Description of problem: The 16.TC3 DVDs contain PackageKit-zif-0.6.19-3.fc16 and zif-0.2.3-1.fc16. i386: package: PackageKit-zif-0.6.19-3.fc16.i686 from myrepo unresolved deps: zif >= 0:0.2.5 x86_64: package: PackageKit-zif-0.6.19-3.fc16.x86_64 from myrepo unresolved deps: zif >= 0:0.2.5 Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 16.TC3 DVD (i386 and x86_64)
We should either not be using greedy dependency solving when composing the DVD, or should be explicitly excluding this.
Also, we could push the zif update in: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2011-13709 to final.
I think some bit of KDE introduced a dependency on zif since the builds that went into TC2, and that got picked up by the mass glibc rebuild. CCing KK for info. Kevin, what bit of KDE grew this zif dependency? Is it necessary? -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers
The KDE software does not require zif. What does happen is: * Apper (and KPackageKit before it) requires PackageKit. * PackageKit requires a PackageKit backend. * Both PackageKit-yum and PackageKit-zif satisfy the dependency. * The DVD compose drags both in, because by default all possible providers of a dependency get dragged in into the compose, unless they get explicitly excluded. I think PackageKit-zif probably needs to be explicitly blacklisted in the DVD kickstart (and java-1.7.0-openjdk too, for that matter).
That said, IMHO the update which fixes the broken dependency should get pulled into the GA repository, otherwise repoclosure will complain about broken dependencies in Everything forever. (Other stuff with broken dependencies can and should be blocked, but not PackageKit-zif, because it is a subpackage of PackageKit which definitely needs to go into Everything.)
that sounds about right to me - is that okay for you, dennis / bill? -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers
btw, this is a clear blocker per the criteria: "here must be no file conflicts (cases where the files in some packages conflict but the packages have explicit Conflicts: tags are acceptable) or unresolved package dependencies during a media-based (DVD) install " I'm just gonna set it straight to AcceptedBlocker, because we always accept these.
im happy to exclude PackageKit-zif from making it to the DVD.
I'm happy with either the exclude, or pulling the update into final. (or both, for that matter.)
discussed at 2011-10-28 blocker review meeting. We agreed it seems like the best fix is to do both the exclusion of PackageKit-zif from the DVD, and the pulling of the update into the stable repos to avoid scripts complaining about dependency issues forever more.
Assigning to Dennis as he's doing the composes.
This is fixed in the 16.RC1 DVDs (no repoclosure or file conflicts issues).
Let's close it, then! -- Fedora Bugzappers volunteer triage team https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers