Below are the packages with current upgrade problems. Please fix these
ASAP as we are very close to final development freeze. Packages that
have upgrade issues tomorrow will have bugs filed.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
04-06-2008, 02:09 PM
Lubomir Kundrak
F8 -> F9 upgrade check 20080406
On Sun, 2008-04-06 at 07:19 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> Below are the packages with current upgrade problems. Please fix these
> ASAP as we are very close to final development freeze. Packages that
> have upgrade issues tomorrow will have bugs filed.
And with maintainer names, so they can easily look up if something
theirs is in list:
Thanks,
--
Lubomir Kundrak (Red Hat Security Response Team)
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
04-07-2008, 01:16 PM
Alex Lancaster
F8 -> F9 upgrade check 20080406
>>>>> "JB" == Josh Boyer writes:
JB> Below are the packages with current upgrade problems. Please fix
JB> these ASAP as we are very close to final development freeze.
JB> Packages that have upgrade issues tomorrow will have bugs filed.
Some of these packages haven't been updated on F-9 because they have
been failing to build due to (typically) lingering GCC 4.3 build
issues and/or xulrunner issues. The reason for the upgrade check
issue was that in some cases updates were pushed to F-8 even if the
rawhide branch didn't build.
This is especially the case with the usual firefox update push in F-7,
F-8, those packages haven't been also rebuilt on rawhide at the same
to keep NEVR sane (in many cases this was because they don't currently
rebuild, as noted below).
To avoid the filing of duplicate bugs (perhaps add a comment to these
bugs about the additional NEVR problems). I'm posting the bug here
for the packages that I either maintain, or have attempted to help
fix:
[Kazehakase won't run against xulrunner (gecko-libs 1.9)]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=402641
Not sure if this is entirely the reason a newer version hasn't been
pushed for F-9, but in general packages that depend on xulrunner have
been having periodic problems rebuilding.
This is the same exact code, the revision is merely higher because of a little import snarfu. Shouldn't pose a problem
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
04-07-2008, 01:39 PM
"Jon Ciesla"
F8 -> F9 upgrade check 20080406
> 2008/4/6, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@gmail.com>:
>>
>>
>> mono-zeroconf:
>> F8-updates > F9 (0:0.7.5-4.fc8 > 0:0.7.5-3.fc9)
>>
>
> This is the same exact code, the revision is merely higher because of a
> little import snarfu. Shouldn't pose a problem
...except that yum/rpm will choke and abort an entire upgrade transaction
from F-8 to F-9 if mono-zeroconf is installed. Please bump the release
number to -4 or -5 and rebuild for rawhide.
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
--
novus ordo absurdum
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
04-07-2008, 01:40 PM
Josh Boyer
F8 -> F9 upgrade check 20080406
On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 15:25 +0200, David Nielsen wrote:
>
>
> 2008/4/6, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@gmail.com>:
>
> mono-zeroconf:
> F8-updates > F9 (0:0.7.5-4.fc8 > 0:0.7.5-3.fc9)
>
> This is the same exact code, the revision is merely higher because of
> a little import snarfu. Shouldn't pose a problem
Well... that's good from a technical perspective. But the upgrade path
is still broken. Are you going to fix that?
(Sorry if your email implied that you would, but I couldn't tell.)
josh
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
04-07-2008, 01:40 PM
Josh Boyer
F8 -> F9 upgrade check 20080406
On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 06:16 -0700, Alex Lancaster wrote:
> >>>>> "JB" == Josh Boyer writes:
> To avoid the filing of duplicate bugs (perhaps add a comment to these
> bugs about the additional NEVR problems). I'm posting the bug here
> for the packages that I either maintain, or have attempted to help
> fix:
That's a great idea. Thanks for the URLs!
josh
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
04-07-2008, 01:41 PM
Petr Machata
F8 -> F9 upgrade check 20080406
On Sun, Apr 06, 2008 at 04:09:43PM +0200, Lubomir Kundrak wrote:
> And with maintainer names, so they can easily look up if something
> theirs is in list:
Thanks, that was very helpful.
> dejagnu
> pmachata
> ElectricFence
> pmachata
I've just rebuilt these with fixed release tag.
PM
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
04-07-2008, 02:17 PM
Jesse Keating
F8 -> F9 upgrade check 20080406
On Mon, 2008-04-07 at 08:39 -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
>
> ...except that yum/rpm will choke and abort an entire upgrade transaction
> from F-8 to F-9 if mono-zeroconf is installed. Please bump the release
> number to -4 or -5 and rebuild for rawhide.
Erm, that's not true at all. Can you show some evidence to this? At
least with anaconda it should go fine, end result is that this package
isn't updated to the .fc9 build.
--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
F8 -> F9 upgrade check 20080406
