Re: Unversioned and >/=/>= obsoletes

2016-09-13 Thread Kevin Fenzi
On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 11:38:24 +0200 Igor Gnatenko wrote: > I'm going to do mass bug filling for those packages which are still > not fixed. Are there some scripts to do that or I have to write my > own? > > Unfixed packages: >

Re: Unversioned and >/=/>= obsoletes

2016-09-13 Thread Igor Gnatenko
ate...@redhat.com> wrote: > All guidelines mandate the use of have some number of packages (179 source rpms -> 292 binary rpms) with > unversioned Obsoletes or with >/=/>= Obsoletes. > > It is causing problems with upgrade (if package is getting re-added) > or with

Re: Unversioned and >/=/>= obsoletes

2016-09-05 Thread Charalampos Stratakis
doraproject.org>, devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Friday, September 2, 2016 1:14:13 PM Subject: Unversioned and >/=/>= obsoletes All guidelines mandate the use of 292 binary rpms) with unversioned Obsoletes or with >/=/>= Obsoletes. It is causing problems with upgrade (if pa

Re: Unversioned and >/=/>= obsoletes

2016-09-05 Thread Tomáš Smetana
On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 13:14:13 +0200 Igor Gnatenko wrote: > * Package replacement > Package "storaged" has "Obsoletes: udisks2" -> take latest version > from koji (2.1.7-1) and make Obsoletes versioned: udisks2 < 2.1.7-2 > storaged is not simple use-case as it replaces

Re: Unversioned and >/=/>= obsoletes

2016-09-02 Thread Kevin Kofler
Michael Catanzaro wrote: > Everyone OK if I retire it in rawhide now? I think if we were going to > have any issue that would cause us to switch back to udisks, it would > have manifested by now. Actually, there is this one: http://www.spinics.net/linux/fedora/fedora-kde/msg18000.html

Re: Unversioned and >/=/>= obsoletes

2016-09-02 Thread Igor Gnatenko
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 10:34 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 09:24:10PM +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote: >> DNF has nothing to do with Obsoletes. It's up to RPM how to handle it. > > DNF might not, but Yum did. Hence >

Re: Unversioned and >/=/>= obsoletes

2016-09-02 Thread Matthew Miller
On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 09:24:10PM +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > DNF has nothing to do with Obsoletes. It's up to RPM how to handle it. DNF might not, but Yum did. Hence https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1261034 -- Matthew Miller Fedora Project Leader --

Re: Unversioned and >/=/>= obsoletes

2016-09-02 Thread Igor Gnatenko
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 7:28 PM, Kalev Lember wrote: > On 09/02/2016 06:57 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >> On 09/02/2016 12:54 PM, Robbie Harwood wrote: >>> Stephen Gallagher writes: >>> On 09/02/2016 07:14 AM, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > *

Re: Unversioned and >/=/>= obsoletes

2016-09-02 Thread Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
On Friday, 02 September 2016 at 18:57, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On 09/02/2016 12:54 PM, Robbie Harwood wrote: > > Stephen Gallagher writes: > > > >> On 09/02/2016 07:14 AM, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > >>> > >>> * Weird obsoletes (broken) > >>> "krb5-server" has "Obsoletes:

Re: Unversioned and >/=/>= obsoletes

2016-09-02 Thread Stephen Gallagher
On 09/02/2016 01:28 PM, Kalev Lember wrote: > On 09/02/2016 06:57 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >> On 09/02/2016 12:54 PM, Robbie Harwood wrote: >>> Stephen Gallagher writes: >>> On 09/02/2016 07:14 AM, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > * Weird obsoletes (broken) >

Re: Unversioned and >/=/>= obsoletes

2016-09-02 Thread Kalev Lember
On 09/02/2016 06:57 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On 09/02/2016 12:54 PM, Robbie Harwood wrote: >> Stephen Gallagher writes: >> >>> On 09/02/2016 07:14 AM, Igor Gnatenko wrote: * Weird obsoletes (broken) "krb5-server" has "Obsoletes:

Re: Unversioned and >/=/>= obsoletes

2016-09-02 Thread Stephen Gallagher
On 09/02/2016 12:54 PM, Robbie Harwood wrote: > Stephen Gallagher writes: > >> On 09/02/2016 07:14 AM, Igor Gnatenko wrote: >>> >>> * Weird obsoletes (broken) >>> "krb5-server" has "Obsoletes: krb5-server-1.14.3-8.fc26.i686". >>> Basically it will not obsolete anything

Re: Unversioned and >/=/>= obsoletes

2016-09-02 Thread Michael Catanzaro
On Fri, 2016-09-02 at 08:36 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > Makes sense to me. Do we want to do F25 at the same time or wait > until closer to > Beta Freeze (2016-09-27)? I just did both rawhide and F25. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Unversioned and >/=/>= obsoletes

2016-09-02 Thread Michael Catanzaro
On Fri, 2016-09-02 at 08:47 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > Well, if there was fallout during the Beta period, there would still > be Final to > revert it, but in general I agree: let's do it sooner rather than > later, while > we have more time to react. OK, done. Hopefully nothing breaks. --

Re: Unversioned and >/=/>= obsoletes

2016-09-02 Thread Charalampos Stratakis
ted to Fedora" <devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> Sent: Friday, September 2, 2016 3:51:54 PM Subject: Re: Unversioned and >/=/>= obsoletes On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Michael Schwendt <mschwe...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 13:14:13 +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote: >

Re: Unversioned and >/=/>= obsoletes

2016-09-02 Thread Josh Boyer
>> have some number of packages (179 source rpms -> 292 binary rpms) with >>> unversioned Obsoletes or with >/=/>= Obsoletes. >>> >>> It is causing problems with upgrade (if package is getting re-added) >>> or with 3rd-party repositories. Older package

Re: Unversioned and >/=/>= obsoletes

2016-09-02 Thread Parag Nemade
>> have some number of packages (179 source rpms -> 292 binary rpms) with >>> unversioned Obsoletes or with >/=/>= Obsoletes. >>> >>> It is causing problems with upgrade (if package is getting re-added) >>> or with 3rd-party repositories. Older package

Re: Unversioned and >/=/>= obsoletes

2016-09-02 Thread Igor Gnatenko
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 3:34 PM, Michael Schwendt <mschwe...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 13:14:13 +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > >> All guidelines mandate the use of > have some number of packages (179 source rpms -> 292 binary rpms) with >> unversioned Obso

Re: Unversioned and >/=/>= obsoletes

2016-09-02 Thread Michael Schwendt
On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 13:14:13 +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > All guidelines mandate the use of have some number of packages (179 source rpms -> 292 binary rpms) with > unversioned Obsoletes or with >/=/>= Obsoletes. > > It is causing problems with upgrade (if packag

Re: Unversioned and >/=/>= obsoletes

2016-09-02 Thread Stephen Gallagher
On 09/02/2016 08:44 AM, Kalev Lember wrote: > On 09/02/2016 02:36 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >> On 09/02/2016 07:55 AM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: >>> On Fri, 2016-09-02 at 13:14 +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote: * Package replacement Package "storaged" has "Obsoletes: udisks2" -> take latest

Re: Unversioned and >/=/>= obsoletes

2016-09-02 Thread Kalev Lember
On 09/02/2016 02:36 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On 09/02/2016 07:55 AM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: >> On Fri, 2016-09-02 at 13:14 +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote: >>> * Package replacement >>> Package "storaged" has "Obsoletes: udisks2" -> take latest version >>> from koji (2.1.7-1) and make Obsoletes

Re: Unversioned and >/=/>= obsoletes

2016-09-02 Thread Stephen Gallagher
On 09/02/2016 07:55 AM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Fri, 2016-09-02 at 13:14 +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote: >> * Package replacement >> Package "storaged" has "Obsoletes: udisks2" -> take latest version >> from koji (2.1.7-1) and make Obsoletes versioned: udisks2 < 2.1.7-2 >> storaged is not simple

Re: Unversioned and >/=/>= obsoletes

2016-09-02 Thread Michael Catanzaro
On Fri, 2016-09-02 at 13:14 +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > * Package replacement > Package "storaged" has "Obsoletes: udisks2" -> take latest version > from koji (2.1.7-1) and make Obsoletes versioned: udisks2 < 2.1.7-2 > storaged is not simple use-case as it replaces udisks2, but latter is > still

Re: Unversioned and >/=/>= obsoletes

2016-09-02 Thread Richard W.M. Jones
On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 01:14:13PM +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > Table of affected packages/maintainers: > https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/broken-obsoletes/2016-09-02/broken-obsoletes.txt I fixed open-vm-tools, only in dist-git. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat

Re: Unversioned and >/=/>= obsoletes

2016-09-02 Thread Stephen Gallagher
On 09/02/2016 07:14 AM, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > All guidelines mandate the use of have some number of packages (179 source rpms -> 292 binary rpms) with > unversioned Obsoletes or with >/=/>= Obsoletes. > > It is causing problems with upgrade (if package is getting re-added

Unversioned and >/=/>= obsoletes

2016-09-02 Thread Igor Gnatenko
All guidelines mandate the use of 292 binary rpms) with unversioned Obsoletes or with >/=/>= Obsoletes. It is causing problems with upgrade (if package is getting re-added) or with 3rd-party repositories. Older package is obsoleting new package. Problem categories (in following text by