Anyone know why PackageKit-gtk3-module.i686 has been removed from the Fedora 33 repositories? This package was there for Fedora 32 and checking Koji it looks like the 32-bit version is still being built. However, for some reason it's not appearing in the F33 repositories for the x86_64 architecture. We have some packages that rely on the 32-bit version so it would be good to have it re-included in the repo.
Is any of the Fedora team able to comment/help on this? Thanks!
Nothing I've done; it's still being built in the .spec file. I guess it's being filtered by Fedora rel-eng perhaps? Maybe write an email to the Fedora devel group and see what people say.
I've started a discussion on the develop group as suggested by Richard above, just for reference, see https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/EQDS5XSN73WGEPNJWOIWM5LUUER7EQNG/
I would consider this as a packaging issue as the logical for multilibs computation should be bestself contained in the package instead of relying on the infra tweaks.
Either https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/PackageKit/pull-request/7 or https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/PackageKit/pull-request/8 should fix it... I have a preference for the #8 one as it won't add additional deps to Build dependencies from PackageKit-glib-devel
Thanks for the fix, @kwizart, hopefully I'll see it bubble through to the repositories in due course.
So my understanding is that you don't wan't to: - Add uneeded dependencies to glib-devel (as pr#7) - Restore PackageKit-devel to ease the computation of multilibs deps (as in pr#8) Not talking about the RPM mutlilibs() hints (suggested by kparal) that needs to be provided as multilibs, as this doesn't exist yet in RPM. I'm thinking of alternatives: - Starting from pr#7 but moving Requires to Suggests will avoid the needs for dependencies at build time, but "may" still fetch the multilibs dependencies... (to be tested.) - If PackageKit-devel is the problem of pr#8 we could use any other arbitrary name ending with -devel (such as multilibs-devel), the spurious sub-package remains, but it won't collision with previous PackageKit-devel usage. Any thought ? (re-opening as we can find solution self contained within the package)
Confirming this problem is still present in F34-beta
The new build of PackageKit 1.2.4 on Fedora 34 [1] continues to exhibit this issue. There was no response on the devel mailing list as requested by Richard [2]. [1] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1811539 [2] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/EQDS5XSN73WGEPNJWOIWM5LUUER7EQNG/
OK, just been hit by this bug again on F34 as a result of the latest build of PackageKit-gtk3-module-1.2.4-2.fc34.i686.rpm
Requested to rel-eng https://pagure.io/releng/issue/10666
This message is a reminder that Fedora Linux 35 is nearing its end of life. Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora Linux 35 on 2022-12-13. 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 'version' of '35'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, change the 'version' to a later Fedora Linux version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora Linux 35 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 Linux, you are encouraged to change the 'version' to a later version prior to this bug being closed.
Fedora Linux 35 entered end-of-life (EOL) status on 2022-12-13. Fedora Linux 35 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 Linux please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. Note that the version field may be hidden. Click the "Show advanced fields" button if you do not see the version field. If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against an active release. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.