deps reports. Then I don't have to worry about people like you who don't see the value of the broken deps checks. I'm sorry, I *do* value emails, as they let me know when something's wrong (Like fail to build from source, or broken dependencies). I don't know what I could've said instead... Repetitive? Besides, beagle worked fine for PPC64 users on Fedora 11 at some point. Doesn't matter much. A yum install beagle on ppc64 doesn't work anymore. Alright, I'll push the update. Sorry for calling it 'annoying'. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list -- Ing. Juan M. Rodriguez Moreno Desarrollador de Sistemas Abiertos Sitio: http://proyectofedora.org/mexico -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Broken dependencies in Fedora 11 - 2009-08-20
On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 09:20:54 -0500, Juan wrote: I maintain beagle, and although I did add the Excludes directive to it, the reason I haven't pushed the update is because it doesn't actually fix anything other than prevent that annoying email from being sent out. Thanks for calling it annoying. :-/ It's people like you that make me look forward to the autoqa team taking over the broken deps reports. Then I don't have to worry about people like you who don't see the value of the broken deps checks. Besides, beagle worked fine for PPC64 users on Fedora 11 at some point. Doesn't matter much. A yum install beagle on ppc64 doesn't work anymore. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Broken dependencies in Fedora 11 - 2009-08-20
On 08/20/2009 04:18 AM, Josh Boyer wrote: On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 10:19:39AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: Is it just me or are there some packages that seem to be eternally on this list? beage/f-spot/tomboy never seem to go anywhere. They're eternally broken on ppc64. Mostly due to Mono being broken on ppc64. It should be the opposite. Mono runs on ppc64 but some maintainers need to update the ExcludeArch/ExclusiveArch that is preventing their packages from being built on ppc64. Once those packages are fixed, their dependent packages will be able to run as well. I'll go through and start updating packages to stop excluding ppc64 since I'm tired of seeing mschwendt's report be ignored. However, people who really care about mono need to step up and start taking care of this stuff. I don't own or use any mono packages and I'm not happy with the patent licenses so I don't want to keep working on these packages. -Toshio signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Broken dependencies in Fedora 11 - 2009-08-20
It looks to me as if some people need to learn how to talk to eachother. Look at this! A big update package for Mono packages: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2009-6615 Date Released: 2009-06-18 11:01:34 gbrainy, giver, gnome-do, mono-zeroconf, ipod-sharp, f-spot, muine, tomboy, tasque, podsleuth, gnome-keyring-sharp, notify-sharp, beagle, gtk-sharp, mono-tools, gsf-sharp, lat, evolution-sharp, gnome-desktop-sharp, gnome-subtitles Then on July 1st: This update has been obsoleted by tomboy-0.14.3-1.fc11 Huh? That sounds wrong: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2009-7346 tomboy-0.14.3-1.fc11 Indeed. A single tomboy build obsoleted more than a dozen Mono packages and actually got marked stable sometimes later without anyone adding a comment. And finally a bit later only beagle was updated: beagle-0.3.9-9.fc11 bugfix update https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2009-7465 That's packaging chaos. :-/ -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Broken dependencies in Fedora 11 - 2009-08-20
On Thu, 2009-08-20 at 11:41 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: On 08/20/2009 04:18 AM, Josh Boyer wrote: On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 10:19:39AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: Is it just me or are there some packages that seem to be eternally on this list? beage/f-spot/tomboy never seem to go anywhere. They're eternally broken on ppc64. Mostly due to Mono being broken on ppc64. It should be the opposite. Mono runs on ppc64 but some maintainers need to update the ExcludeArch/ExclusiveArch that is preventing their packages from being built on ppc64. Once those packages are fixed, their dependent packages will be able to run as well. I'll go through and start updating packages to stop excluding ppc64 since I'm tired of seeing mschwendt's report be ignored. However, people who really care about mono need to step up and start taking care of this stuff. I don't own or use any mono packages and I'm not happy with the patent licenses so I don't want to keep working on these packages. Is there a way to mass-file bug reports, so that each Mono package that currently do not build on PPC64 have a bug filed? (It's supposed to be there for any ExcludeArch, but this rule is often ignored). If maintainers are instructed to then block on the bug entries for their build requirements that are not currently available, then we can break from this situation where currently, a lot of maintainers (who don't have PPC64 hardware!) just give up rechecking. Regards, -- Michel signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
