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:
>
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
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
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
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
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
>
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
--
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:
>
> *
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:
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)
>
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:
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
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
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.
--
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:
>
>> 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
>> 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
26 matches
Mail list logo