Re: persistent gnome dep problems (F16 alpha rc3-5, alpha), --skip-broken wants to haul in 32-bit libs
On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 19:49:54 +, Andre Robatino wrote: > Bruno Wolff III wolff.to> writes: > > > I was getting dependency errors trying to reinstall gnome-panel (which > > brings in gnome-shell). > > That problem, I DO have - gnome-panel-3.1.5-3.fc17.x86_64 is one of the > packages > I couldn't install, and my current version is gnome-panel-3.0.2-3.fc16.x86_64 > which I can't reinstall since it's not available from the repo (though it > could > be gotten manually from Koji, I suppose). I was able to install gnome-panel-3.1.5-3.fc17.i686 once I had gnome-shell-3.1.4-2.gite7b9933.fc16.i686 in a local repo. -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: persistent gnome dep problems (F16 alpha rc3-5, alpha), --skip-broken wants to haul in 32-bit libs
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 18:48:48 -0400, Tom Horsley wrote: > On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 15:43:59 -0700 > Adam Williamson wrote: > > > Um, exactly what you quoted. Larger updates tend to get more false > > negative feedback. That's the main problem developers cite with them. > > Then it seems like the problem is the negative feedback, not > the size of the update. Maybe it should take more negative feedback > to stop a large update than a small one. People are supposed to say why they are giving negative feedback, so that the maintainer should be able to decide if the benefit of the fixes going in out weigh the cost of any reported regressions. -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: persistent gnome dep problems (F16 alpha rc3-5, alpha), --skip-broken wants to haul in 32-bit libs
On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 19:31:31 +, Andre Robatino wrote: > Bruno Wolff III wolff.to> writes: > > I'm not sure what you mean by "broken" - for me, the original problem (trying > to > pull in 32-bit packages, and then failing due to conflicts) is gone now in F16 > and never appeared in Rawhide. I'm using the master mirror > (download.fedora.redhat.com). Below are the packages I currently can't update > in > Rawhide, and my gnome-shell version. Running "yum update --skip-broken" works > without excluding anything. I was getting dependency errors trying to reinstall gnome-panel (which brings in gnome-shell). If you look at the problem report in today's rawhide report you will see the folowwing: gnome-shell-3.1.4-1.fc16.x86_64 requires libgnome-menu.so.2()(64bit) gnome-shell-3.1.4-1.fc16.x86_64 requires libedataserver-1.2.so.14()(64bit) gnome-shell-3.1.4-1.fc16.x86_64 requires libecal-1.2.so.9()(64bit) gnome-shell-3.1.4-1.fc16.x86_64 requires libebook-1.2.so.11()(64bit) -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: persistent gnome dep problems (F16 alpha rc3-5, alpha), --skip-broken wants to haul in 32-bit libs
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 16:59:22 +, Andre Robatino wrote: > http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-August/155799.html > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=731617 > > No progress in fixing it yet. Though I see roughly the same set of broken > dependencies in Rawhide, the problem does not exist there. Rawhide is broken today (and has been for a few days now), with regard to gnome-shell. You can grab the latest gnome-shell built for F16 and things work. -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: persistent gnome dep problems (F16 alpha rc3-5, alpha), --skip-broken wants to haul in 32-bit libs
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:28:37 +0300, Kalev Lember wrote: > When in the past rawhide was always what you'd get as the next upcoming > Fedora release, this is now slightly different. In the past, updates to > rawhide would slow down significantly when nearing a new release and the > repo would be frozen for weeks at a time. Now, however, rawhide is a > continuously flowing repo and releases are instead made of release branches. Depending on what one's testign goals are rawhide still may be a better place to do testing. For example up until about a week ago, 3.1 kernels were only being built for rawhide. > Fedora 16 (also called 'Branched') was branched off of rawhide a month > ago. Since that time, most of the developers have switched from working > on rawhide to working on the F16 branch. What this means is that: > > - rawhide gets much less love than usual during the F16 pre-Alpha - > Final stages. Quite a lot of people want to get the new release > polished up as good as possible and just don't pay much attention > to rawhide bugs. People should still be doing builds for F17 for things they have been doing builds for in F16. Remember that while F17 inherits from F16, it doesn't inherit from F16-updates-testing. (For example the updated gnome-shell still isn't in the rawhode repo and needs to be grabbed separately for now.) > - The Branched tree might actually get new goodies earlier than > rawhide, because this is what people are mostly concentrating on. That works both ways, as I said about people are really supposed to be doing builds for F17 at the same time. Normally this isn't a significant amount of extra work. > - Bug reports and general testing of the new Branched release is very > valuable, and much more important than rawhide at this point. In general maybe, but not in all cases. This is probably more true once we reach beta, where newer stuff in rawhide is less likely to be moved to the branched release before final. -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: persistent gnome dep problems (F16 alpha rc3-5, alpha), --skip-broken wants to haul in 32-bit libs
On Thu, 2011-08-25 at 15:15 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > > yum --setopt="protected_multilib=0" blah blah blah > > > > which might help in situations where things are already deeply sideways. > > worth noting for the record that, as always when using 'force' type > parameters to a package management system, when it breaks - as it > inevitably will - you get a full refund of what you paid for it, and you > get to keep both pieces. =) generally, when yum wants to do something > really funky, the solution is not 'figure out how to let yum do it' but > 'figure out why yum wants to do something funky, and fix that'. > > (this is obviously not aimed at seth, who knows it already, but at the > thread in general.) turning off them protected multilib option is not a 'force type' option. All it does is allows yum to update one pkg w/o changing or matching the the compat arch of the same pkg, too. -sv -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: persistent gnome dep problems (F16 alpha rc3-5, alpha), --skip-broken wants to haul in 32-bit libs
On 08/25/2011 08:12 PM, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > I've worked my way through this kind of mess a couple of times now, most > recently yesterday. Here's my experience: > > - Do a big rawhide update - in this case, at least two weeks worth. A bit off topic, but I would personally encourage everybody to play with the F16 tree instead of rawhide at this point. When in the past rawhide was always what you'd get as the next upcoming Fedora release, this is now slightly different. In the past, updates to rawhide would slow down significantly when nearing a new release and the repo would be frozen for weeks at a time. Now, however, rawhide is a continuously flowing repo and releases are instead made of release branches. Fedora 16 (also called 'Branched') was branched off of rawhide a month ago. Since that time, most of the developers have switched from working on rawhide to working on the F16 branch. What this means is that: - rawhide gets much less love than usual during the F16 pre-Alpha - Final stages. Quite a lot of people want to get the new release polished up as good as possible and just don't pay much attention to rawhide bugs. - The Branched tree might actually get new goodies earlier than rawhide, because this is what people are mostly concentrating on. - Bug reports and general testing of the new Branched release is very valuable, and much more important than rawhide at this point. What I personally do is that I switch to Branched when it gets branched off of rawhide and stay on there until the release is out. After that, back to the rawhide train. Everybody wins -- I get better experience, newer goodies and a warm fuzzy feeling that I'm helping out with the new release; the distro gets my help of making the release better. -- Kalev -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: persistent gnome dep problems (F16 alpha rc3-5, alpha), --skip-broken wants to haul in 32-bit libs
On Thu, 2011-08-25 at 14:55 -0400, seth vidal wrote: > On Thu, 2011-08-25 at 14:28 -0400, Dave Jones wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 02:20:12PM -0400, seth vidal wrote: > > > > > > Dunno if that helps anybody... never a dull moment... > > > > > > When upgrading rawhide from X - use screen. > > > > and also when upgrading from ssh. > > > > things have definitely gotten a lot more fragile over the last > > release or two. > > you can disable the multilib protection with: > > yum --setopt="protected_multilib=0" blah blah blah > > which might help in situations where things are already deeply sideways. worth noting for the record that, as always when using 'force' type parameters to a package management system, when it breaks - as it inevitably will - you get a full refund of what you paid for it, and you get to keep both pieces. =) generally, when yum wants to do something really funky, the solution is not 'figure out how to let yum do it' but 'figure out why yum wants to do something funky, and fix that'. (this is obviously not aimed at seth, who knows it already, but at the thread in general.) -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: persistent gnome dep problems (F16 alpha rc3-5, alpha), --skip-broken wants to haul in 32-bit libs
On Thu, 2011-08-25 at 11:12 -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 11:08:52 -0400 > Matthias Clasen wrote: > > > > Error: Protected multilib versions: > > > gnome-panel-libs-3.1.5-2.fc16.x86_64 != > > > gnome-panel-libs-3.0.2-3.fc16.i686 > > > > > > > I have no idea what these errors mean or how to fix them. > > Any advice would be appreciated. Actually, this one is kind of > > understandable, but I have also seen 'protected multilib' stuff where > > both sides of the != were the same arch, which left me wondering. > > I've worked my way through this kind of mess a couple of times now, most > recently yesterday. Here's my experience: > > - Do a big rawhide update - in this case, at least two weeks worth. > > - Somewhere in the middle, while I'm not looking, the update kills the >running session and/or X server - I come back to a login screen. It >used to be safe to run "yum update" from a terminal window, but, >seemingly, not anymore. Not really a step in the right direction. I don't think you could say it's ever been entirely *safe*; there's always the potential that some update could do something to kill the running session, and the more complex the definition of 'running session', the more likely it is. Obviously a fat desktop on X is more complex than a VT. I can only remember it happening to me once or twice, but I'm not sure it's fair to say it's more likely now than in The Golden Past. I suspect the 'real fix' for that is to run your yum updates in a screen session. I say 'suspect' because somehow I never quite get around to learning how to use screen...but it seems like just the ticket, as it would prevent the desktop going down from killing the yum update. > What I have found in these cases is that there are *two* versions of the > indicated library installed simultaneously (for the same architecture). > In each case, simply removing the older version clears the problem. What I'd actually recommend in that situation is doing 'rpm -e --justdb --noscripts' on the 'old versions'; that will remove the entries from RPM's database without possibly removing files that are actually part of the newer one, or running scripts, which you don't want to happen. In any case, that's not what's causing the 'protected multilib' thing people are seeing in F16 now (or were yesterday), it's just an artefact of yum trying to work around missing deps when you use --skip-broken. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: persistent gnome dep problems (F16 alpha rc3-5, alpha), --skip-broken wants to haul in 32-bit libs
On Thu, 2011-08-25 at 14:28 -0400, Dave Jones wrote: > On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 02:20:12PM -0400, seth vidal wrote: > > > > Dunno if that helps anybody... never a dull moment... > > > > When upgrading rawhide from X - use screen. > > and also when upgrading from ssh. > > things have definitely gotten a lot more fragile over the last > release or two. you can disable the multilib protection with: yum --setopt="protected_multilib=0" blah blah blah which might help in situations where things are already deeply sideways. -sv -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: persistent gnome dep problems (F16 alpha rc3-5, alpha), --skip-broken wants to haul in 32-bit libs
Jonathan Corbet (corbet...@lwn.net) said: > - Somewhere in the middle, while I'm not looking, the update kills the >running session and/or X server - I come back to a login screen. It >used to be safe to run "yum update" from a terminal window, but, >seemingly, not anymore. Not really a step in the right direction. There was a bug that caused dbus to get restarted when it should not have been. I believe this is in the process of having a fix pushed. Bill -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: persistent gnome dep problems (F16 alpha rc3-5, alpha), --skip-broken wants to haul in 32-bit libs
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 02:20:12PM -0400, seth vidal wrote: > > Dunno if that helps anybody... never a dull moment... > > When upgrading rawhide from X - use screen. and also when upgrading from ssh. things have definitely gotten a lot more fragile over the last release or two. Dave -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: persistent gnome dep problems (F16 alpha rc3-5, alpha), --skip-broken wants to haul in 32-bit libs
On Thu, 2011-08-25 at 11:12 -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 11:08:52 -0400 > Matthias Clasen wrote: > > > > Error: Protected multilib versions: > > > gnome-panel-libs-3.1.5-2.fc16.x86_64 != > > > gnome-panel-libs-3.0.2-3.fc16.i686 > > > > > > > I have no idea what these errors mean or how to fix them. > > Any advice would be appreciated. Actually, this one is kind of > > understandable, but I have also seen 'protected multilib' stuff where > > both sides of the != were the same arch, which left me wondering. > > I've worked my way through this kind of mess a couple of times now, most > recently yesterday. Here's my experience: > > - Do a big rawhide update - in this case, at least two weeks worth. > > - Somewhere in the middle, while I'm not looking, the update kills the >running session and/or X server - I come back to a login screen. It >used to be safe to run "yum update" from a terminal window, but, >seemingly, not anymore. Not really a step in the right direction. > > - If I try to rerun the update, it will tell me to try >yum-complete-transaction. Each time, actually trying that leads to an >infinite loop printing dependency information. > > - If I just run "yum update", I get the "protected multilib versions" >message. > > What I have found in these cases is that there are *two* versions of the > indicated library installed simultaneously (for the same architecture). > In each case, simply removing the older version clears the problem. Once > I've gotten past the gripes, the update actually works. > > Dunno if that helps anybody... never a dull moment... When upgrading rawhide from X - use screen. -sv -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: persistent gnome dep problems (F16 alpha rc3-5, alpha), --skip-broken wants to haul in 32-bit libs
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 11:08:52 -0400 Matthias Clasen wrote: > > Error: Protected multilib versions: > > gnome-panel-libs-3.1.5-2.fc16.x86_64 != > > gnome-panel-libs-3.0.2-3.fc16.i686 > > > > I have no idea what these errors mean or how to fix them. > Any advice would be appreciated. Actually, this one is kind of > understandable, but I have also seen 'protected multilib' stuff where > both sides of the != were the same arch, which left me wondering. I've worked my way through this kind of mess a couple of times now, most recently yesterday. Here's my experience: - Do a big rawhide update - in this case, at least two weeks worth. - Somewhere in the middle, while I'm not looking, the update kills the running session and/or X server - I come back to a login screen. It used to be safe to run "yum update" from a terminal window, but, seemingly, not anymore. Not really a step in the right direction. - If I try to rerun the update, it will tell me to try yum-complete-transaction. Each time, actually trying that leads to an infinite loop printing dependency information. - If I just run "yum update", I get the "protected multilib versions" message. What I have found in these cases is that there are *two* versions of the indicated library installed simultaneously (for the same architecture). In each case, simply removing the older version clears the problem. Once I've gotten past the gripes, the update actually works. Dunno if that helps anybody... never a dull moment... jon -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: persistent gnome dep problems (F16 alpha rc3-5, alpha), --skip-broken wants to haul in 32-bit libs
On 08/24/2011 08:11 PM, seth vidal wrote: > On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 13:09 -0400, Tom Horsley wrote: >> On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:26:44 +0100 >> Richard Hughes wrote: >> >>> I'm seriously wondering if multilib is worth all this hassle... >> >> Oh I've never wondered that: It has clearly never been a good >> idea. Starting with the total lack of documentation about how >> the heck it actually works when (for instance) multilib rpms >> both contain /usr/bin binaries of the same name and going >> through all the problems it causes with updates (like these). > > It is documented it is just confusing > > When you have two pkgs sharing the same binary path - the pkg in the > preferred/compat arch for that platform has its files installed. > > Except when you install them in the wrong order - and then rpm will > cough out a conflict. This, I think, has been fixed in more recent > changes but I'm not 100% certain of that. The conflict behavior should be consistent regardless of the order since rpm >= 4.6.0, ie since F10. - Panu - -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: persistent gnome dep problems (F16 alpha rc3-5, alpha), --skip-broken wants to haul in 32-bit libs
Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Obviously noone would try to bundle completely unrelated packages in a > single update. So I am not really what you are arguing about exactly. Adam wanted to discuss "Enormo-Updates" and I think we just did. *shrugs* -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: persistent gnome dep problems (F16 alpha rc3-5, alpha), --skip-broken wants to haul in 32-bit libs
On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 17:53 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote: > Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > Bodhi has the ability to bundle several updates together even when they > > are not direct dependencies. He is referring to that > > Yes, I understand Bodhi can link any group of packages together. > > > > > Example: > > > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/kde-l10n-4.6.5-1.fc14,kdeaccessibility-4.6.5-1.fc14,kdeadmin-4.6.5-1.fc14,kdeartwork-4.6.5-1.fc14,kdebase-4.6.5-1.fc14,kdebase-runtime-4.6.5-1.fc14,kdebase-workspace-4.6.5-2.fc14,kdebindings-4.6.5-1.fc14,kdeedu-4.6.5-1.fc14,kdegames-4.6.5-1.fc14,kdegraphics-4.6.5-3.fc14,kdelibs-4.6.5-1.fc14,kdemultimedia-4.6.5-2.fc14,kdenetwork-4.6.5-1.fc14,kdepimlibs-4.6.5-1.fc14,kdeplasma-addons-4.6.5-1.fc14,kdesdk-4.6.5-1.fc14,kdetoys-4.6.5-1.fc14,kdeutils-4.6.5-2.fc14,oxygen-icon-theme-4.6.5-1.fc14 > > So there are items in this list that could be shipped in a separate > update without any negative side-effects? I'm not a KDE expert, but I > don't see a package that could be left off. > > If there are cases where package A and B are in an update and don't > relate to each other and would run without crashing in separate updates > then they should be in separate updates. I don't see that being the case > in this thread unless I'm drinking cool-aid, which I very well might be > doing. No, you're not. By all policy, the GNOME update should be one super-mega-giganto update, which it now is. We were just discussing the reasons maintainers aren't very fond of those updates. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: persistent gnome dep problems (F16 alpha rc3-5, alpha), --skip-broken wants to haul in 32-bit libs
On 08/25/2011 04:23 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote: So there are items in this list that could be shipped in a separate update without any negative side-effects? I'm not a KDE expert, but I don't see a package that could be left off. If there are cases where package A and B are in an update and don't relate to each other and would run without crashing in separate updates then they should be in separate updates. I don't see that being the case in this thread unless I'm drinking cool-aid, which I very well might be doing. Obviously noone would try to bundle completely unrelated packages in a single update. So I am not really what you are arguing about exactly. Rahul -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: persistent gnome dep problems (F16 alpha rc3-5, alpha), --skip-broken wants to haul in 32-bit libs
Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Bodhi has the ability to bundle several updates together even when they > are not direct dependencies. He is referring to that Yes, I understand Bodhi can link any group of packages together. > > Example: > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/kde-l10n-4.6.5-1.fc14,kdeaccessibility-4.6.5-1.fc14,kdeadmin-4.6.5-1.fc14,kdeartwork-4.6.5-1.fc14,kdebase-4.6.5-1.fc14,kdebase-runtime-4.6.5-1.fc14,kdebase-workspace-4.6.5-2.fc14,kdebindings-4.6.5-1.fc14,kdeedu-4.6.5-1.fc14,kdegames-4.6.5-1.fc14,kdegraphics-4.6.5-3.fc14,kdelibs-4.6.5-1.fc14,kdemultimedia-4.6.5-2.fc14,kdenetwork-4.6.5-1.fc14,kdepimlibs-4.6.5-1.fc14,kdeplasma-addons-4.6.5-1.fc14,kdesdk-4.6.5-1.fc14,kdetoys-4.6.5-1.fc14,kdeutils-4.6.5-2.fc14,oxygen-icon-theme-4.6.5-1.fc14 So there are items in this list that could be shipped in a separate update without any negative side-effects? I'm not a KDE expert, but I don't see a package that could be left off. If there are cases where package A and B are in an update and don't relate to each other and would run without crashing in separate updates then they should be in separate updates. I don't see that being the case in this thread unless I'm drinking cool-aid, which I very well might be doing. -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: persistent gnome dep problems (F16 alpha rc3-5, alpha), --skip-broken wants to haul in 32-bit libs
On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 14:39 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > the problem is if either update gets karma and gets pushed before the > other, it puts the repo into a broken state. And since they're > inter-dependent, it causes confusion like people -1ing the gnome-shell > update because they don't have the packages from the e-d-s update; in a > way, having them separate is making it *harder* for you to get karma. Ok, I've now merged all of the evo updates into the gnome update. Lets see how that fares, dependency-wise. -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: persistent gnome dep problems (F16 alpha rc3-5, alpha), --skip-broken wants to haul in 32-bit libs
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 15:43:59 -0700 Adam Williamson wrote: > Um, exactly what you quoted. Larger updates tend to get more false > negative feedback. That's the main problem developers cite with them. Then it seems like the problem is the negative feedback, not the size of the update. Maybe it should take more negative feedback to stop a large update than a small one. -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: persistent gnome dep problems (F16 alpha rc3-5, alpha), --skip-broken wants to haul in 32-bit libs
On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 17:36 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote: > Adam Williamson wrote: > > I didn't say anything about dependencies. People file negative karma on > > stuff like 'Obscure Menu Item Z doesn't work', or 'there's a typo in the > > docs'. The more packages there are in an update, the more likely this is > > to happen, and the more likely bad negative karma will hold up 75 other > > packages... > > You kept mentioning adding more packages to updates causes problems. > Typically adding packages is due to a dependency. > > If you're not talking about dependencies, what are you talking about? Um, exactly what you quoted. Larger updates tend to get more false negative feedback. That's the main problem developers cite with them. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: persistent gnome dep problems (F16 alpha rc3-5, alpha), --skip-broken wants to haul in 32-bit libs
On 08/25/2011 04:06 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote: > > You kept mentioning adding more packages to updates causes problems. > Typically adding packages is due to a dependency. > > If you're not talking about dependencies, what are you talking about? Bodhi has the ability to bundle several updates together even when they are not direct dependencies. He is referring to that Example: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/kde-l10n-4.6.5-1.fc14,kdeaccessibility-4.6.5-1.fc14,kdeadmin-4.6.5-1.fc14,kdeartwork-4.6.5-1.fc14,kdebase-4.6.5-1.fc14,kdebase-runtime-4.6.5-1.fc14,kdebase-workspace-4.6.5-2.fc14,kdebindings-4.6.5-1.fc14,kdeedu-4.6.5-1.fc14,kdegames-4.6.5-1.fc14,kdegraphics-4.6.5-3.fc14,kdelibs-4.6.5-1.fc14,kdemultimedia-4.6.5-2.fc14,kdenetwork-4.6.5-1.fc14,kdepimlibs-4.6.5-1.fc14,kdeplasma-addons-4.6.5-1.fc14,kdesdk-4.6.5-1.fc14,kdetoys-4.6.5-1.fc14,kdeutils-4.6.5-2.fc14,oxygen-icon-theme-4.6.5-1.fc14 Rahul ] Rahul -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: persistent gnome dep problems (F16 alpha rc3-5, alpha), --skip-broken wants to haul in 32-bit libs
Adam Williamson wrote: > I didn't say anything about dependencies. People file negative karma on > stuff like 'Obscure Menu Item Z doesn't work', or 'there's a typo in the > docs'. The more packages there are in an update, the more likely this is > to happen, and the more likely bad negative karma will hold up 75 other > packages... You kept mentioning adding more packages to updates causes problems. Typically adding packages is due to a dependency. If you're not talking about dependencies, what are you talking about? -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: persistent gnome dep problems (F16 alpha rc3-5, alpha), --skip-broken wants to haul in 32-bit libs
On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 17:21 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote: > Adam Williamson wrote: > > more or less, each package added to the update exponentially increases > > the likelihood of false negative karma from someone whose local mirror > > doesn't have one of the packages, or who hit a really tiny bug which > > shouldn't be a case for a -1. > > The first part sounds like a mirror problem that bodhi could never > solve. If a mirror doesn't have all of the RPM files how could the yum > repo data it provides possibly be valid? How could bodhi solve this? It > can't. Weird stuff happens to mirrors. This is all I know. =) > The second part leaves me scratching my head. Minor dependencies should > be just as important as large ones. If it is a dependency it needs to be > linked and if it introduces bugs it should be important to fix them. I didn't say anything about dependencies. People file negative karma on stuff like 'Obscure Menu Item Z doesn't work', or 'there's a typo in the docs'. The more packages there are in an update, the more likely this is to happen, and the more likely bad negative karma will hold up 75 other packages... -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: persistent gnome dep problems (F16 alpha rc3-5, alpha), --skip-broken wants to haul in 32-bit libs
Adam Williamson wrote: > more or less, each package added to the update exponentially increases > the likelihood of false negative karma from someone whose local mirror > doesn't have one of the packages, or who hit a really tiny bug which > shouldn't be a case for a -1. The first part sounds like a mirror problem that bodhi could never solve. If a mirror doesn't have all of the RPM files how could the yum repo data it provides possibly be valid? How could bodhi solve this? It can't. The second part leaves me scratching my head. Minor dependencies should be just as important as large ones. If it is a dependency it needs to be linked and if it introduces bugs it should be important to fix them. -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: persistent gnome dep problems (F16 alpha rc3-5, alpha), --skip-broken wants to haul in 32-bit libs
On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 16:43 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote: > Adam Williamson wrote: > > But yeah, I can see the problems with Enormo-Updates as well. I'm not > > sure there's a really great way to handle updating such a giant mass of > > inter-dependent packages, but if Luke or anyone else has any > > suggestions... > > What's the problem with Enormo-Updates? more or less, each package added to the update exponentially increases the likelihood of false negative karma from someone whose local mirror doesn't have one of the packages, or who hit a really tiny bug which shouldn't be a case for a -1. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: persistent gnome dep problems (F16 alpha rc3-5, alpha), --skip-broken wants to haul in 32-bit libs
Adam Williamson wrote: > But yeah, I can see the problems with Enormo-Updates as well. I'm not > sure there's a really great way to handle updating such a giant mass of > inter-dependent packages, but if Luke or anyone else has any > suggestions... What's the problem with Enormo-Updates? -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: persistent gnome dep problems (F16 alpha rc3-5, alpha), --skip-broken wants to haul in 32-bit libs
On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 16:52 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote: > On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 12:08 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > > > > > Just about everything actually is, but it was done in fits and starts > > > and the Bodhi update edited over time, so not everything has made it to > > > every mirror yet. If you're particularly impatient you can set up a side > > > repo and stock it up from Koji to get the update done. That's what I > > > did. > > > > It looks like the giganto-GNOME-update needs to be combined with the > > e-d-s/dependencies update, too, as various bits of the giganto-GNOME > > update are built against the newer e-d-s. > > Everything in the gnome update has been built against the new eds. But I > somewhat disagree with the notion that we need to keep sucking up more > and more into this one update, making it ever harder to get any karma. > > Can't people just wait until their mirrors sync and install the evo > update before they install the gnome update ? I mean, library deps still > work as they always did ? the problem is if either update gets karma and gets pushed before the other, it puts the repo into a broken state. And since they're inter-dependent, it causes confusion like people -1ing the gnome-shell update because they don't have the packages from the e-d-s update; in a way, having them separate is making it *harder* for you to get karma. But yeah, I can see the problems with Enormo-Updates as well. I'm not sure there's a really great way to handle updating such a giant mass of inter-dependent packages, but if Luke or anyone else has any suggestions... -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: persistent gnome dep problems (F16 alpha rc3-5, alpha), --skip-broken wants to haul in 32-bit libs
On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 12:08 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > > Just about everything actually is, but it was done in fits and starts > > and the Bodhi update edited over time, so not everything has made it to > > every mirror yet. If you're particularly impatient you can set up a side > > repo and stock it up from Koji to get the update done. That's what I > > did. > > It looks like the giganto-GNOME-update needs to be combined with the > e-d-s/dependencies update, too, as various bits of the giganto-GNOME > update are built against the newer e-d-s. Everything in the gnome update has been built against the new eds. But I somewhat disagree with the notion that we need to keep sucking up more and more into this one update, making it ever harder to get any karma. Can't people just wait until their mirrors sync and install the evo update before they install the gnome update ? I mean, library deps still work as they always did ? -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: persistent gnome dep problems (F16 alpha rc3-5, alpha), --skip-broken wants to haul in 32-bit libs
On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 12:01 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 14:02 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > > Matthias Clasen (mcla...@redhat.com) said: > > > On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 11:35 +0200, Jurgen Kramer wrote: > > > > I have not seen any mention of this on the list so far so here it goes. > > > > I've been seeing gnome dep problems for the last few days (through alpha > > > > rc's and now alpha). > > > > > > > Error: Protected multilib versions: > > > > gnome-panel-libs-3.1.5-2.fc16.x86_64 != > > > > gnome-panel-libs-3.0.2-3.fc16.i686 > > > > > > > > > > I have no idea what these errors mean or how to fix them. > > > Any advice would be appreciated. Actually, this one is kind of > > > understandable, but I have also seen 'protected multilib' stuff where > > > both sides of the != were the same arch, which left me wondering. > > > > That error is just a side-effect of how --skip-broken is working right > > now. While that can be fixed, the real problem is that not everything > > is rebuilt properly against the current versions of e-d-s and > > libgnome-keyring. > > Just about everything actually is, but it was done in fits and starts > and the Bodhi update edited over time, so not everything has made it to > every mirror yet. If you're particularly impatient you can set up a side > repo and stock it up from Koji to get the update done. That's what I > did. It looks like the giganto-GNOME-update needs to be combined with the e-d-s/dependencies update, too, as various bits of the giganto-GNOME update are built against the newer e-d-s. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: persistent gnome dep problems (F16 alpha rc3-5, alpha), --skip-broken wants to haul in 32-bit libs
On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 14:02 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Matthias Clasen (mcla...@redhat.com) said: > > On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 11:35 +0200, Jurgen Kramer wrote: > > > I have not seen any mention of this on the list so far so here it goes. > > > I've been seeing gnome dep problems for the last few days (through alpha > > > rc's and now alpha). > > > > > Error: Protected multilib versions: > > > gnome-panel-libs-3.1.5-2.fc16.x86_64 != > > > gnome-panel-libs-3.0.2-3.fc16.i686 > > > > > > > I have no idea what these errors mean or how to fix them. > > Any advice would be appreciated. Actually, this one is kind of > > understandable, but I have also seen 'protected multilib' stuff where > > both sides of the != were the same arch, which left me wondering. > > That error is just a side-effect of how --skip-broken is working right > now. While that can be fixed, the real problem is that not everything > is rebuilt properly against the current versions of e-d-s and > libgnome-keyring. Just about everything actually is, but it was done in fits and starts and the Bodhi update edited over time, so not everything has made it to every mirror yet. If you're particularly impatient you can set up a side repo and stock it up from Koji to get the update done. That's what I did. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: persistent gnome dep problems (F16 alpha rc3-5, alpha), --skip-broken wants to haul in 32-bit libs
On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 11:08 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote: > On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 11:35 +0200, Jurgen Kramer wrote: > > I have not seen any mention of this on the list so far so here it goes. > > I've been seeing gnome dep problems for the last few days (through alpha > > rc's and now alpha). > > > Error: Protected multilib versions: > > gnome-panel-libs-3.1.5-2.fc16.x86_64 != > > gnome-panel-libs-3.0.2-3.fc16.i686 > > > > I have no idea what these errors mean or how to fix them. > Any advice would be appreciated. Actually, this one is kind of > understandable, but I have also seen 'protected multilib' stuff where > both sides of the != were the same arch, which left me wondering. This particular one is just an odd artefact of --skip-broken trying to workaround the dep problems from the *non* --skip-broken run. It sometimes does some fairly odd things to try and work around the dep issues. Usually it's not worth worrying about the oddness, in this case, just focus on resolving the problems noted in the non --skip-broken run. (Which just look like the Evo update didn't hit the reporter's mirror yet). -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: persistent gnome dep problems (F16 alpha rc3-5, alpha), --skip-broken wants to haul in 32-bit libs
Matthias Clasen (mcla...@redhat.com) said: > On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 11:35 +0200, Jurgen Kramer wrote: > > I have not seen any mention of this on the list so far so here it goes. > > I've been seeing gnome dep problems for the last few days (through alpha > > rc's and now alpha). > > > Error: Protected multilib versions: > > gnome-panel-libs-3.1.5-2.fc16.x86_64 != > > gnome-panel-libs-3.0.2-3.fc16.i686 > > > > I have no idea what these errors mean or how to fix them. > Any advice would be appreciated. Actually, this one is kind of > understandable, but I have also seen 'protected multilib' stuff where > both sides of the != were the same arch, which left me wondering. That error is just a side-effect of how --skip-broken is working right now. While that can be fixed, the real problem is that not everything is rebuilt properly against the current versions of e-d-s and libgnome-keyring. Bill -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: persistent gnome dep problems (F16 alpha rc3-5, alpha), --skip-broken wants to haul in 32-bit libs
On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 13:09 -0400, Tom Horsley wrote: > On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:26:44 +0100 > Richard Hughes wrote: > > > I'm seriously wondering if multilib is worth all this hassle... > > Oh I've never wondered that: It has clearly never been a good > idea. Starting with the total lack of documentation about how > the heck it actually works when (for instance) multilib rpms > both contain /usr/bin binaries of the same name and going > through all the problems it causes with updates (like these). It is documented it is just confusing When you have two pkgs sharing the same binary path - the pkg in the preferred/compat arch for that platform has its files installed. Except when you install them in the wrong order - and then rpm will cough out a conflict. This, I think, has been fixed in more recent changes but I'm not 100% certain of that. > > Seems to me the "problem" should always have been fixed > by simply packaging the rpms correctly with shared noarch > bits in one rpm, /lib bits in another, /lib64 bits in > another, and /bin bits in yet another. that doesn't fix the problem, though.; -sv -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: persistent gnome dep problems (F16 alpha rc3-5, alpha), --skip-broken wants to haul in 32-bit libs
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 17:26:44 +0100 Richard Hughes wrote: > I'm seriously wondering if multilib is worth all this hassle... Oh I've never wondered that: It has clearly never been a good idea. Starting with the total lack of documentation about how the heck it actually works when (for instance) multilib rpms both contain /usr/bin binaries of the same name and going through all the problems it causes with updates (like these). Seems to me the "problem" should always have been fixed by simply packaging the rpms correctly with shared noarch bits in one rpm, /lib bits in another, /lib64 bits in another, and /bin bits in yet another. -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: persistent gnome dep problems (F16 alpha rc3-5, alpha), --skip-broken wants to haul in 32-bit libs
On 24 August 2011 16:08, Matthias Clasen wrote: >> Error: Protected multilib versions: >> gnome-panel-libs-3.1.5-2.fc16.x86_64 != >> gnome-panel-libs-3.0.2-3.fc16.i686 > I have no idea what these errors mean or how to fix them. I'm seriously wondering if multilib is worth all this hassle... Richard -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: persistent gnome dep problems (F16 alpha rc3-5, alpha), --skip-broken wants to haul in 32-bit libs
On 08/24/2011 11:08 AM, Matthias Clasen wrote: > On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 11:35 +0200, Jurgen Kramer wrote: >> I have not seen any mention of this on the list so far so here it goes. >> I've been seeing gnome dep problems for the last few days (through alpha >> rc's and now alpha). > >> Error: Protected multilib versions: >> gnome-panel-libs-3.1.5-2.fc16.x86_64 != >> gnome-panel-libs-3.0.2-3.fc16.i686 >> > > I have no idea what these errors mean or how to fix them. > Any advice would be appreciated. Actually, this one is kind of > understandable, but I have also seen 'protected multilib' stuff where > both sides of the != were the same arch, which left me wondering. > > Matthias > > from https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/empathy-etc, etc, etc "kiilerix - 2011-08-24 10:29:37 (karma 0) oldfart: the multilib error is a combination of yum bug 728147 and an unfortunate lack of arch in many dependencies" -- Regards, OldFart -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: persistent gnome dep problems (F16 alpha rc3-5, alpha), --skip-broken wants to haul in 32-bit libs
On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 11:35 +0200, Jurgen Kramer wrote: > I have not seen any mention of this on the list so far so here it goes. > I've been seeing gnome dep problems for the last few days (through alpha > rc's and now alpha). > Error: Protected multilib versions: > gnome-panel-libs-3.1.5-2.fc16.x86_64 != > gnome-panel-libs-3.0.2-3.fc16.i686 > I have no idea what these errors mean or how to fix them. Any advice would be appreciated. Actually, this one is kind of understandable, but I have also seen 'protected multilib' stuff where both sides of the != were the same arch, which left me wondering. Matthias -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
