Bug 657323
Summary: | could not parse header in rpm changelog | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Charles R. Anderson <cra> |
Component: | gnome-packagekit | Assignee: | Richard Hughes <richard> |
Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | low | ||
Version: | 14 | CC: | nphilipp, rhughes, richard |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
OS: | Unspecified | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2012-08-16 20:01:20 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: |
Description
Charles R. Anderson
2010-11-25 13:33:05 UTC
If Nils doesn't put the version number in the changelog then there's no way PackageKit can filter the results to something sane. Not putting description text in bohdi is bad, not putting description text in bodhi and then not providing a parseable changelog is worse. If we want to give our users a non-laughable update experience, we have to start caring a bit more about the update details we give. Sorry to be blunt. Given that package changelogs were never designed to be parsed the way PackageKit is doing, and yet it is attempting to do it anyway, I believe this principle applies even moreso: Be conservative in what you send; be liberal in what you accept[1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robustness_principle So yes, perhaps Nils should put version numbers in changelog entries. But also, PackageKit should accept changelog entries without version numbers. Just spitting out an error message and stopping the parse there doesn't contribute to providing a "non-laughable update experience" either. What exactly is the insurmountable problem of parsing that PackageKit can't overcome? Why can't it treat the version number in the changelog as optional, and gracefully proceed if it is missing? Should I work up a patch that does this? Or, alternatively, why don't we change all our tools to enforce the requirement of having a version in the changelog entries if that is the One True Way(tm)? rpmlint, rpmbuild, koji, bodhi are possible enforcement points for this. I agree that some of the details in the changelog are probably not that interesting to users, I've filled in the update details in bodhi accordingly. However, gnome-packagekit shouldn't barf on version-less changelog entries as e.g. the reason for this one was that there was no package built from that change, i.e. it was queued up for the subsequent -5 release. I'd suggest that gnome-packagekit simply continues looking for the last released version in the following changelog entries in this situation instead. Mind that arbitrarily formatted, grandfathered changelog entries may appear in packages imported into Fedora from elsewhere. This message is a notice that Fedora 14 is now at end of life. Fedora has stopped maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 14. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At this time, all open bugs with a Fedora 'version' of '14' have been closed as WONTFIX. (Please note: Our normal process is to give advanced warning of this occurring, but we forgot to do that. A thousand apologies.) Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, feel free to reopen this bug and simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were unable to fix it before Fedora 14 reached 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, you are encouraged to click on "Clone This Bug" (top right of this page) and open it against that version of Fedora. 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 |