On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 12:38:43PM -0000, Fedora Extras repoclosure wrote:
> ================================================== ====================
> The results in this summary consider Test Updates!
> ================================================== ====================
>
> Summary of broken packages (by owner):
>
> Matt_Domsch AT dell.com
> dkms - 2.0.19.1-1.el4.noarch

> dkms-2.0.19.1-1.el4.noarch requires kernel-devel

Last time I looked, kernel-devel is provided by Red Hat in their
packages, as well as CentOS. Is it somehow excluded from the package
set for the purposes of this repoclosure?

Thanks,
Matt

--
Matt Domsch
Linux Technology Strategist, Dell Office of the CTO
linux.dell.com & www.dell.com/linux

_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 08:52:22 -0500
Matt Domsch <Matt_Domsch@dell.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 12:38:43PM -0000, Fedora Extras repoclosure
> wrote:
> > ================================================== ====================
> > The results in this summary consider Test Updates!
> > ================================================== ====================
> >
> > Summary of broken packages (by owner):
> >
> > Matt_Domsch AT dell.com
> > dkms - 2.0.19.1-1.el4.noarch
>
> > dkms-2.0.19.1-1.el4.noarch requires kernel-devel
>
> Last time I looked, kernel-devel is provided by Red Hat in their
> packages, as well as CentOS. Is it somehow excluded from the package
> set for the purposes of this repoclosure?

The broken deps checker has gone mad again today. I'd just ignore the
reports.

Paul.

_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 08:55:09 -0500, Jeffrey Ollie wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 8:52 AM, Matt Domsch wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 12:38:43PM -0000, Fedora Extras repoclosure wrote:
> >> ================================================== ====================
> >> The results in this summary consider Test Updates!
> >> ================================================== ====================
> >>
> >> Summary of broken packages (by owner):
> >>
> >> Matt_Domsch AT dell.com
> >> dkms - 2.0.19.1-1.el4.noarch
> >
> >> dkms-2.0.19.1-1.el4.noarch requires kernel-devel
> >
> > Last time I looked, kernel-devel is provided by Red Hat in their
> > packages, as well as CentOS. Is it somehow excluded from the package
> > set for the purposes of this repoclosure?

Depends on how it is configured. If run for i386, the report is true,
because kernel-devel is available for i586/i686 only (in the CentOS 4.6
repo at least). The arch here must be i686 when running repoclosure.

> Given that some of my packages were complaining about missing glibc
> I'd say that the script is broken and the results cannot be relied
> upon.

It isn't broken. It was misconfigured on Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:51:25 +0000
(UTC) according to the diff that was sent to sysadmin-members. For ppc and
x86_64 the RHEL repository URLs are bad. As why this doesn't create a
fatal error in yum remains to be investigated.

_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 16:29:29 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:

> >> Summary of broken packages (by owner):
> >>
> >> Matt_Domsch AT dell.com
> >> dkms - 2.0.19.1-1.el4.noarch
> >
> >> dkms-2.0.19.1-1.el4.noarch requires kernel-devel
> >
> > Last time I looked, kernel-devel is provided by Red Hat in their
> > packages, as well as CentOS. Is it somehow excluded from the package
> > set for the purposes of this repoclosure?
> >
>
> repoclosure (last time I checked) compared requirements within
> repositories rather then spanning several repositories.

What does that mean?

> I had written a
> similar utility to check dependencies across repositories[1] but it
> didn't pass.

?

> Anyway, might that (not crossing repos to fulfill deps) be the actual
> problem? I haven't looked at it recently.

Repoclosure (albeit here it is the modified one for Fedora Extras)
examines a _set_ of repositories. Packages in Repo B can fulfill
requirements of packages in Repo A and vice versa.

_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008, Michael Schwendt wrote:

> On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 16:29:29 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
>
> > >> Summary of broken packages (by owner):
> > >>
> > >> Matt_Domsch AT dell.com
> > >> dkms - 2.0.19.1-1.el4.noarch
> > >
> > >> dkms-2.0.19.1-1.el4.noarch requires kernel-devel
> > >
> > > Last time I looked, kernel-devel is provided by Red Hat in their
> > > packages, as well as CentOS. Is it somehow excluded from the package
> > > set for the purposes of this repoclosure?
> > >
> >
> > repoclosure (last time I checked) compared requirements within
> > repositories rather then spanning several repositories.
>
> What does that mean?
>
> > I had written a
> > similar utility to check dependencies across repositories[1] but it
> > didn't pass.
>
> ?
>
> > Anyway, might that (not crossing repos to fulfill deps) be the actual
> > problem? I haven't looked at it recently.
>
> Repoclosure (albeit here it is the modified one for Fedora Extras)
> examines a _set_ of repositories. Packages in Repo B can fulfill
> requirements of packages in Repo A and vice versa.
>

Sorry for the noise guys but can _anyone_ find a single run of this script
that worked since January? Just curious because it seems like I've been
spending a whole lot of time on it since then and its honestly starting to
piss me off. This thing should just work but for whatever reason (not
blaming anyone here) it never seems to work right.

-Mike

_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 11:40:53 -0500 (CDT), Mike McGrath wrote:

> Sorry for the noise guys but can _anyone_ find a single run of this script
> that worked since January? Just curious because it seems like I've been
> spending a whole lot of time on it since then and its honestly starting to
> piss me off. This thing should just work but for whatever reason (not
> blaming anyone here) it never seems to work right.

Well, you cannot use $basearch in the yum.conf because that expands to
the host arch, not the desired target repo arch.

As why the single reports has been split into multiple reports again,
I've contacted the author of that change just recently.

The other [never-ending] problems are with the various RHEL repos, which
either are moved from time to time or are not in the place that's specified
in the yum config file.

That also causes problems with the buildsys where packages are not found.

JFTR, when running the repoclosure against public CentOS 4.6 repos, the
broken deps report is different.

The run posted to this list on 2008-06-11 was close, probably just using
i386 instead of i686.

_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list