4:37 p.m.
I've had some bug reports recently against a couple of my packages.
These bugs apparently manifest only in Rawhide. So now I am trying to
get a virtual machine setup with Rawhide installed so I can debug
these problems. I'd like to keep it around long-term, too, so I can
help debug things as they come up.
However, I've had a few ... issues ... getting started with Rawhide.
Is there a "Getting started with Rawhide" guide anywhere?
First, I couldn't get the Rawhide CD image to finish an installation.
Weirdly, it failed in different ways every time I tried to use it. So
I tried to use the F10 -> Rawhide update method with yum documented
here [1]. I installed from my F10 DVD, then *without updating F10*,
changed repositories and did an update from the Rawhide repository.
It appears that glibc in Rawhide (2.8.90) is older than the glibc in
the initial F10 release (2.9). Am I seeing that correctly? If so,
should I downgrade, or wait for Rawhide to catch up?
Can anybody tell me how to get a screen resolution higher than 800x600
in the virtual machine?
Incidentally, the yum upgrade spit out somewhere around a million [2]
warnings that /usr/lib64/libxcb-xlib.so.0 is not a symbolic link,
apparently every time that ldconfig ran. Since "rpm -V libxcb"
produces no output, this appears to be intentional. F10 gets this
right (/usr/lib64/libxcb-xlib.so.0 is a symbolic link to
/usr/lib64/libxcb-xlib.so.0.0.0).
If I can get the kernel to stay up long enough to do anything, I'll
start trying things out and flinging bug reports where appropriate.
So far, it hasn't stayed up for very long. Good thing I've still got
the F10 kernel around...
Footnotes:
[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/Rawhide
[2] I may be exaggerating slightly.
--
Jerry James
http://loganjerry.googlepages.com/
6:33 p.m.
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 15:37:47 -0700,
Jerry James <loganjerry(a)gmail.com> wrote:
First, I couldn't get the Rawhide CD image to finish an installation.
There were warnings about rawhide not being installable for a bit.
Weirdly, it failed in different ways every time I tried to use it.
So
I tried to use the F10 -> Rawhide update method with yum documented
here [1]. I installed from my F10 DVD, then *without updating F10*,
changed repositories and did an update from the Rawhide repository.
That's what I did.
It appears that glibc in Rawhide (2.8.90) is older than the glibc in
the initial F10 release (2.9). Am I seeing that correctly? If so,
should I downgrade, or wait for Rawhide to catch up?
There are a few other things that have higher versions in F10. That caused
me a bit of grief. The dejavu fonts change also caused some problems.
Something that couldn't be updated pinned some other package that was
needed for another package and skip broken couldn't figure out how to
fix things. (It would be nice if it could at least tell it couldn't
succeed rather than going on in an endless loop.) There are also a few
kde-i18 and kde-i10 packages that have conflicting files.
For some things I uninstalled them in F10 to get the upgrade to succeed and
then the other stuff I cleaned up later using rpm to do a downgrade.
I used package-cleanup to find things that needed looking at.
Can anybody tell me how to get a screen resolution higher than
800x600
in the virtual machine?
That I can't help you with.
Incidentally, the yum upgrade spit out somewhere around a million
[2]
warnings that /usr/lib64/libxcb-xlib.so.0 is not a symbolic link,
apparently every time that ldconfig ran. Since "rpm -V libxcb"
produces no output, this appears to be intentional. F10 gets this
right (/usr/lib64/libxcb-xlib.so.0 is a symbolic link to
/usr/lib64/libxcb-xlib.so.0.0.0).
There's been a bug filed on that from about 4 months ago. The problem
seems relatively harmless, so you don't need to do anything about it.
10:27 p.m.
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Bruno Wolff III <bruno(a)wolff.to> wrote:
There are a few other things that have higher versions in F10. That
caused
me a bit of grief. The dejavu fonts change also caused some problems.
Something that couldn't be updated pinned some other package that was
needed for another package and skip broken couldn't figure out how to
fix things. (It would be nice if it could at least tell it couldn't
succeed rather than going on in an endless loop.) There are also a few
kde-i18 and kde-i10 packages that have conflicting files.
For some things I uninstalled them in F10 to get the upgrade to succeed and
then the other stuff I cleaned up later using rpm to do a downgrade.
I used package-cleanup to find things that needed looking at.
Ah, yes, I forgot about package-cleanup. So, skipping the F-10
kernel, here is what "package-cleanup --orphans" reports on my virtual
Rawhide machine:
glibc-2.9-2.x86_64
glibc-common-2.9-2.x86_64
glibc-devel-2.9-2.x86_64
glibc-headers-2.9-2.x86_64
libdhcp-1.99.8-1.fc10.x86_64
libdhcp4client-4.0.0-30.fc10.x86_64
libdhcp6client-1.0.22-1.fc10.x86_64
nscd-2.9-2.x86_64
xorg-x11-drv-mga-1.4.9-1.fc9.x86_64
xorg-x11-drv-mouse-1.3.0-2.fc9.x86_64
I admit that having glibc on that list really surprises me. It's such
a fundamental piece of the system...
Thanks,
--
Jerry James
http://loganjerry.googlepages.com/
11:35 a.m.
Le mercredi 31 décembre 2008 à 18:33 -0600, Bruno Wolff III a écrit :
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 15:37:47 -0700,
> It appears that glibc in Rawhide (2.8.90) is older than the
glibc in
> the initial F10 release (2.9). Am I seeing that correctly? If so,
> should I downgrade, or wait for Rawhide to catch up?
There are a few other things that have higher versions in F10. That caused
me a bit of grief. The dejavu fonts change also caused some problems.
Could you please expand? The update path is supposed to work, and I
notified every single packager that needed to change its deps when the
packages were re-organised.
--
Nicolas Mailhot
11:45 a.m.
On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 18:35:52 +0100,
Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> wrote:
Le mercredi 31 décembre 2008 à 18:33 -0600, Bruno Wolff III a écrit
:
> On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 15:37:47 -0700,
> > It appears that glibc in Rawhide (2.8.90) is older than the glibc in
> > the initial F10 release (2.9). Am I seeing that correctly? If so,
> > should I downgrade, or wait for Rawhide to catch up?
>
> There are a few other things that have higher versions in F10. That caused
> me a bit of grief. The dejavu fonts change also caused some problems.
Could you please expand? The update path is supposed to work, and I
notified every single packager that needed to change its deps when the
packages were re-organised.
Well it doesn't. Updates have been pushed for a few packages in F10 updates
and/or updates testing that have high NVRs than the corresponding rawhide
NVRs. Yum won't update those packages. Normally that wouldn't be a big deal
as skip broken would skip these and they would show up as orphans after the
update and you could manually downgrade them. But because so much stuff
depends on python the failure is complicated enough that skip broken
can't deal with it effectively. (In my case there was an infinite loop
where it tried to remove something, but that something was brought back
in by a dependency, resulting in the same failing package set continually
being retried.) If you uninstall a few key packages, you can get the update
to work. Once the vast majority of packages have been updated, you can
use package-cleanup --orphans to find problem packages and deal with them.
And then you can probably also reinstall some or all of what you have to
remove to get the update to work.
11:59 a.m.
Le samedi 03 janvier 2009 à 11:45 -0600, Bruno Wolff III a écrit :
On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 18:35:52 +0100,
Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> wrote:
> Le mercredi 31 décembre 2008 à 18:33 -0600, Bruno Wolff III a écrit :
> > On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 15:37:47 -0700,
>
> > > It appears that glibc in Rawhide (2.8.90) is older than the glibc in
> > > the initial F10 release (2.9). Am I seeing that correctly? If so,
> > > should I downgrade, or wait for Rawhide to catch up?
> >
> > There are a few other things that have higher versions in F10. That caused
> > me a bit of grief. The dejavu fonts change also caused some problems.
>
> Could you please expand? The update path is supposed to work, and I
> notified every single packager that needed to change its deps when the
> packages were re-organised.
Well it doesn't. Updates have been pushed for a few packages in F10 updates
and/or updates testing that have high NVRs than the corresponding rawhide
NVRs.
Well, I should have been clearer: which dejavu fonts problems did you
encounter?
--
Nicolas Mailhot
12:04 p.m.
On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 18:59:49 +0100,
Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> wrote:
Well, I should have been clearer: which dejavu fonts problems did you
encounter?
Mostly games. I think today's update covers the last of the games I was
interested in for the games spin. (I am still working on getting the
update though.) So you probably won't have install problems due to that.
However, I was using those fonts for Firefox, so there was some extra grief.
(Especially since I am sharing /home between my F10 and F11 installs.)
12:02 p.m.
On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 11:45:49 -0600,
Bruno Wolff III <bruno(a)wolff.to> wrote:
being retried.) If you uninstall a few key packages, you can get the
update
to work. Once the vast majority of packages have been updated, you can
use package-cleanup --orphans to find problem packages and deal with them.
And then you can probably also reinstall some or all of what you have to
remove to get the update to work.
I submitted an RFE (478697) to yum-utils to provide a way to find those
packages ahead of an update.
5599
days inactive
5602
days old
8 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Bruno Wolff III -
Jerry James -
Kevin Kofler -
Nicolas Mailhot