Bug 537138
| Summary: | Bioperl doesn't bootstrap on other platforms, circular dependencies | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Yaakov Nemoy <loupgaroublond> |
| Component: | perl-bioperl-run | Assignee: | Alex Lancaster <alex> |
| Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | low | ||
| Version: | 11 | CC: | alex, bloch, kasal, perl-devel |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2010-06-28 15:27:17 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
Thanks for the report. I think that it makes sense to filter the perl-bioperl requires so that perl-bioperl-run is not required by them. (Otherwise the two packages could probably be merged.) I'm going to fix this in devel; I doubt it is worth to issue a F11 update for this bug. If you look at the .spec file: http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/perl-bioperl/devel/perl- bioperl.spec?revision=1.23&view=markup you'll notice that we have: #cat << \EOF > %{_builddir}/BioPerl-%{version}/%{name}-req ##!/bin/sh #%{__perl_requires} $* |\ # sed -e '/perl(Bio::Tools::Run::Alignment::Clustalw)/d; /perl(Bio::Tools::Run::GenericParameters)/d; /perl(Bio::Tools::Run::Phylo::Molphy::ProtML)/d; /perl(Bio::Tools::Run::Phylo::Phylip::Neighbor)/d; /perl(Bio::Tools::Run::Phylo::Phylip::ProtDist)/d; /perl(Bio::Tools::Run::Phylo::Phylip::ProtPars)/d; /perl(Bio::Tools::Run::RemoteBlast)/d' #EOF #%%define __perl_requires %{_builddir}/BioPerl-%{version}/%{name}-req #chmod +x %{__perl_requires} to handle the bootstrapping problem. So simply enable those sections of the spec on first build, then build perl-bioperl-run against them, then comment them out again. Not pretty but it works (more requires may need to be filtered since new requires may have been added since the first bootstrap). (In reply to comment #1) > Thanks for the report. > > I think that it makes sense to filter the perl-bioperl requires so that > perl-bioperl-run is not required by them. Right and that's what the above does, although I'm not sure if that's a good idea to permanently filter them. > (Otherwise the two packages could probably be merged.) No that should not be done, because they are two tarballs maintained separately with different release schedules upstream. I have already discussed this problem with upstream and if anything they are moving in the direction of more modularisation of bioperl into separate packages than less. > I'm going to fix this in devel; I doubt it is worth to issue a F11 update for > this bug. Sure, if you do it in devel, i'm just going to backport it for our environment anyways. Once we have this working, we can always use any patches i figure out to deploy the same to el5 if you're interested. I'll give the commenting trick a stab at work tomorrow morning. I tried forcing the install of the fedora package for perl-bioperl-run but it's got a dependency on perl 5.10 which doesn't help the situation much. I was debating doing the same anyways. (In reply to comment #3) > Sure, if you do it in devel, i'm just going to backport it for our environment > anyways. Once we have this working, we can always use any patches i figure out > to deploy the same to el5 if you're interested. Thanks! PS. I'm really glad somebody is interested in getting this ported to EPEL as others have been asking me whether they could get bioperl packaged on RHEL/EPEL/Centos, but I don't have the time, nor do I run any RHEL/Centos machines. Will this mean you will submit/maintain the package for EPEL? Also are all the other perl deps (e.g. perl-Graph etc.) now available for EPEL? Creating and maintaining all those extra EPEL branches was another reason I wasn't able to take on the task myself (although I am willing to be a co-maintainer) > I'll give the commenting trick a stab at work tomorrow morning. I tried forcing > the install of the fedora package for perl-bioperl-run but it's got a > dependency on perl 5.10 which doesn't help the situation much. I was debating > doing the same anyways. OK, no patch has been yet committed for devel (which means F-13 as F-12 is now taking updates), although any improvements on my hack in the spec file that you make will be happily filtered back to Fedora. You might also note that all active branches (rawhide, F-12, F-11) except F-10 which will be EOLed soon have moved to bioperl 1.6.1 in CVS and builds are either now in rawhide or pending for F-12 and F-11, so you may want to make your diffs/patches against that .spec not the 1.6.0 spec for perl-bioperl. Alot of packages are not, i spent half the day methodically rebuilding a bunch of packages that were missing or needed newer versions. I haven't figured out if all of them are epel, though i think some of them, including libxml2 are core packages and it might not be possible to update them without difficulty. At $dayjob we've decided to stop using cpan to install modules and to focus our efforts on building RPMs where possible. As long as i can do it within the infrastructure of Fedora/EPEL, this will be ok, and i am more than willing to take up any branches that we need to support EPEL so long i'm working at this job. Presumably if i leave, this duty will be picked up by my successor. Comaintanership is always welcome. I'll have a look at the CVS packages tommorow then. All i did was update the Version field anyways, and i'm not 100% sure the package is going to work until after i run it on our test systems and ask the researchers to break it thoroughly. (In reply to comment #6) > I'll have a look at the CVS packages tommorow then. All i did was update the > Version field anyways, and i'm not 100% sure the package is going to work until > after i run it on our test systems and ask the researchers to break it > thoroughly. Right, and a lot of the Fedora perl- packages that I maintain in order to get bioperl working need to be updated to the latest CPAN versions, but I've gotten a bit behind lately. Also harder to keep track of this since Chris Weyl's nice upstream tracker for perl packages went offline: http://perl.biggerontheinside.net/ If you happen to update the .spec for EPEL/RHEL for any Perl packages that are out of date with respect to upstream that I own/maintain, see my list here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Alexlan please send me the patches to the .spec and source files and I'll do new updates, or just check them into CVS devel branch (if you have access) and I'll do the builds for rawhide and the rest of the branches. (In reply to comment #6) > Alot of packages are not, i spent half the day methodically rebuilding a bunch > of packages that were missing or needed newer versions. I haven't figured out > if all of them are epel, though i think some of them, including libxml2 are > core packages and it might not be possible to update them without difficulty. Does libxml2 need to be updated for running bioperl? Is it that old? > At $dayjob we've decided to stop using cpan to install modules and to focus our > efforts on building RPMs where possible. As long as i can do it within the > infrastructure of Fedora/EPEL, this will be ok, and i am more than willing to > take up any branches that we need to support EPEL so long i'm working at this > job. Presumably if i leave, this duty will be picked up by my successor. Great! > Comaintanership is always welcome. Right, and actually I request that I be added as a co-maintainer of any EPEL branches of packages I own in Fedora proper, see (FAS username "alexlan"): https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/ContributorStatusNo I did have to update libxml2. I haven't tested it on all our machines to see if it breaks stuff. It definitely bears looking in to. The reason why i updated it is because the RPM required it, not because of any tests of fails. I was planing on experimenting with a rebuild with a modified RPM to see if it would still work. Follows is a list of the packages we had to rebuild to make this work. In almost all cases we had to do a simple rebuild for epel. 'umc' means that we applied our own patches. In this particular case, one of the tests was failing and i need to attach an appropriate bug report. I googled the error and it appears it might be a regression from a bug that was fixed in an earlier version, but i'm not 100% what it is. On that note, is there anything you fundamentally need todo to the spec file to once and for all solve the bootstrap problem? If not, uncommenting and then commenting code seems to work, and i feel this bug can be closed. Comments? perl-bioperl noarch 1.6.1-1.el5 centos-5-genomics 6.2 M libxml2 x86_64 2.7.6-1.el5 centos-5-genomics 854 k libxml2-python x86_64 2.7.6-1.el5 centos-5-genomics 519 k libxslt x86_64 1.1.26-1.el5 centos-5-genomics 546 k perl-Ace noarch 1.92-2.el5 centos-5-genomics 310 k perl-Bio-ASN1-EntrezGene noarch 1.091-7.el5 centos-5-genomics 41 k perl-Convert-Binary-C x86_64 0.74-1.el5 centos-5-genomics 294 k perl-Data-Stag noarch 0.11-2.el5 centos-5-genomics 185 k perl-Math-Derivative noarch 0.01-3.el5 centos-5-genomics 7.3 k perl-Math-Spline noarch 0.01-2.el5 centos-5-genomics 8.4 k perl-PostScript noarch 0.06-2.el5 centos-5-genomics 31 k perl-SVG noarch 2.44-1.el5 centos-5-genomics 82 k perl-SVG-Graph noarch 0.02-1.el5 centos-5-genomics 96 k perl-Set-Scalar noarch 1.23-2.el5 centos-5-genomics 38 k perl-XML-DOM-XPath noarch 0.14-1.el5 centos-5-genomics 11 k perl-XML-LibXSLT x86_64 1.68-3.el5 centos-5-genomics 54 k perl-XML-SAX noarch 0.96-2.el5 centos-5-genomics 78 k perl-XML-XPathEngine noarch 0.11-1.el5 centos-5-genomics 40 k perl-umc-XML-LibXML x86_64 1:1.69-3.el5 centos-5-genomics 375 k Hello Alex, (In reply to comment #2) > although I'm not sure if that's a good > idea to permanently filter them. You are right, this circular dependency makes sense, let's keep the filtering commented out in the spec. > [...] Not pretty but it works I took the liberty to convert this to the new filtering rpm macros; with that, it looks pretty elegant. (Tested, but then commented out again.) > (more requires may need to be filtered > since new requires may have been added since the first bootstrap). Actually, it seems that filtering out Bio::Tools::Run::* is enough; in any case, the comment shows the way. I think this bug could be closed as a notabug now. This message is a reminder that Fedora 11 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 30 (thirty) days from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 11. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '11'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 11's end of life. Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 11 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora please change the 'version' of this bug to the applicable version. If you are unable to change the version, please add a comment here and someone will do it for you. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. The process we are following is described here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping Fedora 11 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2010-06-25. Fedora 11 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed. |
Description of problem: perl-bioperl and perl-bioperl-run have circular build dependencies effectively While this situation is not explicit it's based on runtime only requirements enforced by the packages. It makes it hard to bootstrap this on a system that doesn't already have an earlier version of bioperl. perl-bioperl has a runtime requirement on a dependency that is fulfilled by perl-bioperl-run. perl-bioperl-run has a build time dependency on something provided by perl-bioperl. Without a perl-bioperl-run package, it's impossible to install bioperl to build a newer bioperl-run. This presents a problem when trying to bootstrap this is centos. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): perl-bioperl 1.6.1 (based of the 1.6.0 spec file with only a version change) perl-bioperl-run 1.6.1-1 How reproducible: I'm guessing it is based on theory, i haven't tried to reproduce it on a second machine. Steps to Reproduce: 1. Build a perl-bioperl package on enterprise linux 5 2. Add it to a repo your system can access. 3. Try building a perl-bioperl-run package starting with rpmbuild -bs on the .spec file. 4. Try installing perl-bioperl to fill the BR Actual results: [root@bofh016 SPECS]# rpmbuild -bs perl-bioperl-run.spec error: Failed build dependencies: perl(Bio::Root::Version) >= 1.5.9 is needed by perl-bioperl-run-1.6.1-1.noarch [root@bofh016 SPECS]# yum install perl-bioperl-1.6.1-2.el5.noarch Loaded plugins: fastestmirror Loading mirror speeds from cached hostfile * addons: archive.cs.uu.nl * base: archive.cs.uu.nl * extras: archive.cs.uu.nl * updates: archive.cs.uu.nl Setting up Install Process Resolving Dependencies --> Running transaction check ---> Package perl-bioperl.noarch 0:1.6.1-2.el5 set to be updated --> Processing Dependency: perl(Bio::Tools::Run::Phylo::Phylip::ProtPars) for package: perl-bioperl --> Processing Dependency: perl(List::MoreUtils) for package: perl-bioperl --> Processing Dependency: perl(Test::Warn) for package: perl-bioperl --> Processing Dependency: perl(Test::Exception) for package: perl-bioperl --> Processing Dependency: perl(Bio::Tools::Run::Alignment::Clustalw) for package: perl-bioperl --> Processing Dependency: perl(Bio::Tools::Run::Phylo::Molphy::ProtML) for package: perl-bioperl --> Processing Dependency: perl(Bio::Tools::Run::Phylo::Phylip::ProtDist) for package: perl-bioperl --> Processing Dependency: perl(Bio::ASN1::EntrezGene) for package: perl-bioperl --> Processing Dependency: perl(XML::Simple) for package: perl-bioperl --> Processing Dependency: perl(Bio::Tools::Run::Phylo::Phylip::Neighbor) for package: perl-bioperl --> Running transaction check ---> Package perl-List-MoreUtils.x86_64 0:0.22-2.el5 set to be updated ---> Package perl-Test-Exception.noarch 0:0.26-2.el5 set to be updated --> Processing Dependency: perl(Sub::Uplevel) for package: perl-Test-Exception ---> Package perl-Test-Warn.noarch 0:0.11-2.el5 set to be updated ---> Package perl-XML-Simple.noarch 0:2.14-4.fc6 set to be updated ---> Package perl-bioperl.noarch 0:1.6.1-2.el5 set to be updated --> Processing Dependency: perl(Bio::Tools::Run::Phylo::Phylip::ProtPars) for package: perl-bioperl --> Processing Dependency: perl(Bio::Tools::Run::Alignment::Clustalw) for package: perl-bioperl --> Processing Dependency: perl(Bio::Tools::Run::Phylo::Molphy::ProtML) for package: perl-bioperl --> Processing Dependency: perl(Bio::Tools::Run::Phylo::Phylip::ProtDist) for package: perl-bioperl --> Processing Dependency: perl(Bio::ASN1::EntrezGene) for package: perl-bioperl --> Processing Dependency: perl(Bio::Tools::Run::Phylo::Phylip::Neighbor) for package: perl-bioperl --> Running transaction check ---> Package perl-Sub-Uplevel.noarch 0:0.18-2.el5 set to be updated ---> Package perl-bioperl.noarch 0:1.6.1-2.el5 set to be updated --> Processing Dependency: perl(Bio::Tools::Run::Phylo::Phylip::ProtPars) for package: perl-bioperl --> Processing Dependency: perl(Bio::Tools::Run::Alignment::Clustalw) for package: perl-bioperl --> Processing Dependency: perl(Bio::Tools::Run::Phylo::Molphy::ProtML) for package: perl-bioperl --> Processing Dependency: perl(Bio::Tools::Run::Phylo::Phylip::ProtDist) for package: perl-bioperl --> Processing Dependency: perl(Bio::ASN1::EntrezGene) for package: perl-bioperl --> Processing Dependency: perl(Bio::Tools::Run::Phylo::Phylip::Neighbor) for package: perl-bioperl --> Finished Dependency Resolution perl-bioperl-1.6.1-2.el5.noarch from centos-5-genomics has depsolving problems --> Missing Dependency: perl(Bio::Tools::Run::Phylo::Phylip::Neighbor) is needed by package perl-bioperl-1.6.1-2.el5.noarch (centos-5-genomics) perl-bioperl-1.6.1-2.el5.noarch from centos-5-genomics has depsolving problems --> Missing Dependency: perl(Bio::Tools::Run::Phylo::Phylip::ProtPars) is needed by package perl-bioperl-1.6.1-2.el5.noarch (centos-5-genomics) perl-bioperl-1.6.1-2.el5.noarch from centos-5-genomics has depsolving problems --> Missing Dependency: perl(Bio::Tools::Run::Phylo::Phylip::ProtDist) is needed by package perl-bioperl-1.6.1-2.el5.noarch (centos-5-genomics) perl-bioperl-1.6.1-2.el5.noarch from centos-5-genomics has depsolving problems --> Missing Dependency: perl(Bio::Tools::Run::Alignment::Clustalw) is needed by package perl-bioperl-1.6.1-2.el5.noarch (centos-5-genomics) perl-bioperl-1.6.1-2.el5.noarch from centos-5-genomics has depsolving problems --> Missing Dependency: perl(Bio::ASN1::EntrezGene) is needed by package perl-bioperl-1.6.1-2.el5.noarch (centos-5-genomics) perl-bioperl-1.6.1-2.el5.noarch from centos-5-genomics has depsolving problems --> Missing Dependency: perl(Bio::Tools::Run::Phylo::Molphy::ProtML) is needed by package perl-bioperl-1.6.1-2.el5.noarch (centos-5-genomics) Error: Missing Dependency: perl(Bio::ASN1::EntrezGene) is needed by package perl-bioperl-1.6.1-2.el5.noarch (centos-5-genomics) Error: Missing Dependency: perl(Bio::Tools::Run::Alignment::Clustalw) is needed by package perl-bioperl-1.6.1-2.el5.noarch (centos-5-genomics) Error: Missing Dependency: perl(Bio::Tools::Run::Phylo::Phylip::Neighbor) is needed by package perl-bioperl-1.6.1-2.el5.noarch (centos-5-genomics) Error: Missing Dependency: perl(Bio::Tools::Run::Phylo::Molphy::ProtML) is needed by package perl-bioperl-1.6.1-2.el5.noarch (centos-5-genomics) Error: Missing Dependency: perl(Bio::Tools::Run::Phylo::Phylip::ProtDist) is needed by package perl-bioperl-1.6.1-2.el5.noarch (centos-5-genomics) Error: Missing Dependency: perl(Bio::Tools::Run::Phylo::Phylip::ProtPars) is needed by package perl-bioperl-1.6.1-2.el5.noarch (centos-5-genomics) You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem You could try running: package-cleanup --problems package-cleanup --dupes rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest Expected results: A source package Additional info: I'm going to push a fedora package to our private repo to make this work, but i'm wondering how this could be solved for EPEL in the future. Ideally we would like to run bioperl out of EPEL directly rather than running our own private builds.