Bug 1887426
| Summary: | rpminspect-data-fedora is missing a dependency on libabigail | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Petr Pisar <ppisar> |
| Component: | rpminspect-data-fedora | Assignee: | David Cantrell <dcantrell> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | dcantrell, vondruch |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | rpminspect-data-fedora-1.1-2 rpminspect-data-fedora-1.1-2.fc31 rpminspect-data-fedora-1.1-2.fc32 rpminspect-data-fedora-1.1-2.fc33 rpminspect-data-fedora-1.3-1.el7 | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2020-10-12 13:52:25 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: | |||
|
Description
Petr Pisar
2020-10-12 12:38:40 UTC
The rpminspect package has a soft dependency on /usr/bin/abidiff using Suggests, but I guess it makes sense for the data package to carry a requires on libabigail since it is configuring the program to enable that inspection. Fixed. I will updates coming soon for the stable Fedora releases. Building in rawhide now. FEDORA-2020-a94bb07a4f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-a94bb07a4f FEDORA-2020-033b741168 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-033b741168 FEDORA-2020-d5b58c98b1 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d5b58c98b1 FEDORA-EPEL-2020-8a30e5377f has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-8a30e5377f FEDORA-EPEL-2020-8c0c685370 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-8c0c685370 FEDORA-2020-d5b58c98b1 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-d5b58c98b1` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d5b58c98b1 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-2020-033b741168 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-033b741168` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-033b741168 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-EPEL-2020-8a30e5377f has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-8a30e5377f See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-EPEL-2020-8c0c685370 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-8c0c685370 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-2020-a94bb07a4f has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-a94bb07a4f` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-a94bb07a4f See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-2020-a94bb07a4f has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. FEDORA-2020-033b741168 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. FEDORA-2020-d5b58c98b1 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. FEDORA-EPEL-2020-29de770d20 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-29de770d20 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-EPEL-2020-1e1f8c28d4 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-1e1f8c28d4 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. Unfortunately, adding hard dependencies on everything make rpminspect unwelcome on my system. I don't want to install various shells and what not. If they were at least weak dependencies ... So originally I had those requirements as 'Suggests' on the rpminspect package itself. To me it made more sense to move them over the data package since that would be providing the rules about what tests were enabled or not. So that's what I did. I do think they should be specified as a weak dependency. I chose Suggests, but that led to many people not getting those additional packages installed. Should they be listed as Recommends instead? I would like to fix this up to make it more flexible for users while also indicating what packages you do need to have in case you want to run all of the inspections. (In reply to David Cantrell from comment #20) > So originally I had those requirements as 'Suggests' on the rpminspect > package itself. To me it made more sense to move them over the data package > since that would be providing the rules about what tests were enabled or > not. So that's what I did. > > I do think they should be specified as a weak dependency. I chose Suggests, > but that led to many people not getting those additional packages installed. > Should they be listed as Recommends instead? > > I would like to fix this up to make it more flexible for users while also > indicating what packages you do need to have in case you want to run all of > the inspections. Ah, thx for explanation. The Suggests are not installed at all, but Recommends are installed by default, but can be disabled. Therefore Recommends would be ideal from my POV FEDORA-EPEL-2020-29de770d20 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. FEDORA-EPEL-2021-687ea4dc24 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-687ea4dc24 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. FEDORA-EPEL-2021-687ea4dc24 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. |