Bug 698638
| Summary: | Broken dependency on deprecated hal | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Nicola Soranzo <nsoranzo> |
| Component: | gnome-vfs2 | Assignee: | Tomáš Bžatek <tbzatek> |
| Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | nphilipp, tbzatek, tsmetana |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | gnome-vfs2-2.24.4-6.fc16 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2011-04-26 08:16:13 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
Nicola Soranzo
2011-04-21 13:01:07 UTC
(In reply to comment #0) > The hal package is already deprecated and blocked from composes for rawhide. Nice! > If these dependencies cannot be removed, this package should probably be > deprecated as well I'll check, there are some applications that are fully dependent on gnome-vfs2. Killing it won't be easy for F16. (In reply to comment #1) > > If these dependencies cannot be removed, this package should probably be > > deprecated as well > > I'll check, there are some applications that are fully dependent on gnome-vfs2. > Killing it won't be easy for F16. Yes, I know, there are >100 packages requiring gnome-vfs2! Anyway, the goal of Matthias Clasen is to get rid of gnome-vfs2, at least from the Desktop spin: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-March/149572.html I'm adding Nils Philippsen in CC to this bug, it looks like he is working on this: http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=gnome-vfs2.git;a=commitdiff;h=e60ff519b11c3d557cd85110acaf84411de54661 BTW, I'm not sure this part of his commit is correct: +# don't use HAL from F-16 on +%if 0%{?fedora} >= 16 || 0%{?rhel} >= 7 +%bcond_with hal +%else +%bcond_without hal +%endif Should "%bcond_with hal" and "%bcond_without hal" be inverted? (In reply to comment #3) > Should "%bcond_with hal" and "%bcond_without hal" be inverted? Seems to do the job, gnome-vfs2-2.24.4-6.fc16 has been built properly without hal. (In reply to comment #2) > Yes, I know, there are >100 packages requiring gnome-vfs2! Yeah, repoquery yells an insane amount of packages. (In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #3) > > Should "%bcond_with hal" and "%bcond_without hal" be inverted? > > Seems to do the job, gnome-vfs2-2.24.4-6.fc16 has been built properly without > hal. Yes, I noticed, but I suppose that this is happening because it has been rebuilt after hal was removed from rawhide. I fear that when/if gnome-vfs2 will be rebuilt for Fedora < 16, hal support will be removed also there. The logic of the %bcond_with/_without macros is peculiar, probably 100% against what you would expect. This is what /usr/lib/rpm/macros has to say about it: ... # Handle conditional builds. %bcond_with is for case when feature is # default off and needs to be activated with --with ... command line # switch. %bcond_without is for the dual case. ... In this case it means that somebody would need to specify "--with hal" to build the package with HAL support from F-16 on, the default is without. |