There's really not enough info to go off of here.  If you're just using the f18 tag, both kernel-tools-devel and kernel-tools should be of the same version and should be in the repo as they're subpackages of the same build.  If you're using some other combination of tags, well who knows.

If I had to guess, this is related to the split we did for kernel-tools and kernel-tools-libs.  I've added a commit to make kernel-tools-libs-devel provide kernel-tools-devel.  Maybe that will fix your error in later composes once a kernel built with that change hits whatever tags you're composing from.

Discussed at 2012-10-03 blocker review meeting: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-qa/2012-10-03/f18-beta-blocker-review-2.2012-10-03-16.00.log.txt . Accepted as a blocker per criterion "There 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".

Josh: We pulled kernel from a side repo for TC1. Composes are done from 'stable' - the 'fedora' repository, more or less the f18 tag - plus a side repository (http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/mash/bleed/) for stuff we want to pull in that isn't in stable yet, all the stuff listed on the compose request ticket. We pulled https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-15232/kernel-3.6.0-1.fc18 for Beta TC1, see https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5349 . dgilmore would know exactly what command he used to pull it in and would have the compose logs to see exactly what went wrong here.

(In reply to comment #2)
> Discussed at 2012-10-03 blocker review meeting:
> http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-qa/2012-10-03/f18-beta-blocker-
> review-2.2012-10-03-16.00.log.txt . Accepted as a blocker per criterion
> "There 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".

Erm, just to clarify, does your criteria map to the entire package set for the DVD install, or just the default?  Because kernel-tools* shouldn't be installed by default.  Honestly, I'm not even sure why they would be _on_ the DVD.

> Josh: We pulled kernel from a side repo for TC1. Composes are done from
> 'stable' - the 'fedora' repository, more or less the f18 tag - plus a side
> repository (http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/mash/bleed/) for stuff we want
> to pull in that isn't in stable yet, all the stuff listed on the compose
> request ticket. We pulled
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-15232/kernel-3.6.0-1.
> fc18 for Beta TC1, see https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5349 .
> dgilmore would know exactly what command he used to pull it in and would
> have the compose logs to see exactly what went wrong here.

OK.  Well http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=357951 would have the fix I suggested in my previous comment.  Not sure if Justin is submitting that as an update today or not.

kernel-3.6.0-3.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-15232/kernel-3.6.0-3.fc18

Still broken in 18 Beta TC2, exactly the same errors as in TC1.

(In reply to comment #5)
> Still broken in 18 Beta TC2, exactly the same errors as in TC1.

Then either the kernel I pointed to in comment #4 wasn't used or you didn't include enough information for us to look at it.

(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > Still broken in 18 Beta TC2, exactly the same errors as in TC1.
> 
> Then either the kernel I pointed to in comment #4 wasn't used 

Yep.  That kernel wasn't used.  It's still using the same one as in TC1.

"Erm, just to clarify, does your criteria map to the entire package set for the DVD install, or just the default?"

The entire package set on the DVD is how it's always been interpreted, we block for any non-explicit conflicts or dependency errors in any package on the DVD.

and yeah, we didn't pull this fix for TC2, either I missed it or it wasn't available at time of the TC2 request.

(In reply to comment #8)
> "Erm, just to clarify, does your criteria map to the entire package set for
> the DVD install, or just the default?"
> 
> The entire package set on the DVD is how it's always been interpreted, we
> block for any non-explicit conflicts or dependency errors in any package on
> the DVD.

OK.  I'll look into  how to get these packages off of the DVD as a side issue.  There's no reason for them to be there.

(In reply to comment #9)
> and yeah, we didn't pull this fix for TC2, either I missed it or it wasn't
> available at time of the TC2 request.

If you could define "available" that would be helpful.  Available in koji (it was)?  Available as a filed update (it wasn't)?  Actually pushed to updates-testing (it wasn't)?

Just trying to understand the process so we can line things up correctly going forward.

This is fixed in 18 Beta TC3, which includes kernel-3.6.1-1.fc18. (BTW, it still includes the kernel-tools, kernel-tools-libs, and kernel-tools-libs-devel packages.)

josh: What makes it easiest is to have the update in Bodhi and marked as fixing the bug (otherwise we might miss it). we can pull it if it's not marked as fixing the bug if we know about it. we don't like to pull from koji with no update submitted to bodhi, we really want it to be in bodhi.

josh: the other thing - outside of freeze periods it's no problem, but after freeze we *really* want minimal changes. so if there's a blocker bug in kernel-1.0-1, we do not want an update with the build kernel-2.0-4, which has the blocker fix plus seventeen other patches and an upstream version bump. We want an update with the build 1.0-2, which fixes the blocker bug and changes nothing else. we appreciate that sometimes this is difficult to achieve, but best effort is appreciated :)

3.6.1-1 is in stable now, so closing.