Description of problem: Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 20120206-0.0.git068f81 How reproducible: Every time Steps to Reproduce: 1. Import Fedora 15 DVD into Cobbler 2. Import Fedora 15 Updates into Cobbler 3. Make updates available at install time. Actual results: I'm getting a message saying "some of the packages you have selected for install are missing dependencies..." In the box it says "linux-firmware-20120206-0.0.git068f81.fc15.noarch requires netxen-firmware." Expected results: Installs without needing human intervention (this is a kickstart install). We do not request install of linux-firmware in any of our kickstarts. Additional info:
F15 is going EOL in 2 weeks. We're not going to get this fixed before EOL. If you do this with F16 or F17, do you see the same issue?
Josh, Thanks for the comment. The thing is, I can't try F16 or F17, as much as I'd like to. This is an external client requirement (Kernel 2.6.38), thus we have to use Fedora 15.
(In reply to comment #2) > Josh, > > Thanks for the comment. > > The thing is, I can't try F16 or F17, as much as I'd like to. > > This is an external client requirement (Kernel 2.6.38), thus we have to use > Fedora 15. If you require 2.6.38, then you don't want to use updates during the install. That will bring in 2.6.43.8 instead of 2.6.38.
Hmm...good point. We just need 2.6.38 available to us so we can compile against it, and boot up with it. Will Fedora 17 boot with a 2.6.38 kernel (compiled with a kernel SRPM under Fedora 17)?
(In reply to comment #4) > Hmm...good point. We just need 2.6.38 available to us so we can compile > against it, and boot up with it. Will Fedora 17 boot with a 2.6.38 kernel > (compiled with a kernel SRPM under Fedora 17)? Probably, though I haven't personally tried that and it wouldn't be supported.
(In reply to comment #2) > This is an external client requirement (Kernel 2.6.38), thus we have to use > Fedora 15. Or "thus we need to educate our client better, to avoid letting them down by providing them with a broken solution that might have been what they *asked* for, but wasn't what they *needed*". That or "find a better client", I suppose. But the point in clients is that they don't have the wit to do it for themselves; that's why they need us. So we have a duty to actually do things right for them.
This was "solved" on our end by taking the SRPM, modifying the spec file not require the offending package, and putting that package in our own private repo, which is available during install time.