Bug 1192754

Summary: gnome-common conflicts with autoconf-archive
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Christopher Meng <i>
Component: gnome-commonAssignee: David King <amigadave>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: rawhideCC: amigadave, mkasik, pingou, qdlacz
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: gnome-common-3.14.0-2.fc21 Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2015-02-25 13:29:17 UTC Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Attachments:
Description Flags
Patch of the gnome-common.spec none

Description Christopher Meng 2015-02-15 04:31:17 UTC
Created attachment 991820 [details]
Patch of the gnome-common.spec

Hi folks,

With the latest version[1] of autoconf-archive pulled into f21+ testing, tester found that gnome-common ships some macros from autoconf-archive. I can cancel the update but the problem still exists in f22+, and might RHEL as well.

The fact is gnome-common bundles macros from autoconf-archive, and my opinion of this conflict is that gnome-common should %exclude the conflicting files in %files and add Requires: autoconf-archive to the package.

The conflicting files are:

/usr/share/aclocal/ax_check_enable_debug.m4
/usr/share/aclocal/ax_code_coverage.m4

I've attached the patch of the spec file checked out from the repo. Please review. Hopefully this will be fixed ASAP.

[1]---https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-1899/autoconf-archive-2015.02.04-1.fc21

Comment 1 Christopher Meng 2015-02-15 04:35:29 UTC
The patch also uses the %license macro in spec file to conform to the latest revision of the Packaging Licensing Guideline[1].

[1]---https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines

Comment 2 David King 2015-02-15 09:40:16 UTC
Thanks for the report. I split your commit into two (one for the autoconf-archive fix and one for the %license change), and pushed them to master, f22 and f21 branches.

Do you want to submit an update which includes both packages?

Comment 3 Christopher Meng 2015-02-15 10:44:45 UTC
(In reply to David King from comment #2)
> Thanks for the report. I split your commit into two (one for the
> autoconf-archive fix and one for the %license change), and pushed them to
> master, f22 and f21 branches.
> 
> Do you want to submit an update which includes both packages?

No I think you can submit gnome-common, with less karma for pushing to stable(I will +1 there).

Comment 4 David King 2015-02-15 10:55:46 UTC
I don't thin(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #3)
> No I think you can submit gnome-common, with less karma for pushing to
> stable(I will +1 there).

I don't think that is a good idea. Both packages need to go stable at the same time, and the only way of ensuring that is to add gnome-common-3.14.0-2.fc21 to the autoconf-archive update.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_update_HOWTO?rd=PackageMaintainers/UpdatingPackageHowTo#Updating_inter-dependent_packages

Comment 5 Christopher Meng 2015-02-15 11:22:13 UTC
OK, but I don't have rights to push updates of gnome-common, so please submit an update if you can.

BTW, shouldn't the updated gnome-common Requires: autoconf-archive as well? Is it serious?

Comment 6 Christopher Meng 2015-02-15 11:23:41 UTC
s/shouldn't/should/

Comment 7 David King 2015-02-15 11:34:20 UTC
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #5)
> OK, but I don't have rights to push updates of gnome-common, so please
> submit an update if you can.

As the page that I linked to explains, you need to ask Release Engineering if you run into permissions problems with multiple packages in an update:

https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/newticket

I can file the ticket if you prefer.

> BTW, should the updated gnome-common Requires: autoconf-archive as well?
> Is it serious?

It does, which seems correct to me (it does not need to BuildRequires, as the macros are not used at build time):

http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/gnome-common.git/commit/?h=f21&id=c7e46ed9a7871908e0ce25d214c5393de9c11db4

Comment 8 Christopher Meng 2015-02-16 00:23:10 UTC
Submitted as: https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6106

Comment 9 Pierre-YvesChibon 2015-02-16 06:56:37 UTC
Being a provenpackager, I can create the update, do we have both package built?
Could I have the two exact nevr ?

Comment 10 David King 2015-02-16 08:26:27 UTC
Sure, they are gnome-common-3.14.0-2.fc21 and autoconf-archive-2015.02.04-1.fc21.

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2015-02-16 08:29:51 UTC
gnome-common-3.14.0-2.fc21,autoconf-archive-2015.02.04-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gnome-common-3.14.0-2.fc21,autoconf-archive-2015.02.04-1.fc21

Comment 12 Pierre-YvesChibon 2015-02-16 08:32:09 UTC
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #3)
> No I think you can submit gnome-common, with less karma for pushing to
> stable(I will +1 there).

FTR, this is not good practice nor a good idea (as David already pointed out).

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2015-02-17 08:06:57 UTC
Package gnome-common-3.14.0-2.fc21, autoconf-archive-2015.02.04-1.fc21:
* should fix your issue,
* was pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository,
* should be available at your local mirror within two days.
Update it with:
# su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing gnome-common-3.14.0-2.fc21 autoconf-archive-2015.02.04-1.fc21'
as soon as you are able to.
Please go to the following url:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-2158/gnome-common-3.14.0-2.fc21,autoconf-archive-2015.02.04-1.fc21
then log in and leave karma (feedback).

Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2015-02-25 13:29:17 UTC
gnome-common-3.14.0-2.fc21, autoconf-archive-2015.02.04-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.