Description of problem: Since HAL has been deprecated for 3 years, Fedora is removing it from the distribution: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/HalRemoval The hal package is already deprecated and blocked from composes for rawhide. Therefore, there are some broken dependencies for your package now: gnome-vfs2-2.24.4-5.fc15.i686 requires libhal.so.1 gnome-vfs2-2.24.4-5.fc15.i686 requires libhal-storage.so.1 If these dependencies cannot be removed, this package should probably be deprecated as well: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_remove_a_package_at_end_of_life Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): gnome-vfs2-2.24.4-5.fc15
(In reply to comment #0) > The hal package is already deprecated and blocked from composes for rawhide. Nice! > If these dependencies cannot be removed, this package should probably be > deprecated as well I'll check, there are some applications that are fully dependent on gnome-vfs2. Killing it won't be easy for F16.
(In reply to comment #1) > > If these dependencies cannot be removed, this package should probably be > > deprecated as well > > I'll check, there are some applications that are fully dependent on gnome-vfs2. > Killing it won't be easy for F16. Yes, I know, there are >100 packages requiring gnome-vfs2! Anyway, the goal of Matthias Clasen is to get rid of gnome-vfs2, at least from the Desktop spin: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-March/149572.html
I'm adding Nils Philippsen in CC to this bug, it looks like he is working on this: http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=gnome-vfs2.git;a=commitdiff;h=e60ff519b11c3d557cd85110acaf84411de54661 BTW, I'm not sure this part of his commit is correct: +# don't use HAL from F-16 on +%if 0%{?fedora} >= 16 || 0%{?rhel} >= 7 +%bcond_with hal +%else +%bcond_without hal +%endif Should "%bcond_with hal" and "%bcond_without hal" be inverted?
(In reply to comment #3) > Should "%bcond_with hal" and "%bcond_without hal" be inverted? Seems to do the job, gnome-vfs2-2.24.4-6.fc16 has been built properly without hal. (In reply to comment #2) > Yes, I know, there are >100 packages requiring gnome-vfs2! Yeah, repoquery yells an insane amount of packages.
(In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #3) > > Should "%bcond_with hal" and "%bcond_without hal" be inverted? > > Seems to do the job, gnome-vfs2-2.24.4-6.fc16 has been built properly without > hal. Yes, I noticed, but I suppose that this is happening because it has been rebuilt after hal was removed from rawhide. I fear that when/if gnome-vfs2 will be rebuilt for Fedora < 16, hal support will be removed also there.
The logic of the %bcond_with/_without macros is peculiar, probably 100% against what you would expect. This is what /usr/lib/rpm/macros has to say about it: ... # Handle conditional builds. %bcond_with is for case when feature is # default off and needs to be activated with --with ... command line # switch. %bcond_without is for the dual case. ... In this case it means that somebody would need to specify "--with hal" to build the package with HAL support from F-16 on, the default is without.