Bug 847803
Summary: | fileconflicts failure on 18 Alpha TC1 DVDs (libpng/libpng12) | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Andre Robatino <robatino> |
Component: | libpng12 | Assignee: | Tom Lane <tgl> |
Status: | CLOSED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | unspecified | ||
Version: | 18 | CC: | awilliam, hhorak, tgl |
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: | 2012-08-14 02:00:59 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: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 752654 |
Description
Andre Robatino
2012-08-13 15:38:49 UTC
Sorry, that should read i386 DVD: == Package conflicts == 2:libpng-devel-1.5.12-1.fc18.i686 libpng12-devel-1.2.50-1.fc18.i686 x86_64 DVD: == Package conflicts == 2:libpng-devel-1.5.12-1.fc18.x86_64 libpng12-devel-1.2.50-1.fc18.x86_64 libpng12-devel specifically bears the notation "Conflicts: libpng-devel", and there really is not a way around that since they each need to provide /usr/include/png.h. So my opinion is that this is not a bug. If it's a problem for making the DVDs, I would suggest leaving libpng12-devel off the DVDs. Nope, if there's an explicit Conflicts: tag then it does not violate the release criteria. Andre, can you take a quick look when coming across these in future to see if there's an explicit Conflicts: tag in either package before filing a bug? Thanks! Andre: note that the potential_conflicts.py script shows File Conflicts and Package Conflicts separately; if I'm reading it right, I think only things listed under File Conflicts are potentially problematic. I don't think things listed under Package Conflicts are a problem. (In reply to comment #4) > Andre: note that the potential_conflicts.py script shows File Conflicts and > Package Conflicts separately; if I'm reading it right, I think only things > listed under File Conflicts are potentially problematic. I don't think > things listed under Package Conflicts are a problem. The current version of the page says Expected Results The potential_conflict.py script completes successfully No package or file conflicts were detected for packages included in the media kit In an earlier version of the page, Rhe said "No file conflicts were detected for packages included in the media kit, unless the conflicting packages also have explicit Conflicts: tags", but then reverted it (see https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=QA:Testcase_Mediakit_FileConflicts&diff=prev&oldid=193334 ). In any case I changed my fileconflicts results for TC1 to PASS, and the result is the same for TC2. |