rawhide report: 20141223 changes

2014-12-23 Thread Fedora Rawhide Report
Compose started at Tue Dec 23 05:15:07 UTC 2014 Broken deps for i386 -- [3Depict] 3Depict-0.0.16-3.fc22.i686 requires libmgl.so.7.2.0 [Sprog] Sprog-0.14-27.fc20.noarch requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.18.0) [aeskulap] aes

Re: Self-introduction: Carlos Morel-Riquelme

2014-12-23 Thread Mike Ruckman
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 03:57:05PM -0300, Carlos Morel-Riquelme wrote: > Hello folks > > My name is Carlos Morel-Riquelme i'm from Chile and i'm contributor for > Fedora Project since F20 in Testing ( Bodhi ) though i start using Fedora > since F15, also i'm student of computer engineering and i h

rpm database corrupted after fedeup from 20 to 21

2014-12-23 Thread Mick
Hi; I was running FC20 fully updated. [root@localhost ~]# fedup --network 21 --product=nonproduct Which worked. Now when I try to 'yum update' [root@localhost ~]# yum update error: rpmdb: BDB0641 __db_meta_setup: /var/lib/rpm/Packages: unexpected file type or format error: cannot open Packages

nss-3.17.3-2.fc21 update could use some karma

2014-12-23 Thread Elio Maldonado
Could someone test and provide karma to https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17085/nss-3.17.3-2.fc21 It's important that this one gets pushed to stable ahead of the one for f20 as nss has the same nvr. This is to prevent upgrade problems later on if someone tries to upgrade their

Release criterion proposal: "Package sets" (Alpha and Beta)

2014-12-23 Thread Adam Williamson
The "Package sets" criterion for Alpha currently reads: "When doing a graphical install using the dedicated installer images, the installer must be able to install each of the release blocking desktops, as well as the minimal package set." This was drafted prior to Product-ization. It has a bug

Re: Release criterion proposal: "Package sets" (Alpha and Beta)

2014-12-23 Thread Adam Williamson
On Tue, 2014-12-23 at 10:21 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > The "Package sets" criterion for Alpha currently reads: > > "When doing a graphical install using the dedicated installer > images, the installer must be able to install each of the release > blocking desktops, as well as the minimal pa

Fedora 21 updates-testing report

2014-12-23 Thread updates
The following Fedora 21 Security updates need testing: Age URL 34 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-15342/rubygem-actionpack-4.1.5-2.fc21 33 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-15413/rubygem-sprockets-2.12.1-3.fc21 30 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/u

Fedora 20 updates-testing report

2014-12-23 Thread updates
The following Fedora 20 Security updates need testing: Age URL 81 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-11969/krb5-1.11.5-16.fc20 34 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-15371/rubygem-actionpack-4.0.0-5.fc20 32 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDOR

Fedora 19 updates-testing report

2014-12-23 Thread updates
The following Fedora 19 Security updates need testing: Age URL 423 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-19963/openstack-glance-2013.1.4-1.fc19 81 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-12057/krb5-1.11.3-29.fc19 57 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDO

Re: rpm database corrupted after fedeup from 20 to 21

2014-12-23 Thread Adam Williamson
On Tue, 2014-12-23 at 08:06 -0800, Mick wrote: > Hi; > I was running FC20 fully updated. > [root@localhost ~]# fedup --network 21 --product=nonproduct > > Which worked. > Now when I try to 'yum update' > [root@localhost ~]# yum update > error: rpmdb: BDB0641 __db_meta_setup: /var/lib/rpm/Packag

Re: Release criterion proposal: "Package sets" (Alpha and Beta)

2014-12-23 Thread Mike Ruckman
On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 10:21:11AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > I propose we re-word the Alpha criterion to: > > "When installing with a release-blocking dedicated installer image, > the installer must be able to install the default package set." > > and add a Beta criterion: > > "When in

Re: Release criterion proposal: "Package sets" (Alpha and Beta)

2014-12-23 Thread Adam Williamson
On Tue, 2014-12-23 at 15:39 -0700, Mike Ruckman wrote: > I'd be for blocking on a broken netinst (like your example), but if > the repos are the same used for image creation this shouldn't really > be an issue, right? (Yeah, I know I used the "S" word :p ) AIUI > things would break in other pla

Re: rpm database corrupted after fedeup from 20 to 21

2014-12-23 Thread Mick
Hi Adam; thanks for trying. It made no difference. The message was: [root@localhost ~]# rpm --rebuilddb error: rpmdb: BDB0641 __db_meta_setup: /var/lib/rpm/Packages: unexpected file type or format error: cannot open Packages index using db5 - Invalid argument (22) and looking at the file: [r

Re: rpm database corrupted after fedeup from 20 to 21

2014-12-23 Thread Sérgio Basto
On Ter, 2014-12-23 at 19:46 -0800, Mick wrote: > Hi Adam; > thanks for trying. > It made no difference. > > The message was: > [root@localhost ~]# rpm --rebuilddb > error: rpmdb: BDB0641 __db_meta_setup: /var/lib/rpm/Packages: unexpected file > type or format > error: cannot open Packages in

Re: rpm database corrupted after fedeup from 20 to 21

2014-12-23 Thread Mick
Hi Serge; [mick@localhost ~]$ file /var/lib/rpm/Packages /var/lib/rpm/Packages: data On Tue, 12/23/14, Sérgio Basto wrote: Subject: Re: rpm database corrupted after fedeup from 20 to 21 To: test@lists.fedoraproject.org Date: Tuesday, December 23,