Bug 1729992 - switch from langpacks to langpacks-core
Summary: switch from langpacks to langpacks-core
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: glibc
Version: 31
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Carlos O'Donell
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2019-07-15 14:01 UTC by Parag Nemade
Modified: 2019-09-28 04:06 UTC (History)
11 users (show)

Fixed In Version: glibc-2.30-5.fc31 glibc-2.30.9000-8.fc32
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2019-09-28 00:03:07 UTC
Type: Bug


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Parag Nemade 2019-07-15 14:01:22 UTC
Description of problem:

As part of F31 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Langpacks-core Change implementation, I was thinking if glibc.spec can drop
Supplements: (glibc and (]]..suppl..[[))
and langpacks.spec to have
Requires: glibc-langpack-<locale>

I see glibc langpack packages (198 on F30) are more whereas not every such have corresponding langpacks meta-packages (88 on F30)

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

How reproducible:


Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.

Actual results:
glibc.spec is supplementing for langpacks-<locale>

Expected results:
langpacks.spec to requires glibc langpack packages

Additional info:

Comment 1 Parag Nemade 2019-07-24 12:57:09 UTC
Can I request glibc package maintainers to provide their feedback on this request?

Comment 2 Florian Weimer 2019-07-24 13:13:12 UTC
I do not have an opinion on this change.

Would this change here help with bug 1380069 as well?  Would it make that fix more difficult.

Comment 3 Parag Nemade 2019-07-26 09:42:16 UTC
Well, I tried to test this in my copr with new langpacks-2.0 package but looks like glibc-langpack-<langcode> is not getting removed. Will check more on this.

Comment 4 Jens Petersen 2019-07-30 07:02:05 UTC
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #2)
> I do not have an opinion on this change.

To add a little more: further glibc doesn't actually know what meta langpacks packages exist in Fedora.
So in this sense it makes more sense to carry the information in langpacks rather than glibc itself.

> Would this change here help with bug 1380069 as well?  Would it make that
> fix more difficult.

I don't think it has any affect on that, but maybe 'glibc-langpack' can be simplified anyway.

Comment 5 Ben Cotton 2019-08-13 18:52:36 UTC
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 31 development cycle.
Changing version to 31.

Comment 6 Jens Petersen 2019-09-16 10:57:19 UTC
We really need changes for langpacks-core-* at the very least for F31.

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/glibc/pull-request/15
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/glibc/pull-request/16

I would still rather we moved this completely to langpacks since that is more consistent.

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2019-09-26 13:49:36 UTC
FEDORA-2019-3bf71b86ec has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-3bf71b86ec

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2019-09-27 02:29:06 UTC
glibc-2.30-5.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 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-2019-3bf71b86ec

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2019-09-28 00:03:07 UTC
glibc-2.30-5.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 10 Jens Petersen 2019-09-28 04:06:27 UTC
Thanks

For F32 we want to move the weak dependencies into the langpacks package.


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