Hi,

I've just got a bug on gxine about missing dependency on gecko-libs =
1.8.0.12 and after some exploration I've found that Firefox was upgraded
to 3.0 in CentOS 5.2 and that CentOS 5.2 was released about three weeks
ago, but I didn't noticed any message, or warning, here on the
epel-devel-list. So the question is, are the builders set to build
against 5.1 or against 5.2?

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

2008/7/16 Martin Sourada <martin.sourada@gmail.com>:
> Hi,
>
> I've just got a bug on gxine about missing dependency on gecko-libs =
> 1.8.0.12 and after some exploration I've found that Firefox was upgraded
> to 3.0 in CentOS 5.2 and that CentOS 5.2 was released about three weeks
> ago, but I didn't noticed any message, or warning, here on the
> epel-devel-list. So the question is, are the builders set to build
> against 5.1 or against 5.2?
>
> Thanks,
> Martin
>
> _______________________________________________
> epel-devel-list mailing list
> epel-devel-list@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
>
>

We actually build against RHEL. I think the builders are still at
5.1, if I am recalling correctly.

Anybody else ?

stahnma

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

On Wednesday 16 July 2008, Michael Stahnke wrote:
> 2008/7/16 Martin Sourada <martin.sourada@gmail.com>:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've just got a bug on gxine about missing dependency on gecko-libs =
> > 1.8.0.12 and after some exploration I've found that Firefox was upgraded
> > to 3.0 in CentOS 5.2 and that CentOS 5.2 was released about three weeks
> > ago, but I didn't noticed any message, or warning, here on the
> > epel-devel-list. So the question is, are the builders set to build
> > against 5.1 or against 5.2?

> We actually build against RHEL. I think the builders are still at
> 5.1, if I am recalling correctly.
>
> Anybody else ?

The should be using RHEL-5.2 now if not file a bug and we will get it fixed

--
Dennis Gilmore

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

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:27:08 -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:

> On Wednesday 16 July 2008, Michael Stahnke wrote:
> > 2008/7/16 Martin Sourada <martin.sourada@gmail.com>:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I've just got a bug on gxine about missing dependency on gecko-libs =
> > > 1.8.0.12 and after some exploration I've found that Firefox was upgraded
> > > to 3.0 in CentOS 5.2 and that CentOS 5.2 was released about three weeks
> > > ago, but I didn't noticed any message, or warning, here on the
> > > epel-devel-list. So the question is, are the builders set to build
> > > against 5.1 or against 5.2?
>
> > We actually build against RHEL. I think the builders are still at
> > 5.1, if I am recalling correctly.
> >
> > Anybody else ?
>
> The should be using RHEL-5.2 now if not file a bug and we will get it fixed

This broken dep is in the repoclosure report since early July.
And unless the private reports have been disabled, this broken dep
has been reported weekly to:

martin.sourada AT gmail.com
gxine - 0.5.11-14.el5.i386

The script is still misconfigured to run for i386 instead of i686, but
that doesn't affect gxine+firefox.

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

On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 00:45 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> This broken dep is in the repoclosure report since early July.
> And unless the private reports have been disabled, this broken dep
> has been reported weekly to:
>
> martin.sourada AT gmail.com
> gxine - 0.5.11-14.el5.i386
>
> The script is still misconfigured to run for i386 instead of i686, but
> that doesn't affect gxine+firefox.
Yeah, I got that mail a few times, and every time I checked the rest of
the broken deps in that batch, there were obvious false positives like
missing dependency: kernel-devel, and given that in 5.1 there is still
firefox 2.0.0.12, I thought it was result of the broken skript. My bad.

Going to rebuild now against xulrunner. What is the fastest way to get
it to repos?

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

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:51:15 +0200, Martin Sourada wrote:

> > The script is still misconfigured to run for i386 instead of i686, but
> > that doesn't affect gxine+firefox.
> Yeah, I got that mail a few times, and every time I checked the rest of
> the broken deps in that batch, there were obvious false positives like
> missing dependency: kernel-devel,

That's because kernel and kernel-devel (and a few other packages) are NOT
available for i386. They are i686-only for RHEL afaik, not even i586. For
the parameters passed to repoclosure this means "-a i686" and NOT "-a i386".

That's an EasyFix for whoever has write-access where the script is
stored. [Restoring the single-mail-per-report feature is unrelated. That
was okay around May this year.]

> Going to rebuild now against xulrunner. What is the fastest way to get
> it to repos?

Mail epel signers according to the epel faq.

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

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Michael Schwendt wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:51:15 +0200, Martin Sourada wrote:
>
> > > The script is still misconfigured to run for i386 instead of i686, but
> > > that doesn't affect gxine+firefox.
> > Yeah, I got that mail a few times, and every time I checked the rest of
> > the broken deps in that batch, there were obvious false positives like
> > missing dependency: kernel-devel,
>
> That's because kernel and kernel-devel (and a few other packages) are NOT
> available for i386. They are i686-only for RHEL afaik, not even i586. For
> the parameters passed to repoclosure this means "-a i686" and NOT "-a i386".
>

Just so I don't mailbomb everyone again. Changing:

process_deps 5 i386 testing yes

to

process_deps 5 i686 testing yes

?

-Mike

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

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:59:09 -0500 (CDT), Mike McGrath wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:51:15 +0200, Martin Sourada wrote:
> >
> > > > The script is still misconfigured to run for i386 instead of i686, but
> > > > that doesn't affect gxine+firefox.
> > > Yeah, I got that mail a few times, and every time I checked the rest of
> > > the broken deps in that batch, there were obvious false positives like
> > > missing dependency: kernel-devel,
> >
> > That's because kernel and kernel-devel (and a few other packages) are NOT
> > available for i386. They are i686-only for RHEL afaik, not even i586. For
> > the parameters passed to repoclosure this means "-a i686" and NOT "-a i386".
> >
>
> Just so I don't mailbomb everyone again. Changing:
>
> process_deps 5 i386 testing yes
>
> to
>
> process_deps 5 i686 testing yes
>
> ?

Ah, no, I forgot that somebody added that stuff. In the context of
process_deps this additional line near the top, where a similar thing
is done for ppc, would be needed (I only see a diff of a script called
checkEpel.sh):

[ $arch == "i386" ] && arch_label=i686 || arch_label=$arch

$arch is used in the repo ids, $arch_label passed to Yum.

Dunno where that process_deps() function comes from. It's broken as
I've told stahnma (who might be its author). It ought to run rc-report
on all report-files at once as was done around May.

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

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:44:00 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:

> > Just so I don't mailbomb everyone again. Changing:
> >
> > process_deps 5 i386 testing yes
> >
> > to
> >
> > process_deps 5 i686 testing yes
> >
> > ?
>
> Ah, no, I forgot that somebody added that stuff. In the context of
> process_deps this additional line near the top, where a similar thing
> is done for ppc, would be needed (I only see a diff of a script called
> checkEpel.sh):
>
> [ $arch == "i386" ] && arch_label=i686 || arch_label=$arch

As the 'OR' is troublesome, it ought to be dropped in favour of giving
$arch_label a default value earlier. Top of function should look like this:

process_deps()
{
release=$1
arch=$2
testing=$3
mail=$4
[ -z $4 ] && mail="no" || mail="yes"
- [ $arch = "ppc" ] && arch_label=ppc64 || arch_label=$arch
+ arch_label=$arch
+ [ $arch == "i386" ] && arch_label=i686
+ [ $arch == "ppc" ] && arch_label=ppc64
command="/usr/local/bin/rc-modified -d mdcache -n -c $YUM_CONF_LOC -a

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