#376: failed QA because wrong checking of nvr ----------------------+----------------------------------------------------- Reporter: mmaslano | Owner: Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Depcheck Component: tests | Resolution: Keywords: | ----------------------+----------------------------------------------------- Comment (by jskladan): Hi, '''tl;dr''': yes, you can safely ignore the "fail". '''Long version:''' The thing is, that Depcheck behaves like the content of (in this particular case) stable, updates and updates-testing (since the perl-CPAN- Meta-YAML-0.003-7.fc16 is marked as updates-testing-pending) as installed, and then tries to install the packages from the -pending over it using yum. And since the version currently in updates-testing provided by perl package <http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=2646263> perl-CPAN-Meta-YAML-0.003-185.fc16 has bigger EVR than the build currently tested perl-CPAN-Meta-YAML-0.003-7.fc16 depcheck ignores it as "lower version than currently available". Hence the message (rather cryptic, but it's yum's doing) "Package matching XYZ already installed" and the perl-CPAN-Meta-YAML-0.003-7.fc16 ending in Ignored. Hope it helps. /me proposes closing this with NOTABUG, once all the questions are answered -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/ticket/376#comment:2> AutoQA <http://autoqa.fedorahosted.org> Automated QA project

#376: failed QA because wrong checking of nvr ----------------------+----------------------------------------------------- Reporter: mmaslano | Owner: Type: defect | Status: closed Priority: major | Milestone: Depcheck Component: tests | Resolution: wontfix Keywords: | ----------------------+----------------------------------------------------- Comment (by kparal): Marcela, we are sorry to send you invalid results. We'll try to improve it in the future. Current depcheck implementation is probably at its limits - it works well most of the time, but fails for some corner-cases. Unfortunately it fails often when perl packages are in the mix, as far as I have noticed. We have plans for trying a different approach in some time. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/ticket/376#comment:4> AutoQA <http://autoqa.fedorahosted.org> Automated QA project