Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.
This project is now read‑only. Starting Monday, February 2, please use https://ibm-ceph.atlassian.net/ for all bug tracking management.

Bug 1981451

Summary: [build] [TPS] Failed dependency for babeltrace
Product: [Red Hat Storage] Red Hat Ceph Storage Reporter: Vasishta <vashastr>
Component: BuildAssignee: Ken Dreyer (Red Hat) <kdreyer>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: Vasishta <vashastr>
Severity: high Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: 5.0CC: kdreyer
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: 5.0   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2021-08-30 08:31:32 UTC Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Vasishta 2021-07-12 14:55:30 UTC
Description of problem:
TPS runs failing saying Failed dependencies: for babeltrace-1.5.4-2.el8.x86_64 on libbabeltrace(x86-64) = 1.5.4-2.el8 
Where as RHEL has next version of libbabeltrace (1.5.4-3)

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Latest RHCS 5.0 build

How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
Run TPS on latest RHCS 5.x build

Actual results:
libbabeltrace(x86-64) = 1.5.4-2.el8 is needed by babeltrace-1.5.4-2.el8.x86_64

Expected results:
TPS should not fail because of dependency

Additional info:

Comment 7 errata-xmlrpc 2021-08-30 08:31:32 UTC
Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory (Red Hat Ceph Storage 5.0 bug fix and enhancement), and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2021:3294