Latest upstream release: 1.9.2 Current version/release in rawhide: 1.9.1-1.fc26 URL: http://www.vagrantup.com/ Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a stable branch: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy More information about the service that created this bug can be found at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added upstream. Based on the information from anitya: https://release-monitoring.org/project/5474/
An unexpected error occured creating the scratch build: please report this issue to the-new-hotness issue tracker at https://github.com/fedora-infra/the-new-hotness/issues
Latest upstream release: 1.9.3 Current version/release in rawhide: 1.9.1-2.fc26 URL: http://www.vagrantup.com/ Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a stable branch: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy More information about the service that created this bug can be found at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added upstream. Based on the information from anitya: https://release-monitoring.org/project/5474/
Latest upstream release: 1.9.4 Current version/release in rawhide: 1.9.1-2.fc26 URL: http://www.vagrantup.com/ Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a stable branch: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy More information about the service that created this bug can be found at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added upstream. Based on the information from anitya: https://release-monitoring.org/project/5474/
It seems Vagrant 1.9.4 is not working with vagrant-libvirt. https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2017-April/015825.html
Latest upstream release: 1.9.5 Current version/release in rawhide: 1.9.1-2.fc26 URL: http://www.vagrantup.com/ Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a stable branch: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy More information about the service that created this bug can be found at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added upstream. Based on the information from anitya: https://release-monitoring.org/project/5474/
Latest upstream release: 1.9.6 Current version/release in rawhide: 1.9.1-2.fc26 URL: http://www.vagrantup.com/ Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a stable branch: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy More information about the service that created this bug can be found at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added upstream. Based on the information from anitya: https://release-monitoring.org/project/5474/
Skipping the scratch build because an SRPM could not be built: ['rpmbuild', '-D', '_sourcedir .', '-D', '_topdir .', '-bs', u'/var/tmp/thn-hmlzzP/vagrant.spec'] returned 1: error: line 62: Unknown tag: Recommends: vagrant(vagrant-libvirt)
Latest upstream release: 1.9.7 Current version/release in rawhide: 1.9.1-2.fc26 URL: http://www.vagrantup.com/ Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a stable branch: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy More information about the service that created this bug can be found at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added upstream. Based on the information from anitya: https://release-monitoring.org/project/5474/
Skipping the scratch build because an SRPM could not be built: ['rpmbuild', '-D', '_sourcedir .', '-D', '_topdir .', '-bs', u'/var/tmp/thn-DTf0A8/vagrant.spec'] returned 1: error: line 62: Unknown tag: Recommends: vagrant(vagrant-libvirt)
Created attachment 1301747 [details] Update to Vagrant 1.9.7. Attached is patch for update to 1.9.7. Tests are however failing and I do not have time to fix them. ``` DEBUG: 1) Vagrant::Util::Env with valid environment variables should execute block with original environment variables DEBUG: Failure/Error: expect(ENV["VAGRANT_TEST"]).to be_nil DEBUG: expected: nil DEBUG: got: "1" DEBUG: # ./test/unit/vagrant/util/env_test.rb:17:in `block (4 levels) in <top (required)>' DEBUG: # ./lib/vagrant/util/env.rb:10:in `with_original_env' DEBUG: # ./test/unit/vagrant/util/env_test.rb:16:in `block (3 levels) in <top (required)>' DEBUG: 2) Vagrant::Util::Env with valid environment variables should replace environment variables after executing block DEBUG: Failure/Error: expect(ENV["VAGRANT_TEST"]).to be_nil DEBUG: expected: nil DEBUG: got: "1" DEBUG: # ./test/unit/vagrant/util/env_test.rb:23:in `block (4 levels) in <top (required)>' DEBUG: # ./lib/vagrant/util/env.rb:10:in `with_original_env' DEBUG: # ./test/unit/vagrant/util/env_test.rb:22:in `block (3 levels) in <top (required)>' DEBUG: 3) Vagrant::Util::SSH#exec raises an exception if the platform is windows and uses PuTTY Link DEBUG: Failure/Error: expect { described_class.exec(ssh_info) }. DEBUG: expected Vagrant::Errors::SSHIsPuttyLink, got #<Vagrant::Errors::SSHUnavailableWindows: `ssh` executable not found in any directories in the %PATH% variable. Is an DEBUG: SSH client installed? Try installing Cygwin, MinGW or Git, all of which DEBUG: contain an SSH client. Or use your favorite SSH client with the following DEBUG: authentication information shown below: DEBUG: DEBUG: Host: localhost DEBUG: Port: 2222 DEBUG: Username: vagrant DEBUG: Private key: /tmp/vagrant-temporary-dir20170720-29287-engbh8/tempfile> with backtrace: DEBUG: # ./lib/vagrant/util/ssh.rb:72:in `exec' DEBUG: # ./test/unit/vagrant/util/ssh_test.rb:61:in `block (4 levels) in <top (required)>' DEBUG: # ./test/unit/vagrant/util/ssh_test.rb:61:in `block (3 levels) in <top (required)>' DEBUG: # ./test/unit/vagrant/util/ssh_test.rb:61:in `block (3 levels) in <top (required)>' DEBUG: 4) Vagrant::Util::SSH#exec invokes SSH with options if subprocess is not allowed DEBUG: Failure/Error: expect(described_class.exec(ssh_info)).to eq(nil) DEBUG: Vagrant::Errors::SSHUnavailable: DEBUG: `ssh` binary could not be found. Is an SSH client installed? DEBUG: # ./lib/vagrant/util/ssh.rb:79:in `exec' DEBUG: # ./test/unit/vagrant/util/ssh_test.rb:68:in `block (3 levels) in <top (required)>' DEBUG: 5) Vagrant::Util::SSH#exec when disabling compression or dsa_authentication flags does not include compression or dsa_authentication flags if disabled DEBUG: Failure/Error: expect(described_class.exec(ssh_info)).to eq(nil) DEBUG: Vagrant::Errors::SSHUnavailable: DEBUG: `ssh` binary could not be found. Is an SSH client installed? DEBUG: # ./lib/vagrant/util/ssh.rb:79:in `exec' DEBUG: # ./test/unit/vagrant/util/ssh_test.rb:86:in `block (4 levels) in <top (required)>' DEBUG: 6) Vagrant::Util::SSH#exec when paranoid is true does not disable StrictHostKeyChecking or set UserKnownHostsFile DEBUG: Failure/Error: expect(described_class.exec(ssh_info)).to eq(nil) DEBUG: Vagrant::Errors::SSHUnavailable: DEBUG: `ssh` binary could not be found. Is an SSH client installed? DEBUG: # ./lib/vagrant/util/ssh.rb:79:in `exec' DEBUG: # ./test/unit/vagrant/util/ssh_test.rb:104:in `block (4 levels) in <top (required)>' DEBUG: 7) Vagrant::Util::SSH#exec when not on solaris not using plain mode or with keys_only enabled adds IdentitiesOnly as an option for ssh DEBUG: Failure/Error: expect(described_class.exec(ssh_info, {plain_mode: true})).to eq(nil) DEBUG: Vagrant::Errors::SSHUnavailable: DEBUG: `ssh` binary could not be found. Is an SSH client installed? DEBUG: # ./lib/vagrant/util/ssh.rb:79:in `exec' DEBUG: # ./test/unit/vagrant/util/ssh_test.rb:123:in `block (4 levels) in <top (required)>' DEBUG: 8) Vagrant::Util::SSH#exec when forward_x11 is enabled enables ForwardX11 options DEBUG: Failure/Error: expect(described_class.exec(ssh_info)).to eq(nil) DEBUG: Vagrant::Errors::SSHUnavailable: DEBUG: `ssh` binary could not be found. Is an SSH client installed? DEBUG: # ./lib/vagrant/util/ssh.rb:79:in `exec' DEBUG: # ./test/unit/vagrant/util/ssh_test.rb:141:in `block (4 levels) in <top (required)>' DEBUG: 9) Vagrant::Util::SSH#exec when forward_agent is enabled enables agent forwarding options DEBUG: Failure/Error: expect(described_class.exec(ssh_info)).to eq(nil) DEBUG: Vagrant::Errors::SSHUnavailable: DEBUG: `ssh` binary could not be found. Is an SSH client installed? DEBUG: # ./lib/vagrant/util/ssh.rb:79:in `exec' DEBUG: # ./test/unit/vagrant/util/ssh_test.rb:159:in `block (4 levels) in <top (required)>' DEBUG: 10) Vagrant::Util::SSH#exec with subprocess enabled executes SSH in a subprocess with options and returns an exit code Fixnum DEBUG: Failure/Error: expect(described_class.exec(ssh_info, {subprocess: true})).to eq(0) DEBUG: Vagrant::Errors::SSHUnavailable: DEBUG: `ssh` binary could not be found. Is an SSH client installed? DEBUG: # ./lib/vagrant/util/ssh.rb:79:in `exec' DEBUG: # ./test/unit/vagrant/util/ssh_test.rb:184:in `block (4 levels) in <top (required)>' ``` Installing 'openssh-clients' to the buildroot seems to fix most of those (first 2 are remaining), but I am not sure that is a valid solution, because those seem to be windows-like failures. AFAICT rubygem(net-ssh) implementation should be used on Fedora instead.
Created attachment 1301775 [details] Update to Vagrant 1.9.7. (newer specs and removed nokogiri dependency) Attached is another patch to update Vagrant to 1.9.7 (newer specs and removed nokogiri dependency). The failures stay the same as in previous comment, unfortunately.
Pavel, is your branch available somewhere that I can pull from?
Aron, well, I will make a private branch in Fedora then :). Alternatively, applying the attached 'Update' patch to current rawhide git repo should give you the same result.
You can find the branch in branch private-pvalena-updates[1]. Unfortunately, I forgot there was a Mass Rebuild, so the branch is not fast-forwardable on master. But for developement it does not matter. [1] http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/vagrant.git/?h=private-pvalena-updates
Latest upstream release: 1.9.8 Current version/release in rawhide: 1.9.1-3.fc27 URL: http://www.vagrantup.com/ Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a stable branch: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy More information about the service that created this bug can be found at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added upstream. Based on the information from anitya: https://release-monitoring.org/project/5474/
Skipping the scratch build because an SRPM could not be built: ['rpmbuild', '-D', '_sourcedir .', '-D', '_topdir .', '-bs', u'/var/tmp/thn-JOXbqF/vagrant.spec'] returned 1: error: line 62: Unknown tag: Recommends: vagrant(vagrant-libvirt)
It seems the failures have been fixed with new release.
Pavel, that's great to hear. Sorry I went silent after you provided your branch at my request. I just got sucked into some work projects and couldn't make time. :-( Does this also mean we can integrate the work on https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1444492
Yes, I'm working on it now. You can expect new release soon and I think I'll build it for (recently branched) f27 too.
Pavel, is this the right place to be watching? https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=19808 I've never quite gotten the hang of Fedora infra...
(In reply to Aron Griffis from comment #23) > Pavel, is this the right place to be watching? Watching this ticket is the right place. Of course you can watch Koji and Bodhi for stable (or stabilizing) releases.
Aron, please give it a try if you can spare some time: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=21528097 http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/rpms/vagrant/commits/private-pvalena-updates
I rebuilt on F26 and installed successfully, but vagrant.gemspec has s.add_dependency "childprocess", "~> 0.6.0" and this isn't available on F26 at least. I don't see it for Rawhide either but maybe I'm missing something: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=12381 The spec seems to be in conflict: Requires: rubygem(childprocess) >= 0.5.0 Requires: rubygem(childprocess) < 0.6 Regarding the binstub, I noticed you used a different approach from my patch... mine: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=12381 yours: http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/rpms/vagrant/c/cb7af6ea0f1868e0db9498e17af18ab2497518fe?branch=private-pvalena-updates I guess it doesn't really matter where you put the default policy, in the binstub or /etc/default/vagrant, but it would be nice to allow the operator to set VAGRANT_PREFERRED_PROVIDERS="" meaningfully: if [ -z ${VAGRANT_PREFERRED_PROVIDERS+empty} ]; then VAGRANT_PREFERRED_PROVIDERS=libvirt,docker fi If you're unfamiliar with the details of this syntax, you can see a very old blog post of mine: https://blogs.gentoo.org/agriffis/2006/03/01/bash_default_alternate_values/ Hmm, maybe a cleaner approach is this: # Set VAGRANT_PREFERRED_PROVIDERS if unset. : ${VAGRANT_PREFERRED_PROVIDERS=libvirt,docker} export VAGRANT_PREFERRED_PROVIDERS
(In reply to Aron Griffis from comment #26) > I rebuilt on F26 and installed successfully, but vagrant.gemspec has > > s.add_dependency "childprocess", "~> 0.6.0" > > and this isn't available on F26 at least. I don't see it for Rawhide either > but maybe I'm missing something: > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=12381 You are right, there is just older childprocess in Fedora. And there is 0.7.1 upstream. Anyway, the older childprocess should probably still good enough. The restriction applies just to Windows according to this ticket: https://github.com/mitchellh/vagrant/issues/8415 > The spec seems to be in conflict: > > Requires: rubygem(childprocess) >= 0.5.0 > Requires: rubygem(childprocess) < 0.6 Well, yes ... it is. It allows to install whatever childprocess version :/ Typically, there should be implicit "and" between the Requires, but it does not apply to versioned requires. Hopefully will be soon able to use the new "with" .spec file syntax available since RPM 4.14 (F27+) and (un)approved by FPC: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/705 But sofar, I'd probably go with: ~~~ s.add_dependency "childprocess", ">= 0.5.0" ~~~ and ~~~ Requires: rubygem(childprocess) >= 0.5.0 ~~~ > Regarding the binstub, I noticed you used a different approach from my > patch... > > mine: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=12381 > yours: > http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/rpms/vagrant/c/ > cb7af6ea0f1868e0db9498e17af18ab2497518fe?branch=private-pvalena-updates > > I guess it doesn't really matter where you put the default policy, in the > binstub or /etc/default/vagrant, I think it is better to keep it in binstub for two reasons: 1) I am not convinced that the /etc/default is the best place. 2) We don't need to maintain that file. > but it would be nice to allow the operator > to set VAGRANT_PREFERRED_PROVIDERS="" meaningfully: > > if [ -z ${VAGRANT_PREFERRED_PROVIDERS+empty} ]; then > VAGRANT_PREFERRED_PROVIDERS=libvirt,docker > fi This is neat trick. Definitely needed in this case! > > If you're unfamiliar with the details of this syntax, you can see a very old > blog post of mine: > https://blogs.gentoo.org/agriffis/2006/03/01/bash_default_alternate_values/ > > Hmm, maybe a cleaner approach is this: > > # Set VAGRANT_PREFERRED_PROVIDERS if unset. > : ${VAGRANT_PREFERRED_PROVIDERS=libvirt,docker} > export VAGRANT_PREFERRED_PROVIDERS Not very readable to me ...
(In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #27) > But sofar, I'd probably go with: > > ~~~ > s.add_dependency "childprocess", ">= 0.5.0" > ~~~ > > and > > ~~~ > Requires: rubygem(childprocess) >= 0.5.0 > ~~~ Cool. I tweaked vagrant.gemspec after install just to test, and everything seems to be working well. > > if [ -z ${VAGRANT_PREFERRED_PROVIDERS+empty} ]; then > > VAGRANT_PREFERRED_PROVIDERS=libvirt,docker > > fi > > This is neat trick. Definitely needed in this case! 👍 > > Hmm, maybe a cleaner approach is this: > > > > # Set VAGRANT_PREFERRED_PROVIDERS if unset. > > : ${VAGRANT_PREFERRED_PROVIDERS=libvirt,docker} > > export VAGRANT_PREFERRED_PROVIDERS > > Not very readable to me ... Ha! I've always liked that approach because it's a little DRYer, but it can be confusing to people reading the code later on. :-) Thanks Pavel and Vít, looking forward to seeing the update!
Aron, Vit, in case you can spare some time, PTAL: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/vagrant/pull-request/1 I hope I've reflected all your comments in the PR. WDYT?
Hey Pavel, it looks great to me! If you're interested, this line: VAGRANT_HOME=${VAGRANT_HOME:-$(eval echo "~/.vagrant.d")} could just be VAGRANT_HOME=${VAGRANT_HOME:-~/.vagrant.d} There's no need for the eval/echo since bash will expand the tilde in-place.
Thanks! I can confirm the VAGRANT_PREFERRED_PROVIDERS work as expected. ``` # vagrant init -fm fedora/26-cloud-base # echo $VAGRANT_PREFERRED_PROVIDERS # vagrant up Bringing machine 'default' up with 'libvirt' provider... ==> default: Box 'fedora/26-cloud-base' could not be found. Attempting to find and install... default: Box Provider: libvirt [ . . . ] # export VAGRANT_PREFERRED_PROVIDERS=virtualbox # vagrant up Bringing machine 'default' up with 'virtualbox' provider... ==> default: Box 'fedora/26-cloud-base' could not be found. Attempting to find and install... default: Box Provider: virtualbox [ . . . ] # export VAGRANT_PREFERRED_PROVIDERS= # vagrant up Bringing machine 'default' up with 'virtualbox' provider... ==> default: Box 'fedora/26-cloud-base' could not be found. Attempting to find and install... default: Box Provider: virtualbox [ . . . ] ``` I've tried docker setup too. Works without any ENV specification.
Ship it! 👍
Latest upstream release: 2.0.0 Current version/release in rawhide: 1.9.1-3.fc27 URL: http://www.vagrantup.com/ Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a stable branch: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy More information about the service that created this bug can be found at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added upstream. Based on the information from anitya: https://release-monitoring.org/project/5474/
Skipping the scratch build because an SRPM could not be built: ['rpmbuild', '-D', '_sourcedir .', '-D', '_topdir .', '-bs', u'/var/tmp/thn-RBzSpS/vagrant.spec'] returned 1: error: line 62: Unknown tag: Recommends: vagrant(vagrant-libvirt)
Latest upstream release: 2.0.1 Current version/release in rawhide: 1.9.8-1.fc28 URL: http://www.vagrantup.com/ Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a stable branch: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy More information about the service that created this bug can be found at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added upstream. Based on the information from anitya: https://release-monitoring.org/project/5474/
Skipping the scratch build because an SRPM could not be built: ['rpmbuild', '-D', '_sourcedir .', '-D', '_topdir .', '-bs', u'/var/tmp/thn-fTjD0C/vagrant.spec'] returned 1: error: line 57: Unknown tag: Recommends: vagrant(vagrant-libvirt)
Hi, any plan to update the package to version 2.X ?
Hello Rabin, yes, Vagrant 2.0.1 will land in Rawhide soon. You can try it now, if you want, installing rpms from the scratch-build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=23552906 A bit of additional testing is, in fact, the only thing that's missing. Let me know if you experience any issues. Changes: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/vagrant/pull-request/2
Hi! Any chances to get it in f27 ?
(In reply to Daniel Boiko from comment #39) > Hi! Any chances to get it in f27 ? We typically don't update Vagrant in stable releases, unless you persuade us by well reasoned arguments ...
https://github.com/hashicorp/vagrant/pull/8945 This PR fix my issue with duplicated lines in /etc/exports. Without this path I have to edit it manually then restart nfs-server. :( Issue itself: https://github.com/hashicorp/vagrant/issues/4666
Off course, we can patch 1.9.8. What the best approach ? upstream or patch ?
(In reply to Daniel Boiko from comment #42) > Off course, we can patch 1.9.8. What the best approach ? upstream or patch ? This looks simple enough for backport, so patch is preferred. PR for that is even better ;)
I am also voting for an update for Fedora 27. I recently discovered when you have the latest kernel (4.14.3-300) you need the latest Virtualbox (5.2.2) and you need Vagrant 2.0.1 to support Virtualbox 5.2.x. This is only one working combination but it combines the latest versions and it works. Let me know if I can help you with something.
(In reply to Lumír Balhar from comment #44) > I am also voting for an update for Fedora 27. I recently discovered when you > have the latest kernel (4.14.3-300) you need the latest Virtualbox (5.2.2) > and you need Vagrant 2.0.1 to support Virtualbox 5.2.x. This is only one > working combination but it combines the latest versions and it works. > > Let me know if I can help you with something. I agree with you on updating F27 as well: - Vagrant 2.0.1 update includes compatibility for Ruby 2.4, that we have in F27 - there're no breaking changes that I know of, and the diff is relatively short[1] - the vagrant.spec is identical to Rawhide one and not much time elapsed since 27 GA I'd very much appreciate help testing it. I already made a scratch-build[2]. [1] https://github.com/hashicorp/vagrant/compare/v1.9.8...v2.0.1 [2] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=23794992
Running the above version on F27 and VirtualBox-5.1.30-2.fc27.x86_64 with the following plugins vagrant-compose (0.7.5) vagrant-hostmanager (1.8.7) vagrant-share (1.1.9, system) so far it seems to work like normal.
Update landed in Rawhide. For Fedora 27 you can follow the PR[1]. [1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/vagrant/pull-request/4