FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 11-14-2008, 08:44 PM
David Huff
 
Default Broken dependencies in Fedora 9 - 2008-11-14

Matthew Woehlke wrote:

Michael Schwendt wrote:

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 14:45:57 -0500, David Huff wrote:


Michael Schwendt wrote:

Broken packages in fedora-updates-testing-9-ppc64:

appliance-tools-002.6-1.fc9.noarch requires qemu-img
To address this I added "ExclusiveArch: %{ix86} x86_64 ppc alpha
sparc armv4l noarch", to the spec [1] which matches the qemu
package. I was told that this would prevent the compose tools form
adding the appliance-tools rpm to the ppc64 tree.


Why not "ExcludeArch: ppc64"?


Just to offer an outside perspective... IMO ExcludeArch makes sense when
a package is generically expected to work, but is known to have problems
on specific architectures (i.e. not working is the exception, not the
rule). For things like qemu (or valgrind, to give another example) that
are highly arch-specific, it makes more sense to list the arches that
are supported, even if that results in a longer list.




either way, it was my understanding that both ExclusinveArch and
ExcludeArch would work, ie the compose tools will check the srpm and not
include the package in a tree if specified in either of these feilds.


Im not sure if switching form ExclusinveArch to ExcludeArch will fix the
issue at had.


Any comments, as I would like to run a new build to try and resolve this
issue.


-D




--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 11-14-2008, 08:54 PM
Jesse Keating
 
Default Broken dependencies in Fedora 9 - 2008-11-14

On Fri, 2008-11-14 at 16:44 -0500, David Huff wrote:
> either way, it was my understanding that both ExclusinveArch and
> ExcludeArch would work, ie the compose tools will check the srpm and not
> include the package in a tree if specified in either of these feilds.

That is correct.

> Im not sure if switching form ExclusinveArch to ExcludeArch will fix the
> issue at had.
>
> Any comments, as I would like to run a new build to try and resolve this
> issue.

Er, what exactly is the issue at hand?

--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom˛ is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 11-14-2008, 09:08 PM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default Broken dependencies in Fedora 9 - 2008-11-14

On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 16:44:16 -0500, David Huff wrote:

> either way, it was my understanding that both ExclusinveArch and
> ExcludeArch would work, ie the compose tools will check the srpm and not
> include the package in a tree if specified in either of these feilds.

That's somewhat unrelated. Checking the src.rpm is only necessary for
noarch builds. For binary builds, the buildsys (= koji) evaluates these
two fields already and requests the right arch-specific build-jobs. Then,
with no ppc64 build done, the compose tools have nothing they can push to
the ppc64 repo.

> Im not sure if switching form ExclusinveArch to ExcludeArch will fix the
> issue at had.

Rule of thumb: prefer ExcludeArch (selectively excluding archs that are
known to be broken/unsupported -- with the Fedora guideline to add a
bugzilla ticket for each arch that's excluded). Second choice is
ExclusiveArch for software where you can start with a list of what archs
the software is made for, e.g. due to explicitly non-portable features.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 11-18-2008, 01:57 AM
Jens Petersen
 
Default Broken dependencies in Fedora 9 - 2008-11-14

----- "Michael Schwendt" <mschwendt@gmail.com> wrote:
> package: scim-bridge-qt-0.4.15-5.fc9.i386 from fedora-9-x86_64
> unresolved deps:
> scim-bridge = 0:0.4.15-5.fc9

This is due to scim-bridge-0.4.15-8.fc9 in updates-newkey not being multilib.

Can we request that now to releng?

Jens

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 12-01-2008, 02:57 PM
David Huff
 
Default Broken dependencies in Fedora 9 - 2008-11-14

Jesse Keating wrote:

Er, what exactly is the issue at hand?


I added "ExclusiveArch: %{ix86} x86_64 ppc alpha sparc armv4l noarch" to
the spec file however it is still reporting broken dep of qemu for ppc64.

So either the rpm *is* being pulled in to the tree eventhough
ExclusiveArch is set, or whatever is checking for broken deops is
reporting incorrectly.



-D

I know this is an old thread however I just got two more notifications
for two new RPMs:


Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Your following packages in the repository suffer from broken
dependencies:

>
> package: appliance-tools-003.9-1.fc10.noarch from fedora-updates-10-ppc64
> unresolved deps:
> qemu-img
>
> Your following packages in the repository suffer from broken
dependencies:

>
> package: appliance-tools-002.8-1.fc9.noarch from
fedora-updates-testing-9-ppc64

> unresolved deps:
> qemu-img



--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 12-01-2008, 03:37 PM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default Broken dependencies in Fedora 9 - 2008-11-14

On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 10:57:39 -0500, David Huff wrote:

> Jesse Keating wrote:
> > Er, what exactly is the issue at hand?
>
> I added "ExclusiveArch: %{ix86} x86_64 ppc alpha sparc armv4l noarch" to
> the spec file however it is still reporting broken dep of qemu for ppc64.
>
> So either the rpm *is* being pulled in to the tree eventhough
> ExclusiveArch is set, or whatever is checking for broken deops is
> reporting incorrectly.

Explain how you think the broken deps checker would be broken!
The package _is_ in the ppc64 tree, isn't it?

http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/updates/10/ppc64/appliance-tools-003.9-1.fc10.noarch.rpm

Btw:

$ rpm -qp --qf '[%{exclusivearch} ]' appliance-tools-003.9-1.fc10.src.rpm
i386 i486 i586 i686 pentium3 pentium4 athlon geode x86_64 ppc alpha sparc armv4l

I leave the 2nd part of the exercise to you. Find out whether "mash" evaluates
%exclusivearch.

>
> -D
>
> I know this is an old thread however I just got two more notifications
> for two new RPMs:
>
> Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > Your following packages in the repository suffer from broken
> dependencies:
> >
> > package: appliance-tools-003.9-1.fc10.noarch from fedora-updates-10-ppc64
> > unresolved deps:
> > qemu-img
> >
> > Your following packages in the repository suffer from broken
> dependencies:
> >
> > package: appliance-tools-002.8-1.fc9.noarch from
> fedora-updates-testing-9-ppc64
> > unresolved deps:
> > qemu-img
>
>
>


--
Michael Schwendt <mschwendt@fedoraproject.org>
Fedora release 10 (Cambridge) - Linux 2.6.27.5-117.fc10.i686
loadavg: 2.75 2.48 2.18

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 12-01-2008, 07:38 PM
Jesse Keating
 
Default Broken dependencies in Fedora 9 - 2008-11-14

On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 17:37 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Explain how you think the broken deps checker would be broken!
> The package _is_ in the ppc64 tree, isn't it?
>
> http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/updates/10/ppc64/appliance-tools-003.9-1.fc10.noarch.rpm
>
> Btw:
>
> $ rpm -qp --qf '[%{exclusivearch} ]'
> appliance-tools-003.9-1.fc10.src.rpm
> i386 i486 i586 i686 pentium3 pentium4 athlon geode x86_64 ppc alpha
> sparc armv4l

Looking at the spec itself, I see:

ExclusiveArch: %{ix86} x86_64 ppc alpha sparc armv4l noarch

I think that 'noarch' is throwing mash off when it's trying to determine
if a noarch package is suitable for an arch. Please remove that and try
again (trying it in rawhide should be suitable to test mash before
pushing an update).

--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom˛ is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 12-01-2008, 08:39 PM
David Huff
 
Default Broken dependencies in Fedora 9 - 2008-11-14

Jesse Keating wrote:

On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 17:37 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:

Explain how you think the broken deps checker would be broken!
The package _is_ in the ppc64 tree, isn't it?

http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/updates/10/ppc64/appliance-tools-003.9-1.fc10.noarch.rpm

Btw:

$ rpm -qp --qf '[%{exclusivearch} ]'
appliance-tools-003.9-1.fc10.src.rpm
i386 i486 i586 i686 pentium3 pentium4 athlon geode x86_64 ppc alpha

sparc armv4l


Looking at the spec itself, I see:

ExclusiveArch: %{ix86} x86_64 ppc alpha sparc armv4l noarch

I think that 'noarch' is throwing mash off when it's trying to determine
if a noarch package is suitable for an arch. Please remove that and try
again (trying it in rawhide should be suitable to test mash before
pushing an update).




If I take out noarch in the ExclusiveArch list the build will fail:
"error: Architecture is not included: noarch"

more info:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=968280

-D

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 12-01-2008, 08:50 PM
Jesse Keating
 
Default Broken dependencies in Fedora 9 - 2008-11-14

On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 16:39 -0500, David Huff wrote:
>
> If I take out noarch in the ExclusiveArch list the build will fail:
> "error: Architecture is not included: noarch"
>
> more info:
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=968280

Hrm, I'm looking through everything that was successfully excluded in
the last compose, everything seems to be using ExcludeArch instead of
ExclusiveArch. It's possible our treatment of ExclusiveArch isn't
correct, again because we have to add noarch to the list. What's the
reasoning for your use of Exclusive vs ExcludeArch ?

--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom˛ is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 12-01-2008, 09:02 PM
David Huff
 
Default Broken dependencies in Fedora 9 - 2008-11-14

Jesse Keating wrote:
> Hrm, I'm looking through everything that was successfully excluded in

the last compose, everything seems to be using ExcludeArch instead of
ExclusiveArch. It's possible our treatment of ExclusiveArch isn't
correct, again because we have to add noarch to the list. What's the
reasoning for your use of Exclusive vs ExcludeArch ?




I used ExclusiveArch to match qemu, which is what it depends on, however
qemu is an arch specific rpm.


Building with ExcludeArch does build. I'll throw it against
rawhide and see if mash picks it up or not.

-D

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

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 02:24 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org