Bug 1832094 - FTI: upm: upm-devel
Summary: FTI: upm: upm-devel
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: upm
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Peter Robinson
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
: 1834129 (view as bug list)
Depends On:
Blocks: F32FailsToInstall
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2020-05-06 04:49 UTC by Igor Raits
Modified: 2020-05-22 05:30 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

Fixed In Version: upm-2.0.0-6.fc32
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2020-05-22 05:30:23 UTC
Type: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Igor Raits 2020-05-06 04:49:35 UTC

Your package (upm) Fails To Install in Fedora 33:

can't install upm-devel-2.0.0-5.fc33.x86_64:
  - nothing provides pkgconfig(jpeg) needed by upm-devel-2.0.0-5.fc33.x86_64

According to a policy for FTBFS/FTI bugs (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Fails_to_build_from_source_Fails_to_install/), your package may be orphaned in 8+ weeks if you won't reply to this bug.

The data was generated from koji buildroot, so it might be a bit newer than latest rawhide compose.


Comment 2 Peter Robinson 2020-05-13 09:30:18 UTC
Investigating, I think this was from changes Miro made due to nodejs issues due to swig not supporting newer versions of nodejs

Comment 3 Peter Robinson 2020-05-13 09:32:37 UTC
actually no, it's something around libjpeg. In the package the devel has the following requires:

Requires: libjpeg-turbo-devel

But on install I get:
# dnf install upm-devel
Last metadata expiration check: 0:30:13 ago on Wed 13 May 2020 10:00:11 BST.
 Problem: conflicting requests
  - nothing provides pkgconfig(jpeg) needed by upm-devel-2.0.0-5.fc32.i686
  - nothing provides pkgconfig(jpeg) needed by upm-devel-2.0.0-5.fc32.x86_64
(try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)

so I have no idea why the auto build requires adds this.

Comment 4 Fedora Update System 2020-05-13 13:05:53 UTC
FEDORA-2020-e06d324248 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-e06d324248

Comment 5 Peter Robinson 2020-05-13 14:47:05 UTC
*** Bug 1834129 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 6 Igor Raits 2020-05-13 18:36:29 UTC

Please note that this comment was generated automatically. If you feel that this output has mistakes, please contact me via email (ignatenkobrain@fedoraproject.org).

All subpackages of a package agaisnt which this bug was filled are now installable or removed from Fedora 33.

Thanks for taking care of it!

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2020-05-14 04:31:27 UTC
FEDORA-2020-e06d324248 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-e06d324248`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-e06d324248

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2020-05-22 05:30:23 UTC
FEDORA-2020-e06d324248 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

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