Enhancement: available vagrant component on Fedora's repository is currently v.2.1.2 (June 26, 2018); since then seven newer versions have been released; last one available on author's web site is v.2.2.3 (January 9, 2019). Will it be up-to-date for Fedora as well? Additional info: $ rpm -qi vagrant (...) Source RPM : vagrant-2.1.2-3.fc29.src.rpm Build Date : Mon 29 Oct 2018 16:33:17 CET
Yes, the update is WIP. Please see more detail including Copr builds here: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/vagrant/pull-request/17
On page from suggested link, last available vagrant package version is currently 2.2.0 (October 16, 2018). At https://www.vagrantup.com/downloads.html a ready RPM file 64 bits is available for Centos distribution; probably not compatible with Fedora since a work was in progress here.
You can also try the prepared update(WIP) for Vagrant in my COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/pvalena/vagrant/ Note that stable Fedoras should not get major version package updates, so the package will be updated in Rawhide only.
(In reply to ricky.tigg from comment #2) > On page from suggested link, last available vagrant package version is > currently 2.2.0 (October 16, 2018). At > https://www.vagrantup.com/downloads.html a ready RPM file 64 bits is > available for Centos distribution; probably not compatible with Fedora since > a work was in progress here. That are upstream prepared RPMs which differs from RPMs provided by Fedora. There is no relation between these two. The upstream CentOS RPM might or might not work. I can't comment more on the upstream RPMs, because I am not a user of them.
to #comment 3 – The version there is under preparation according to some of the last build status. For Rawhide too it is v.2.2.0 ; I could reasonably assume that version scheme presently used would observe a model such as v.[major].[minor].[minor-sublevel]. According to that scheme, stable Fedoras shouldn't get v.3.0.0 of vagrant. Would it so that the use of a package flagged Rawhide would require from the platform it runs on, to be a Fedora Rawhide? to #comment 4 – I am not a user of them neither; probably the release under the link 'Linux 64 bits' would be the one eligible to be used on up-to-date Fedora variations, 64 bits.
The version in my COPR is the one that will go to Rawhide later, but it's also already built for Stable Fedora. (And at this point it's also tested). If you want to try new Vagrant, let me encourage you to give it a go. I'll give it an update to latest too. You can enable the COPR as a repository like so: $ sudo dnf copr enable pvalena/vagrant And then simply update Vagrant. Ad Rebasing Fedora 29- I'd say it depends on the amount of changes made in between those versions. Anyway any such change has to be well tested and I do lack the cycles for that. Feel free to step in and open the PR here: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/vagrant/pull-requests
As a prerequisite to any operation in which I am unsure, as protocol I figure out the infrastructure of the Copr site by focusing on one's Copr member's project – pvalena/vagrant –. Observations are: Overview tab – Mention 'Latest Vagrant available in Fedora Rawhide or newer.' seems in its context to apply to Installation Instructions provided. Three active releases (two direct previous releases to Rawhide, Rawhide). Monitor tab, Detailed view – Thanks to the selection of Detailed option, the monitor tab could at last make sense. I focused both on column matching direct previous Fedora Rawhide version – presently Fedora 29 –, packages vagrant, vagrant-libvirt. Information provided at the intersection is '849418 failed 2.2.3-1.fc30'. What might be then the expected result once installation depicted in Overview tab is executed on Fedora 29? Will any version be installed, since above mentioned information in Monitor tab include status 'failed'?
I'm not sure where you're aiming with this. You can use copr like so: https://docs.pagure.org/copr.copr/how_to_enable_repo.html Note that in COPR, all the previous builds is are available. So yes, there will always be a version available to install, and after enabling the COPR you'll install/update the latest one, either from Fedora stable or COPR repository. The current succesful Fedora 29 build is: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/pvalena/vagrant/build/848443/ Let me know whether it does work for you.
No mention of such 848443 here, you probably misinterpreted; Let it be that way.
Hi, a little of topic, but you may help me quickly . what version do we need to support VirtualBox-6.0.4 ? , I'd like update F29 with it . Thanks
(In reply to Sergio Monteiro Basto from comment #10) > Hi, a little of topic, but you may help me quickly . > what version do we need to support VirtualBox-6.0.4 ? , I'd like update F29 > with it . Hello, as of now there's no plan to support VirtualBox in Fedora, as well as to update Vagrant in Fedora 29 TMK. Also, new packages should only be added to Fedora Rawhide(next stable release), so it wouldn't go to 29 even if you would get the package Packaged and Reviewed, but in case you want it Fedora you can start here[0]. Closing, as this is not a bug. [0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers
Pavel, VirtualBox already in rpmfusion repo and will not be added to Fedora main repo. We just want know can we update VB to 6.x in F29 (current 5.2) and is vagrant 2.1.2 support it. If not support then can be it updated to version with support VB 6?
(In reply to Vasiliy Glazov from comment #12) > Pavel, VirtualBox already in rpmfusion repo and will not be added to Fedora > main repo. > > We just want know can we update VB to 6.x in F29 (current 5.2) and is > vagrant 2.1.2 support it. If not support then can be it updated to version > with support VB 6? From Vagrant 2.2.1 changelog: `Add support for VirtualBox 6.0 [GH-10379]` In case you're interested in details, you can check here: https://github.com/hashicorp/vagrant/pull/10379 IMHO I'd expect some advanced usage breakages(networks f.e.; snapshots) with VirtualBox 6.0 and Vagrant 2.1.2. But I have not tested that myself, and neither checked for changes in Vagrant with this regard. I'm afraid I've got no spare cycles for F29 now, so there's no plan for any update there. But feel free to submit a PR(see Comment 6). Note: we don't support Vagrant-VirtualBox compatibility in Fedora, as it's not in main repo.
After the kernel upgrade to 5.x in Fedora 29, there is this new "situation". VirtualBox < 6 doesn't work with kernel >= 5. So I had to upgrade the VirtualBox to 6.x, which is now available in RPM Fusion for Fedora 29. So far so good. However, vagrant < 2.2.1 doesn't work with VirtualBox >= 6. So I've upgraded ruby to 2.6 from pvalena/ruby copr, and installed the latest vagrant from pvalena/vagrant, and this is working OK for me. I've nuked the ~/.vagrant.d folder and I had to uninstall the vagrant-libvirt rpm package b/c of missing rubygem-nokogiri rpm package in pvalena/ruby. I think this could be solved by enabling pvalena/ruby26-gems copr repo for Fedora 29. This is pretty bad - it took me couple of hours to recover from innocent dnf upgrade, but I understand this is not easy to fix. Maybe Fedora modules could be helpful in such situations? Module for Ruby 2.5, 2.6 etc, I don't know. At least I hope this comment with help some googlers hitting the same problem. Cheers.
Let me investigate, as I think rubygem-nokogiri should be in `pvalena/vagrant` (I'll fix if it isn't).
Ah, I see. It looks like it's there. I think it was issue for me, b/c originally I've tried to install the vagrant from pvalena/vagrant before enabling the pvalena/ruby and it screamed at me that I have an old ruby (2.5). I don't use vagrant-libvirt so I've removed it, and then, once I saw that there are unmet dependencies from pvalena/vagrant, I've enabled the pvalena/ruby and run the dnf upgrade, which sorted it out. Sorry for blurry info. So maybe a fix is to put the note on pvalena/vagrant copr page that this repo requires pvalena/ruby repo in Fedora 29, or something like that. Thanks for taking a look.
> So maybe a fix is to put the note on pvalena/vagrant copr page that this repo requires pvalena/ruby repo in Fedora 29, or something like that. Thanks for suggestion, I will write a note. > Ah, I see. It looks like it's there. Yes, I've done a rebuild just to be sure. > I think it was issue for me, b/c originally I've tried to install the vagrant from pvalena/vagrant before enabling the pvalena/ruby and it screamed at me that I have an old ruby (2.5). I don't use vagrant-libvirt so I've removed it, and then, once I saw that there are unmet dependencies from pvalena/vagrant, I've enabled the pvalena/ruby and run the dnf upgrade, which sorted it out. Sorry for blurry info. Not sure what was the issue here. Let me know if it happens again. I do not have the cycles to test all of the stable Fedoras, so I mostly rely on test suites, which do not test installability.
vbox 6 is on RPmFusion updates and is working woth kernels > 5 Now we need this vangrant update
(In reply to Pavel Valena from comment #3) > You can also try the prepared update(WIP) for Vagrant in my COPR: > https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/pvalena/vagrant/ > > Note that stable Fedoras should not get major version package updates, so > the package will be updated in Rawhide only. F28 have kernel 5.0. , that is why I need update VirtualBox to 6
I see. Please see my Comment #6 for enabling COPR with newer Vagrant for immediate fix/workaround (or you can use Libvirt). Ad Fedora 29, I not think rebase is viable. But you can create a PR fixing this specific issue: http://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/vagrant/ The needed patches would be (for start): https://github.com/hashicorp/vagrant/pull/10417 https://github.com/hashicorp/vagrant/pull/10379 I am not sure if anything else is needed on top of that. Ad Fedora 28, I do think it's worth it, as there are 2 months before EOL and backporting this functionallity would be IMHO hard, as in Fedora 28 there's Vagrant 2.0.2
more one bug report in rpmfusion https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5220 . I test build of vagrant just fails in tests What we need to build vagrant successfully in F28 ?
(In reply to Sergio Monteiro Basto from comment #21) > more one bug report in rpmfusion > https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5220 . > > > I test build of vagrant just fails in tests > > What we need to build vagrant successfully in F28 ? What build does fail for you? I've scratch-built[0] current Vagrant without issues. Note that Vagrant update is currently not planned(on my behalf) for either F28 or F29. [0] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=34535416
you build 2.0.2 , I'd like build 2.2.4 [1] but fails on some tests . Any not update at least for F29 , VirtualBox is on 6.0.6 version and vangrant of F29 IMO should support it ! [1] https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/sergiomb/builds_for_Stable_Releases/package/vagrant/
(In reply to Sergio Monteiro Basto from comment #23) > you build 2.0.2 , I'd like build 2.2.4 [1] but fails on some tests . I have already built Vagrant 2.2.4 on F28+ in my COPR[0]. Feel free to ping me on #fedora-devel for further questions. > > Any not update at least for F29 , VirtualBox is on 6.0.6 version and > vangrant of F29 IMO should support it ! Please see my Comment 20 with regard to that. [0] https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/pvalena/vagrant/build/864788/
The current version of vagrant in Fedora is 2.2.5 from Fedora 30+. It won't be updated for fedora 29. Should this bug be closed?
Current released versions: ``` $ pkgwat releases vagrant +----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+ | release | stable_version | testing_version | +----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+ | Rawhide | 2.2.5-1.fc32 | None | | Fedora 32 Containers | None | None | | Fedora 32 | 2.2.5-1.fc32 | None | | Fedora 31 Flatpaks | None | None | | Fedora 31 Containers | None | None | | Fedora 31 | 2.2.5-1.fc31 | None | | Fedora 30 Flatpaks | None | None | | Fedora 30 Containers | None | None | | Fedora 30 | 2.2.5-1.fc30 (update) | None | | Fedora 29 Flatpaks | None | None | | Fedora 29 Containers | None | None | | Fedora 29 | 2.1.2-3.fc29 (update) | 2.1.2-2.fc29 0 karma | | Fedora EPEL 8 | None | None | | Fedora EPEL 7 | None | None | | Fedora EPEL 6 | None | None | +----------------------+-----------------------+----------------------+ ```
This message is a reminder that Fedora 29 is nearing its end of life. Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 29 on 2019-11-26. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '29'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 29 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete.
Fedora 29 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2019-11-26. Fedora 29 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this bug. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.