Going through a variety of checks for things that could be broken in a
release tree, I decided to type up a list of the things we should be
checking for.


• metadata matches
• comps correct
• file conflicts
• normal conflicts
• no obsoleted pkgs in tree
• report all triggers
• look for all postrans/pretrans things
• unresolveable requires
• self-provided filedeps
• self-provided normal deps
• old versions of pkgs left over


Some of them are not explicitly things which are broken in a release, just
things it would be wise to make sure are sane. Triggers,pretrans and
posttrans are good examples of that.


Can anyone think of any others that we should report/check for?


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

On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 03:52:15PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> Going through a variety of checks for things that could be broken in a
> release tree, I decided to type up a list of the things we should be
> checking for.
>
> ??? metadata matches
> ??? comps correct
> ??? file conflicts
> ??? normal conflicts
> ??? no obsoleted pkgs in tree
> ??? report all triggers
> ??? look for all postrans/pretrans things
> ??? unresolveable requires
> ??? self-provided filedeps
> ??? self-provided normal deps
> ??? old versions of pkgs left over
>
>
> Some of them are not explicitly things which are broken in a release, just
> things it would be wise to make sure are sane. Triggers,pretrans and
> posttrans are good examples of that.
>
> Can anyone think of any others that we should report/check for?

All files in the .treeinfo file actually exist, and that the .treeinfo
has entries for baremetal & xen kernels (xen may or may not point to
the same kernels as baremetal). We now rely on .treeinfo files for
virtualization provisioning needs, so brokenness is a show-stopper.

Regards,
Daniel
--
|: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|

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

On Wed, 2008-11-19 at 15:52 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> Can anyone think of any others that we should report/check for?

Not sure if early things catch it, but packages that obsolete themselves
(usually due to unversioned provides)

--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² 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

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:


On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 03:52:15PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:

Going through a variety of checks for things that could be broken in a
release tree, I decided to type up a list of the things we should be
checking for.

??? metadata matches
??? comps correct
??? file conflicts
??? normal conflicts
??? no obsoleted pkgs in tree
??? report all triggers
??? look for all postrans/pretrans things
??? unresolveable requires
??? self-provided filedeps
??? self-provided normal deps
??? old versions of pkgs left over


Some of them are not explicitly things which are broken in a release, just
things it would be wise to make sure are sane. Triggers,pretrans and
posttrans are good examples of that.

Can anyone think of any others that we should report/check for?


All files in the .treeinfo file actually exist, and that the .treeinfo
has entries for baremetal & xen kernels (xen may or may not point to
the same kernels as baremetal). We now rely on .treeinfo files for
virtualization provisioning needs, so brokenness is a show-stopper.



verifytree already does that. but yes, correct.

-sv

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

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:52:15 -0500 (EST), Seth Vidal wrote:

> Going through a variety of checks for things that could be broken in a
> release tree, I decided to type up a list of the things we should be
> checking for.
>
> • metadata matches
> • comps correct
> • file conflicts

Conflicts between a file and a symlink. Can only be checked with access
to the .rpm package and is not listed in the metadata (afaik).

Optionally: permission/ownership conflicts

> • normal conflicts
> • no obsoleted pkgs in tree
> • report all triggers
> • look for all postrans/pretrans things
> • unresolveable requires
> • self-provided filedeps
> • self-provided normal deps
> • old versions of pkgs left over

• SONAME-provides conflicts

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

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:52:15 -0500 (EST), Seth Vidal wrote:

> Going through a variety of checks for things that could be broken in a
> release tree, I decided to type up a list of the things we should be
> checking for.
>
> • metadata matches
> • comps correct
> • file conflicts

Conflicts between a file and a symlink. Can only be checked with access
to the .rpm package and is not listed in the metadata (afaik).

Optionally: permission/ownership conflicts

> • normal conflicts
> • no obsoleted pkgs in tree
> • report all triggers
> • look for all postrans/pretrans things
> • unresolveable requires
> • self-provided filedeps
> • self-provided normal deps
> • old versions of pkgs left over

• SONAME-provides conflicts

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

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008, Jesse Keating wrote:


On Wed, 2008-11-19 at 15:52 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:

Can anyone think of any others that we should report/check for?


Not sure if early things catch it, but packages that obsolete themselves
(usually due to unversioned provides)



added.
-sv

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

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008, Michael Schwendt wrote:


On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:52:15 -0500 (EST), Seth Vidal wrote:


Going through a variety of checks for things that could be broken in a
release tree, I decided to type up a list of the things we should be
checking for.

• metadata matches
• comps correct
• file conflicts


Conflicts between a file and a symlink. Can only be checked with access
to the .rpm package and is not listed in the metadata (afaik).


Right, Which is what I'm doing here:
http://skvidal.fedorapeople.org/misc/potential_conflict.py

check for filename clashes, then pull the headers from the packages
involved and check the checksum against each.




Optionally: permission/ownership conflicts





• SONAME-provides conflicts


explain more about what we check for here?
Is this like multiple things providing libfoo.so() and one of them being a
bogon autodep?


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

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 16:29:37 -0500 (EST), Seth Vidal wrote:

> > • SONAME-provides conflicts
>
> explain more about what we check for here?
> Is this like multiple things providing libfoo.so() and one of them being a
> bogon autodep?

Exactly.

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

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008, Michael Schwendt wrote:


On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 16:29:37 -0500 (EST), Seth Vidal wrote:


• SONAME-provides conflicts


explain more about what we check for here?
Is this like multiple things providing libfoo.so() and one of them being a
bogon autodep?


Exactly.


added.

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