On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 16:59:22 +,
Andre Robatino robat...@fedoraproject.org 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
Bruno Wolff III bruno at 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
On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 19:49:54 +,
Andre Robatino robat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Bruno Wolff III bruno at 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
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
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
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.
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 11:08:52 -0400
Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com 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.
On Thu, 2011-08-25 at 11:12 -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 11:08:52 -0400
Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com 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
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
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
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
On Thu, 2011-08-25 at 11:12 -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 11:08:52 -0400
Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com 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
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
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).
I managed to get a lot of updates installed by selectively install
updates. When I try to workaround the remaining dep problems yum
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:
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
On 24 August 2011 16:08, Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com 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
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.
--
test mailing list
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)
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
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
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:
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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
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:
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
35 matches
Mail list logo
