Bug 1244531

Okay I will make them not to appear. Give me some time before existing update pushed to stable. I will submit another update.

The reason I enabled them is to make sure langpacks plugin user will get instant same time information about langpacks installed on the system. Otherwise they will need to do some extra commands/things to find which languages are enabled on their system.

I think it would be better to tell the user to edit /etc/dnf/plugins/langpacks.conf. After that there is still some more text displayed every time you start dnf, which should go away.

yes all those messages coming from langpacks plugin will go away but first let the existing update be moved to stable. Looks like some releng issue going on that is why neither rawhide report generated yesterday nor broken dependencies report and even no updates push happening.

Also getting these with dnf-langpacks.noarch 0.11.1-1.fc22 and dnf 1.0.1-2.fc22

langpacks: No languages are enabled
Last metadata expiration check performed 0:01:32 ago on Tue Jul 21 17:02:56 2015.
Dependencies resolved.
langpacks: enabled languages are []
Nothing to do.
Complete!

The ones from langpacks:

langpacks: No languages are enabled

and

langpacks: enabled languages are []

look like debug output, they're annoying, please remove.

The output from dnf itself (expiration check, dependencies, nothing to do, "complete!") actually tell me something. The output from langpacks doesn't.

dnf-langpacks-0.12.0-2.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dnf-langpacks-0.12.0-2.fc22

All,
  I have submitted new update now that moved extra info messages to debug messages. Please test and give karma accordingly.

I'm a little concerned, not so much by the message itself, but rather the impact this change seemed to have on running fedora-review.  Note the output below:

Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
/usr/lib/gap/pkg/aclib/gap(languages, langpacks:, enabled, are, No),
/usr/lib/gap/pkg/aclib/htm(languages, langpacks:, enabled, are, No),
/usr/lib/gap/pkg/aclib/doc(languages, langpacks:, enabled, are, No),
/usr/lib/gap/pkg/aclib(languages, langpacks:, enabled, are, No)

When I applied the update in #c5 that appeared to resolve the false positive, however I'm getting some weird results regarding package ownership on other projects which didn't occur before.  I need to run some more tests to confirm, but I wanted to make you aware that whatever this change did, it appears to have had a negative impact on other applications, specifically, fedora-review.

Gerald,
Sorry but I don't understand howcome dnf langpacks plugin changing the fedora-review behaviour.

I too ran fedora-review on your reviewed package gap-pkg-aclib but could not find those messages. I even grep for word "langpack" in the fedora-review output directory and still no line get searched.
See https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/1233989-gap-pkg-aclib/

I can't reproduce what you saw on your machine :)

Now about the output you pasted above let's look at fedora-review source code. From https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/FedoraReview.git/tree/plugins/generic.py#n1151 line it says the directories that are created by a package is already owned by some other packages. This need to be discussed among those other package owners that who should own the directory actually.

(In reply to Parag from comment #8)
> Gerald,
> Sorry but I don't understand howcome dnf langpacks plugin changing the
> fedora-review behaviour.
> 
> I too ran fedora-review on your reviewed package gap-pkg-aclib but could not
> find those messages. I even grep for word "langpack" in the fedora-review
> output directory and still no line get searched.
> See https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/1233989-gap-pkg-aclib/
> 
> I can't reproduce what you saw on your machine :)
> 
> Now about the output you pasted above let's look at fedora-review source
> code. From
> https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/FedoraReview.git/tree/plugins/generic.
> py#n1151 line it says the directories that are created by a package is
> already owned by some other packages. This need to be discussed among those
> other package owners that who should own the directory actually.

Thanks for taking a look... all I can say is that if you look at the error that
was reported by fedora-review above, i.e.:
/usr/lib/gap/pkg/aclib/gap(languages, langpacks:, enabled, are, No),

you can see it says:  (languages, langpacks:, enabled, are, No) which in and of itself is completely weird.

I then did a search on that which brought me to this bug.  I then applied the update mentioned in #C5 and the problem disappeared.  

Something definitely was or is going on.

Thanks for quick reply. If you still found those messages in any fedora-review output, please tell me here and I would like to have a look at it. 

Also, its strange that the actual log messages appearing was "langpacks: No languages are enabled" whereas what you found is like words collected from "langpacks: No languages are enabled" and was randomly printed there.

Just for clarification, I was running:
dnf-langpacks.noarch 0.11.1-1.fc22

when I had the issue.  The problem appears to be corrected in:
dnf-langpacks.noarch 0.12.0-2.fc22

What version of dnf-langpacks where you running for the test?

(In reply to Parag from comment #10)
> Thanks for quick reply. If you still found those messages in any
> fedora-review output, please tell me here and I would like to have a look at
> it. 
> 
> Also, its strange that the actual log messages appearing was "langpacks: No
> languages are enabled" whereas what you found is like words collected from
> "langpacks: No languages are enabled" and was randomly printed there.

Will do - and thanks again for taking the time to look into it.

(In reply to Gerald Cox from comment #11)
> Just for clarification, I was running:
> dnf-langpacks.noarch 0.11.1-1.fc22
> 
> when I had the issue.  The problem appears to be corrected in:
> dnf-langpacks.noarch 0.12.0-2.fc22
> 
> What version of dnf-langpacks where you running for the test?

I am using dnf-langpacks.noarch 0.12.0-2.fc22 build. 

To test your issue, lets use f22 mock config which is having dnf-langpacks-0.12.0-1.fc22.noarch build. I ran fedora-review and again no results for "langpack" word in fedora-review output directory. 

I then realized that in mock dnf-langpacks is not at all getting used/installed. Just check root.log and you will not find dnf-langpacks. So, I conclude that dnf-langpacks is never used in mock builds as there is no explicit package pulling it into buildroot.

(In reply to Parag from comment #13)
> (In reply to Gerald Cox from comment #11)
> > Just for clarification, I was running:
> > dnf-langpacks.noarch 0.11.1-1.fc22
> > 
> > when I had the issue.  The problem appears to be corrected in:
> > dnf-langpacks.noarch 0.12.0-2.fc22
> > 
> > What version of dnf-langpacks where you running for the test?
> 
> I am using dnf-langpacks.noarch 0.12.0-2.fc22 build. 
> 
> To test your issue, lets use f22 mock config which is having
> dnf-langpacks-0.12.0-1.fc22.noarch build. I ran fedora-review and again no
> results for "langpack" word in fedora-review output directory. 
> 
> I then realized that in mock dnf-langpacks is not at all getting
> used/installed. Just check root.log and you will not find dnf-langpacks. So,
> I conclude that dnf-langpacks is never used in mock builds as there is no
> explicit package pulling it into buildroot.

As I previously mentioned the problem doesn't appear in with 0.12.0-2.  If you want to recreate it and discover what had happened you need to use 0.11.1-1
I just downgraded to 0.11.1-1 and the issue returned.  I then went back to 0.12.0-2 and the issue disappeared.

Ah my bad, downgrading to 0.11.1-1 version, I can reproduced it. I will check further how the log message words appeared in review.txt. But with the latest update there will not be any issue for fedora-review.

dnf-langpacks-0.12.0-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.