Bug 460438 - comps needs update because of rpm-apidocs
Summary: comps needs update because of rpm-apidocs
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5
Classification: Red Hat
Component: distribution
Version: 5.3
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
high
Target Milestone: beta
: ---
Assignee: Brock Organ
QA Contact: Alexander Todorov
URL: http://errata.devel.redhat.com/errata...
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2008-08-28 10:06 UTC by Jindrich Novy
Modified: 2013-07-02 23:31 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2009-01-20 21:18:44 UTC
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Product Errata RHEA-2009:0133 0 normal SHIPPED_LIVE new package: redhat-release 2009-01-20 16:04:58 UTC

Description Jindrich Novy 2008-08-28 10:06:18 UTC
Description of problem:
There is planned rebase of RPM in RHEL5.3. The new packages come with the new subpackage named rpm-apidocs. comps need to be updated because of that. Otherwise compose won't find rpm-apidocs and therefore it's missing from the errata.

Thanks!

Relevant URLs:
build: https://brewweb.devel.redhat.com/buildinfo?buildID=74294
errata: http://errata.devel.redhat.com/errata/info/7663

Comment 1 RHEL Program Management 2008-08-28 11:30:11 UTC
This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for inclusion in a Red
Hat Enterprise Linux maintenance release.  Product Management has requested
further review of this request by Red Hat Engineering, for potential
inclusion in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux Update release for currently deployed
products.  This request is not yet committed for inclusion in an Update
release.

Comment 2 Daniel Mach 2008-08-29 08:44:34 UTC
The subackage has been pulled into last nightly compose via NPLB (No Package Left Behind) feature.
There's no need to do a comps change unless the subpackage should appear in anaconda package list.

Jindrich, does it make sense to add it to the package list in anaconda?
In this case, I'd prefer *not* to add it, since it's a docs file which wouldn't be frequently used.

Comment 3 Jindrich Novy 2008-08-29 10:18:43 UTC
(In reply to comment #2)
> Jindrich, does it make sense to add it to the package list in anaconda?
> In this case, I'd prefer *not* to add it, since it's a docs file which wouldn't
> be frequently used.

Please don't add it to the list in anaconda if the anaconda guys need only the functional part. Missing rpm-apidocs won't affect a functionality of rpm and it was also one of the reasons for splitting it into a separate subpackage :)

Comment 11 errata-xmlrpc 2009-01-20 21:18:44 UTC
An advisory has been issued which should help the problem
described in this bug report. This report is therefore being
closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For more information
on therefore solution and/or where to find the updated files,
please follow the link below. You may reopen this bug report
if the solution does not work for you.

http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHEA-2009-0133.html


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