Bug 727583
| Summary: | fileconflicts failure in 16-Alpha.TC1 DVDs - report/libreport | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Bill Nottingham <notting> |
| Component: | libreport | Assignee: | Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | awilliam, dennis, dvlasenk, gavin, hoyang, jmoskovc, kklic, mlichvar, mtoman, npajkovs, robatino, rvokal, tflink |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | AcceptedBlocker | ||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | 727402 | Environment: | |
| Last Closed: | 2011-08-08 19:06:35 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: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | 727402 | ||
| Bug Blocks: | 713560 | ||
|
Description
Bill Nottingham
2011-08-02 14:22:48 UTC
libreport-2.0.5-2 obsoletes report < 0.23-1 so even they have the same files, it shouldn't be possible to hit a file conflict. Should report be blocked and retired? This squarely hits the following Fedora 16 alpha release criterion [1]: There must be no file conflicts (cases where the files in some packages conflict but the packages have explicit Conflicts: tags are acceptable) or unresolved package dependencies during a media-based (DVD) install. +1 Alpha Blocker [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_16_Alpha_Release_Criteria jiri: does it also provide everything 'report' provided? if not, other things may still bring in report as a dependency. orphaning another package doesn't automatically kill it. These packages depend on report: setroubleshoot-0:3.0.31-1.fc15.x86_64 python-meh-0:0.11-2.fc15.noarch -> anaconda-0:15.31-1.fc15.x86_64 -> firstboot-0:1.119-1.fc15.x86_64 -> system-config-kickstart-0:2.8.7-2.fc15.noarch I tested sealert and Anaconda (works with git version, I will push a new update to Fedora today). Will try the rest of the packages today - they should work as they use report thru python-meh as Anaconda does. And I try to reach gavin (the report maintainer) to discuss retiring report. Btw, the libreport obsoletes report package and I didn't hit any conflicts updating to libreport when I had report installed, so even these packages have the same files, it's not possible to hit the file conflict. oh, I see, if there is a newer report version released then it will conflict on update... yeah, that sounds like it could be the issue, if the obsoletes was versioned (as it should be). the other situation can be like this: package 'foo' provides 'acme' package 'newfoo' obsoletes package 'foo', but does not provide 'acme' package 'bar' depends on 'acme' package 'bar' is on the DVD in that case, 'foo' will be pulled into the DVD even though 'newfoo' obsoletes it (and there are other, similar circumstances where the above case causes problems). that's why packages which obsolete other packages should usually provide everything they provide too. -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers Discussed in the 2011-08-05 blocker review meeting. Accepted as a Fedora 16 alpha blocker as it violates the following alpha release criterion [1]: There must be no file conflicts (cases where the files in some packages conflict but the packages have explicit Conflicts: tags are acceptable) or unresolved package dependencies during a media-based (DVD) install. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_16_Alpha_Release_Criteria I believe we can close this as RC1 has superseded TC1 and we have a new ticket for RC1 file conflicts: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728657 . |