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 User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 02-14-2012, 08:21 PM
Heinz Diehl
 
Default Alsa-utils update broken

Hi,

seems like alsa-lib update is broken, does anybody see the same with F16?
Guess there isn't any alsa-lib package >= 1.0.25 in F16 updates.

[root@wildsau ~]# yum update
Loaded plugins: langpacks, presto, refresh-packagekit
Setting up Update Process
Resolving Dependencies
--> Running transaction check
---> Package alsa-utils.x86_64 0:1.0.24.1-5.fc16 will be updated
---> Package alsa-utils.x86_64 0:1.0.25-7.fc16 will be an update
--> Processing Dependency: alsa-lib >= 1.0.25 for package:
alsa-utils-1.0.25-7.fc16.x86_64
--> Finished Dependency Resolution
Error: Package: alsa-utils-1.0.25-7.fc16.x86_64 (updates)
Requires: alsa-lib >= 1.0.25
Installed: alsa-lib-1.0.24-2.fc15.i686 (@fedora/15)
alsa-lib = 1.0.24-2.fc15
You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem
You could try running: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest


--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
 
Old 02-14-2012, 08:27 PM
Digimer
 
Default Alsa-utils update broken

On 02/14/2012 04:21 PM, Heinz Diehl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> seems like alsa-lib update is broken, does anybody see the same with F16?
> Guess there isn't any alsa-lib package >= 1.0.25 in F16 updates.
>
> [root@wildsau ~]# yum update
> Loaded plugins: langpacks, presto, refresh-packagekit
> Setting up Update Process
> Resolving Dependencies
> --> Running transaction check
> ---> Package alsa-utils.x86_64 0:1.0.24.1-5.fc16 will be updated
> ---> Package alsa-utils.x86_64 0:1.0.25-7.fc16 will be an update
> --> Processing Dependency: alsa-lib >= 1.0.25 for package:
> alsa-utils-1.0.25-7.fc16.x86_64
> --> Finished Dependency Resolution
> Error: Package: alsa-utils-1.0.25-7.fc16.x86_64 (updates)
> Requires: alsa-lib >= 1.0.25
> Installed: alsa-lib-1.0.24-2.fc15.i686 (@fedora/15)
> alsa-lib = 1.0.24-2.fc15
> You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem
> You could try running: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest

I'm seeing the same issue here; Fedora 16 x86_64.

Cheers

--
Digimer
E-Mail: digimer@alteeve.com
Papers and Projects: https://alteeve.com
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
 
Old 02-14-2012, 08:28 PM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default Alsa-utils update broken

On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 22:21:05 +0100, HD (Heinz) wrote:

> Hi,
>
> seems like alsa-lib update is broken, does anybody see the same with F16?

*sigh*

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-1025/alsa-lib-1.0.25-1.fc16

> Guess there isn't any alsa-lib package >= 1.0.25 in F16 updates.

There is, but the ALSA maintainer has not put all packages into a single
update ticket, so the inter-dependencies break as individual packages
get moved from updates-testing to stable while others are not moved yet.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
 
Old 02-15-2012, 02:53 AM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default Alsa-utils update broken

On 02/14/2012 10:28 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:

On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 22:21:05 +0100, HD (Heinz) wrote:


Hi,

seems like alsa-lib update is broken, does anybody see the same with F16?


*sigh*

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-1025/alsa-lib-1.0.25-1.fc16


Guess there isn't any alsa-lib package>= 1.0.25 in F16 updates.


There is, but the ALSA maintainer has not put all packages into a single
update ticket, so the inter-dependencies break as individual packages
get moved from updates-testing to stable while others are not moved yet.

Wasn't this kind of bugs supposed to be caught by AutoQA?

Ralf

--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
 
Old 02-15-2012, 06:59 AM
Paul Allen Newell
 
Default Alsa-utils update broken

On 2/14/2012 7:53 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:

On 02/14/2012 10:28 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:

On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 22:21:05 +0100, HD (Heinz) wrote:


Hi,

seems like alsa-lib update is broken, does anybody see the same with
F16?


*sigh*

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-1025/alsa-lib-1.0.25-1.fc16




Guess there isn't any alsa-lib package>= 1.0.25 in F16 updates.


There is, but the ALSA maintainer has not put all packages into a single
update ticket, so the inter-dependencies break as individual packages
get moved from updates-testing to stable while others are not moved yet.

Wasn't this kind of bugs supposed to be caught by AutoQA?

Ralf



As I read the link, it seems clear to me that human error is being
tolerated and its a bloody shame. This should have been caught as a
"can't release until everything is there" and I am shaking my head at
how the system let it slide by.


Shame is the only word I can think of,
Paul
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
 
Old 02-15-2012, 07:46 AM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default Alsa-utils update broken

On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 04:53:54 +0100, RC (Ralf) wrote:

> On 02/14/2012 10:28 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 22:21:05 +0100, HD (Heinz) wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> seems like alsa-lib update is broken, does anybody see the same with F16?
> >
> > *sigh*
> >
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-1025/alsa-lib-1.0.25-1.fc16
> >
> >> Guess there isn't any alsa-lib package>= 1.0.25 in F16 updates.
> >
> > There is, but the ALSA maintainer has not put all packages into a single
> > update ticket, so the inter-dependencies break as individual packages
> > get moved from updates-testing to stable while others are not moved yet.
> Wasn't this kind of bugs supposed to be caught by AutoQA?

It caught it,

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-1132/alsa-utils-1.0.25-7.fc16

but obviously only after the automatic request to push it to stable,
and it does not stop such updates automatically yet. I don't know if
the AutoQA results are being actively monitored by anyone (from time
to time there are false positives).
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
 
Old 02-15-2012, 08:29 AM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default Alsa-utils update broken

On 02/15/2012 09:46 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:

On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 04:53:54 +0100, RC (Ralf) wrote:


On 02/14/2012 10:28 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:

On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 22:21:05 +0100, HD (Heinz) wrote:


Hi,

seems like alsa-lib update is broken, does anybody see the same with F16?

*sigh*

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-1025/alsa-lib-1.0.25-1.fc16


Guess there isn't any alsa-lib package>= 1.0.25 in F16 updates.

There is, but the ALSA maintainer has not put all packages into a single
update ticket, so the inter-dependencies break as individual packages
get moved from updates-testing to stable while others are not moved yet.

Wasn't this kind of bugs supposed to be caught by AutoQA?

It caught it,

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-1132/alsa-utils-1.0.25-7.fc16

but obviously only after the automatic request to push it to stable,
and it does not stop such updates automatically yet.
Great, its not even able to catch obvious cases - Fedora is a great
experience, isn't it?


Ralf


--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
 
Old 02-15-2012, 10:12 AM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default Alsa-utils update broken

On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 10:29:19 +0100, RC (Ralf) wrote:

> >> Wasn't this kind of bugs supposed to be caught by AutoQA?
> > It caught it,
> >
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-1132/alsa-utils-1.0.25-7.fc16
> >
> > but obviously only after the automatic request to push it to stable,
> > and it does not stop such updates automatically yet.
> Great, its not even able to catch obvious cases - Fedora is a great
> experience, isn't it?

Please refrain from posting similar comments. Negativity doesn't improve
productivity.

Sure, it's a disappointing and embarrassing case once again and confuses
users. The package maintainer has ignored the early tester feedback in
bodhi even. Voting in bodhi should not turn into a fight between package
update submitter and testers.
The packager ought to have added all alsa-* packages to the same ticket,
especially since he's the primary person to be aware of his explicit
versioned dependency on alsa-lib. For the ordinary tester it's much harder
to detect this problem, as usually a tester doesn't examine "rpm -qR
alsa-utils" for a minor update that installed fine with updates-testing
enabled.
It's really a scenario where the Fedora Updates System needs to prevent a
packager from pushing something. That has not been implemented yet,
however. And more will need to be implemented to get it right. For
example, multiarch/multilib package updates need to be able to pull in
additional packages (from Fedora "Everything" repo) for newly added
multiarch deps [i.e. a needed i686 pkg not found in the x86_64 "fedora"
repo would need to be made available in the "updates" repo, similar to
what the old Extras pushscripts tried to do].
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
 
Old 02-15-2012, 10:23 AM
Tom Horsley
 
Default Alsa-utils update broken

On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 12:12:43 +0100
Michael Schwendt wrote:

> It's really a scenario where the Fedora Updates System needs to prevent a
> packager from pushing something. That has not been implemented yet,
> however. And more will need to be implemented to get it right.

Yes, but it is the insane quest for perfection that has prevented
a trivial technique from catching 99.999% of the problems:

Just run a test "yum update" on a virtual machine that has selected
every selectable package during the install. Only when that test update
from a test repo works cleanly would the updates actually be pushed
to the real repo.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
 
Old 02-15-2012, 11:10 AM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default Alsa-utils update broken

On 02/15/2012 12:12 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:

On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 10:29:19 +0100, RC (Ralf) wrote:


Wasn't this kind of bugs supposed to be caught by AutoQA?

It caught it,

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-1132/alsa-utils-1.0.25-7.fc16

but obviously only after the automatic request to push it to stable,
and it does not stop such updates automatically yet.

Great, its not even able to catch obvious cases - Fedora is a great
experience, isn't it?

Please refrain from posting similar comments. Negativity doesn't improve
productivity.



I disagree - Playing down the issues and to wipe them under the carpet
doesn't help anybody.


Fact is: After all these years Fedora is around, rel-eng is still
pushing packages with broken deps, despite QA and AutoQA, and Fedora's
bureaucracy.


I am not blaming the alsa-utils/libs packager(s), I am blaming those
people who are supposed to assure the distros' releases and updates are
consistent.


--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 11:30 PM.

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