.qa.[root@s390x-5s-3-v1 tps]# tps-upgrade Upgrading 2008:8061 using command: rpm -Uvh $(cat new-files-5Server-s390x.list) Preparing... ########################################### [100%] 1:system-config-kickstart########################################### [100%] .qa.[root@s390x-5s-3-v1 tps]# rpmquery system-config-kickstart system-config-kickstart-2.6.19.2-2.el5.noarch .qa.[root@s390x-5s-3-v1 tps]# system-config-kickstart Loading "protectbase" plugin Loading "installonlyn" plugin Loading "rhnplugin" plugin Loading "skip-broken" plugin Loading "kmod" plugin 0 packages excluded due to repository protections /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/pirut/GroupSelector.py:331: GtkWarning: gtk_tree_view_scroll_to_point: assertion `GTK_WIDGET_REALIZED (tree_view)' failed gobject.idle_add(lambda x: x.scroll_to_point(0, 0), tree) Bug is fixed in this version. -- Linux s390x-5s-3-v1.z900.redhat.com 2.6.18-53.el5 #1 SMP Wed Oct 10 16:34:30 EDT 2007 s390x s390x s390x GNU/Linux Please take a look at the "GtkWarnings" whether is possible to get rid of them. Issued for the first time here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=239817#c5 I am not sure whether is fault in s-c-k's pirut handling or in pirut itself.
This is with the GA pirut, no? Can you try again with pirut-1.3.28-5.el5 from RHEL-5.2 QU candidate?
Yup, right. But with the latest I got the "same": .qa.[root@s390x-5s-3-v1 tps]# system-config-kickstart Loading "protectbase" plugin Loading "rhnplugin" plugin Loading "skip-broken" plugin Loading "kmod" plugin 0 packages excluded due to repository protections /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/pirut/GroupSelector.py:396: GtkWarning: gtk_tree_view_scroll_to_point: assertion `GTK_WIDGET_REALIZED (tree_view)' failed gobject.idle_add(lambda x: x.scroll_to_point(0, 0), tree) but s-c-k works even with new pirut just fine. Any thoughts? Maybe is only problem with handling in s-c-k... (Cc-ing Chris.)
Given this is just a warning message, I'm going to just close WONTFIX as I'll probably never get around to it. Feel free to open one against Fedora, and we'll see what happens there.
Filled #431844. I would be nice if all concerned decide whether is it easyfix and fix it prio it goes to RHEL. Thank you.