Re: [Bug 6426] Review request: mesa-freeworld - Mesa graphics libraries
I haven't got the time to waste on mesa pushes and untags. We need to change our package replacement policy. On 02/01/2023 17:09, Gary Buhrmaster wrote: I suspect in this case the most viable (although very ugly) solution is for the freeworld packager(s) to request the rpmfusion admins untag the 22.3.2-1 and 22.3.2-2 freeworld builds (since they should still be in candidate mode), and do an ugly (usually strongly not recommended) commit to revert the release number to -1 (while leaving the Conflicts in place), and then build again (with appropriate approvals, of course; I am not sure who would have to approve such an ugly approach). And this is yet another example that trying to partially replace fedora packages with rpmfusion is problematic. Perhaps just better to require that the entire mesa stack is swap(ed). ___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org ___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
Re: [Bug 6426] Review request: mesa-freeworld - Mesa graphics libraries
On Mon, Jan 2, 2023 at 9:55 AM RPM Fusion Bugzilla
wrote:
>
> Comment # 91 on bug 6426 from Thorsten Leemhuis
>
> (In reply to Luya Tshimbalanga from comment #90)
> > I updated the spec file adding conflicts condition
>
> Thx for this. I noticed you increased %release when you did so, which is thus
> now out of sync with Fedora. Wont this blow up, as mesa-freeworld.spec has…
>
> Provides: %{srcname}-va-drivers%{?_isa} =
> %{?epoch:%{epoch}:}%{version}-%{release}
>
> …while mesa.spec has this?
>
> Recommends: %{name}-va-drivers%{?_isa} =
> %{?epoch:%{epoch}:}%{version}-%{release}
>
> Would it maybe be better if fedora dropped the "-%{release}" part? Or am I
> missing something (does dnf handle this?)
I suspect in this case the most viable (although
very ugly) solution is for the freeworld packager(s)
to request the rpmfusion admins untag the
22.3.2-1 and 22.3.2-2 freeworld builds (since
they should still be in candidate mode), and do
an ugly (usually strongly not recommended)
commit to revert the release number to -1
(while leaving the Conflicts in place), and
then build again (with appropriate approvals,
of course; I am not sure who would have to
approve such an ugly approach).
And this is yet another example that trying
to partially replace fedora packages with
rpmfusion is problematic. Perhaps just
better to require that the entire mesa stack
is swap(ed).
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
[Bug 6426] Review request: mesa-freeworld - Mesa graphics libraries
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #92 from Nicolas Chauvet ---
(In reply to Thorsten Leemhuis from comment #91)
...
> Recommends: %{name}-va-drivers%{?_isa} =
> %{?epoch:%{epoch}:}%{version}-%{release}
Can someone task the mesa maintainer to turn this versioned Recommends to
un-versioned and conflicts like:
Conflicts: %{name}-va-drivers%{?_isa} <
%{?epoch:%{epoch}:}%{version}-%{release}
So this will have the same effects as the versioned recommends without
enforcing the fedora version specifically.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
[Bug 6426] Review request: mesa-freeworld - Mesa graphics libraries
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426
--- Comment #91 from Thorsten Leemhuis ---
(In reply to Luya Tshimbalanga from comment #90)
> I updated the spec file adding conflicts condition
Thx for this. I noticed you increased %release when you did so, which is thus
now out of sync with Fedora. Wont this blow up, as mesa-freeworld.spec has…
Provides: %{srcname}-va-drivers%{?_isa} =
%{?epoch:%{epoch}:}%{version}-%{release}
…while mesa.spec has this?
Recommends: %{name}-va-drivers%{?_isa} =
%{?epoch:%{epoch}:}%{version}-%{release}
Would it maybe be better if fedora dropped the "-%{release}" part? Or am I
missing something (does dnf handle this?)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
[Bug 6426] Review request: mesa-freeworld - Mesa graphics libraries
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6426 --- Comment #90 from Luya Tshimbalanga --- I updated the spec file adding conflicts condition to prevent update from Fedora repository overriding the dependency. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.___ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org
