Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 1463408
Last modified: 2017-07-07 18:56:46 EDT
Please follow https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Renaming.2FReplacing_Existing_Packages
Specifically, the following:
"Please include information on which packages need to be obsoleted, the exact versions which need to be obsoleted, and the reasons why they cannot be allowed to remain installed."
Per the linked bug, there are no F26 packages for devassistant, Miro (the current maintainer according to Tomas Radej), has said:
"Devassistant was entirely removed as a dead project from Fedora 26+."
Fedora 25 devassistant packages:
Additional Fedora 24 devassistant packages that linger after a F24 -> F25 upgrade and have to be uninstalled if present to complete a F25 -> F26 upgrade:
I can provide the exact versions that were uninstalled at the specific time I upgraded to F26, but I'm not sure that makes sense, since there may be upgraders who have older/newer versions.
Linking to another ticket is not sufficient. I need to have everything documented here before I can proceed, including the versions of the various packages which need to be obsoleted. One of the maintainers of the now-obsolete packages should provide that information.
> One of the maintainers of the now-obsolete packages should provide that information.
Yep, absolutely, I agree. NEEDINFO-ing him and bowing out entirely.
> including the versions of the various packages which need to be obsoleted
Should be versionless AFAICS ("Obsoletes: devassistant" etc.) since F26 won't satisfy any version's dependencies, but I'll let $other_people work that out :)
Versionless obsoletes are not permitted and in any case will never be used in fedora-obsolete-packages.
None of us can predict the future. The package could potentially return, and if the Obsoletes: are done properly this will not cause any issues.
Hi. I have retired all those packages. Please note that obsoleting them from fedora-obsolete-package was not mentioned at all at  and since it probably has to be done, I think the information should be presented there.
I don't intend to bump this in Fedora 24 or 25, so if noone does anything crazy, the following list with version-release should work fine:
Obsoletes: dap2rpm <= 0.1.11-4
Obsoletes: devassistant-cli <= 0.11.2-7
Obsoletes: devassistant-core <= 0.11.2-7
Obsoletes: devassistant-dap-common_args <= 0.10.0-9
Obsoletes: devassistant-dap-cpp <= 0.11-3
Obsoletes: devassistant-dap-custom <= 0.10.0-9
Obsoletes: devassistant-dap-c <= 0.11-3
Obsoletes: devassistant-dap-devassistant <= 0.11-3
Obsoletes: devassistant-dap-docker <= 0.11-3
Obsoletes: devassistant-dap-eclipse <= 0.10.0dev-10
Obsoletes: devassistant-dap-github <= 0.10.1-9
Obsoletes: devassistant-dap-git <= 0.11-3
Obsoletes: devassistant-dap-java <= 0.11.1-3
Obsoletes: devassistant-dap-nodejs <= 0.11-3
Obsoletes: devassistant-dap-openscad <= 0.0.3-3
Obsoletes: devassistant-dap-perl <= 0.11-3
Obsoletes: devassistant-dap-php <= 0.11-3
Obsoletes: devassistant-dap-python <= 0.11-3
Obsoletes: devassistant-dap-ruby <= 0.11-3
Obsoletes: devassistant-dap-tito <= 0.10.0dev-8
Obsoletes: devassistant-dap-vim <= 0.10.0dev-8
Obsoletes: devassistant-devel <= 0.11.2-7
Obsoletes: devassistant-gui <= 0.11.2-7
Obsoletes: devassistant <= 0.11.2-7
Obsoletes: python-dapp <= 0.3.0-5
Obsoletes: python-dap2rpm <= 0.1.11-4
Obsoletes: python3-dapp <= 0.3.0-5
Obsoletes: python3-dap2rpm <= 0.1.11-4
I added a reference to the wiki page.
I will add the above obsoletes to fedora-obsolete-packages for F26 and rawhide.
> I added a reference to the wiki page.
Can I suggest adding something like "for example, if the packages' dependencies will no longer be satisfied" to highlight the necessity in that case?
I don't honestly know what the various update methods will have issues with. I just want to keep the set of obsoletes in this package down to the absolute minimum.
The page is open for editing to all cla/fpca+1 contributors so if you want to go into detail and are certain that those details are correct then feel free.
I'm not an anything ;)
I'm not 100% sure about it, I just originally saw that F25->F26 upgrade (via dnf) threw errors about devassistant (because of no-longer-satisfied Python dependencies) so there seems there might be a missing signpost for preventing that (e.g. via devassistant) - hence Miro pointing out that it wasn't documented.
The thought behind it was just avoiding the same thing in future.
fedora-obsolete-packages-26-3 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-7ac24368c6
fedora-obsolete-packages-26-3 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-7ac24368c6
Proposed as a Freeze Exception for 26-final by Fedora user tibbs using the blocker tracking app because:
Again I was away and wasn't able to push a pending update.
An update to fedora-obsolete-packages is required to avoid dependency issues with the devassistant package which may prevent users from being able to update from F24/F25 to F26.
Discussed at 2017-06-29 freeze exception review meeting: https://meetbot-raw.fedoraproject.org/fedora-blocker-review/2017-06-29/f26-blocker-review.2017-06-29-16.00.html . Rejected as a freeze exception issue, we think just pushing this as a 0-day update would be fine. It's easy enough for folks who want to upgrade early to use --allowerasing , or remove devassistant manually first.
fedora-obsolete-packages-26-3 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.