Bug 160917 - gda-postgres has bad dependency info
gda-postgres has bad dependency info
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: libgda (Show other bugs)
4
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Hans de Goede
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
:
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2005-06-18 11:31 EDT by Michael Tiemann
Modified: 2007-11-30 17:11 EST (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version: 1.2.0-6
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2005-06-21 05:05:18 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Michael Tiemann 2005-06-18 11:31:14 EDT
Description of problem:

The gda-postgres component is advertised as a Fedora Extras component, but is
not listed, so I'm filing against what I believe is a related package.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

1.2.0, release 5


How reproducible:


Steps to Reproduce:
1. Install FC4
2. Run up2date (no options) and select all packages
3. ...or run yum update (no options) and let it run
  
Actual results:

Both up2date and yum think they are happy with updating gda-postgres, but when
they try to run the transaction tests, they find a dependence on libpq.so.3 that
they cannot resolve.  Neither of them can figure out what package is supposed to
satisfy this dependency.  Both abort.

Expected results:


Additional info:
Comment 1 Michael Schwendt 2005-06-18 16:26:16 EDT
libgda has not been rebuilt after postgres jumped to .so.4 in Rawhide.

[Bugzilla component "libgda" is correct, because it's common practice to use the
src.rpm name for bugzilla components. The unusual thing about it, which I
believe is a bug and an unfortunate choice of package names, are the
sub-packages: gda-mysql, gda-odbc, gda-postgres -- these depend on their mother
package "libgda" and extend it with plugins. Naming them "libgda-mysql,
libgda-odbc, libgda-postgres" would have been better.]
Comment 2 Hans de Goede 2005-06-19 12:53:22 EDT
1) Are we talking about Extras for FC4 or extras for rawhide?
   Michael you're talking about Rawhide, but the bug is filed against 4.

2) About changing the names, I agree, how would I do that?
   Provides and Conflicts with the old names? Should I do anything with
   version no's in the Provides and Conflicts?
Comment 3 Michael Schwendt 2005-06-19 13:26:26 EDT
For this one, rawhide = fedora core 4 development, of course (fc5 is far far
away and rather unimportant at this point in time).

No "Conflicts"! Package renaming should be done via:

  Obsoletes: oldname < %{version}-%{release}
  Provides: oldname = %{version}-%{release}

The corresponding versioned "Provides" for the %{name} is implicit/automatic.
Comment 4 Hans de Goede 2005-06-21 05:05:18 EDT
I've requested a rebuild for FC-4 which should result in libgda-1.2.0-5.1

For devel I've changed the names for the database providers from gda-xxx to
libgda-xxx and requested a built which should result in libgda-1.2.0-6

Closing.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.