|Summary:||switch from langpacks to langpacks-core|
|Product:||[Fedora] Fedora||Reporter:||Parag Nemade <pnemade>|
|Component:||glibc||Assignee:||Carlos O'Donell <codonell>|
|Status:||CLOSED ERRATA||QA Contact:||Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>|
|Version:||31||CC:||aoliva, arjun.is, codonell, dj, fweimer, law, mfabian, petersen, pfrankli, rth, siddhesh|
|Fixed In Version:||glibc-2.30-5.fc31 glibc-2.30.9000-8.fc32||Doc Type:||If docs needed, set a value|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||2019-09-28 00:03:07 UTC||Type:||Bug|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
|Cloudforms Team:||---||Target Upstream Version:|
Description Parag Nemade 2019-07-15 14:01:22 UTC
Description of problem: As part of F31 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Langpacks-core Change implementation, I was thinking if glibc.spec can drop Supplements: (glibc and (]]..suppl..[[)) and langpacks.spec to have Requires: glibc-langpack-<locale> I see glibc langpack packages (198 on F30) are more whereas not every such have corresponding langpacks meta-packages (88 on F30) Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): latest glibc package How reproducible: Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: glibc.spec is supplementing for langpacks-<locale> Expected results: langpacks.spec to requires glibc langpack packages Additional info:
Comment 1 Parag Nemade 2019-07-24 12:57:09 UTC
Can I request glibc package maintainers to provide their feedback on this request?
Comment 2 Florian Weimer 2019-07-24 13:13:12 UTC
I do not have an opinion on this change. Would this change here help with bug 1380069 as well? Would it make that fix more difficult.
Comment 3 Parag Nemade 2019-07-26 09:42:16 UTC
Well, I tried to test this in my copr with new langpacks-2.0 package but looks like glibc-langpack-<langcode> is not getting removed. Will check more on this.
Comment 4 Jens Petersen 2019-07-30 07:02:05 UTC
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #2) > I do not have an opinion on this change. To add a little more: further glibc doesn't actually know what meta langpacks packages exist in Fedora. So in this sense it makes more sense to carry the information in langpacks rather than glibc itself. > Would this change here help with bug 1380069 as well? Would it make that > fix more difficult. I don't think it has any affect on that, but maybe 'glibc-langpack' can be simplified anyway.
Comment 5 Ben Cotton 2019-08-13 18:52:36 UTC
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 31 development cycle. Changing version to 31.
Comment 6 Jens Petersen 2019-09-16 10:57:19 UTC
We really need changes for langpacks-core-* at the very least for F31. https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/glibc/pull-request/15 https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/glibc/pull-request/16 I would still rather we moved this completely to langpacks since that is more consistent.
Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2019-09-26 13:49:36 UTC
FEDORA-2019-3bf71b86ec has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-3bf71b86ec
Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2019-09-27 02:29:06 UTC
glibc-2.30-5.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-3bf71b86ec
Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2019-09-28 00:03:07 UTC
glibc-2.30-5.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
Comment 10 Jens Petersen 2019-09-28 04:06:27 UTC
Thanks For F32 we want to move the weak dependencies into the langpacks package.