10:43 a.m.
working since many motnhs with:
subversion-1.7.0-2.fc15.x86_64
subversion-libs-1.7.0-2.fc15.x86_64
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=752
all the 1.7 packages are removed for F15/F16 now
so after distro-sync to F16 downgradded to
subversion-1.6.17-5.fc16.x86_64
and now?
WHY are they removed from koji?
________________________
svn: The path '/www/thelounge.net/contentlounge/updateservice/package' appears
to be part of a Subversion 1.7 or greater working copy. Please upgrade your
Subversion client to use this working copy.
11:44 a.m.
On 03/12/2012 03:43 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
working since many motnhs with:
subversion-1.7.0-2.fc15.x86_64
subversion-libs-1.7.0-2.fc15.x86_64
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=752
all the 1.7 packages are removed for F15/F16 now
so after distro-sync to F16 downgradded to
subversion-1.6.17-5.fc16.x86_64
and now?
WHY are they removed from koji?
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Koji/GarbageCollection
I guess the maintainer decided against pushing that version as an update
to a stable release.
Paul.
12:02 p.m.
Am 12.03.2012 17:44, schrieb Paul Howarth:
On 03/12/2012 03:43 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> working since many motnhs with:
> subversion-1.7.0-2.fc15.x86_64
> subversion-libs-1.7.0-2.fc15.x86_64
>
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=752
>
> all the 1.7 packages are removed for F15/F16 now
> so after distro-sync to F16 downgradded to
> subversion-1.6.17-5.fc16.x86_64
>
> and now?
> WHY are they removed from koji?
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Koji/GarbageCollection
I guess the maintainer decided against pushing that version as an update to a stable
release.
fine, and now i have no chance to use subversion any longer on F16
because i tested 1.7 since long ago, all worked fine and i converted
my subversion data many months ago with the major benefit that
the possible dangerous .svn folders are no longer needed and you
have not to care prvent put them on a wbeserver
the F17 src.rpm can not be rebuilded with "rpmbuild --rebuild"
on F16 because BuildRequirements - so i am f**ed up because
tessted and expected after all is running fine this was
pushed to stable updates long ago
12:43 p.m.
On 3/12/12 10:02 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
fine, and now i have no chance to use subversion any longer on F16
because i tested 1.7 since long ago, all worked fine and i converted
my subversion data many months ago with the major benefit that
the possible dangerous .svn folders are no longer needed and you
have not to care prvent put them on a wbeserver
the F17 src.rpm can not be rebuilded with "rpmbuild --rebuild"
on F16 because BuildRequirements - so i am f**ed up because
tessted and expected after all is running fine this was
pushed to stable updates long ago
Something going into updates-testing does not guarantee that it will
ever be promoted to updates.
--
Help me fight child abuse: http://tinyurl.com/jlkcourage
- jlk
12:43 p.m.
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl(a)thelounge.net> wrote:
Am 12.03.2012 17:44, schrieb Paul Howarth:
> On 03/12/2012 03:43 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> working since many motnhs with:
>> subversion-1.7.0-2.fc15.x86_64
>> subversion-libs-1.7.0-2.fc15.x86_64
>>
>> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=752
>>
>> all the 1.7 packages are removed for F15/F16 now
>> so after distro-sync to F16 downgradded to
>> subversion-1.6.17-5.fc16.x86_64
>>
>> and now?
>> WHY are they removed from koji?
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Koji/GarbageCollection
>
> I guess the maintainer decided against pushing that version as an update to a stable
release.
fine, and now i have no chance to use subversion any longer on F16
because i tested 1.7 since long ago, all worked fine and i converted
my subversion data many months ago with the major benefit that
the possible dangerous .svn folders are no longer needed and you
have not to care prvent put them on a wbeserver
the F17 src.rpm can not be rebuilded with "rpmbuild --rebuild"
on F16 because BuildRequirements - so i am f**ed up because
tessted and expected after all is running fine this was
pushed to stable updates long ago
No, it looks like it stayed in testing because the version was
updated. I don't see where it was ever in stable.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-2673
-J
--
devel mailing list
devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
--
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love
-d. bowie
12:44 p.m.
On 3/12/12 10:43 AM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
No, it looks like it stayed in testing because the version was
updated. I don't see where it was ever in stable.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-2673
He expected that it /would/ be pushed to stable.
--
Help me fight child abuse: http://tinyurl.com/jlkcourage
- jlk
12:46 p.m.
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Jesse Keating
<jkeating(a)j2solutions.net> wrote:
On 3/12/12 10:43 AM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
>
> No, it looks like it stayed in testing because the version was
> updated. I don't see where it was ever in stable.
>
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-2673
He expected that it /would/ be pushed to stable.
Well, yes. And I can understand that. But as you said, that's no
guarantee it'll ever hit stable.
-J
--
Help me fight child abuse: http://tinyurl.com/jlkcourage
- jlk
--
devel mailing list
devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
--
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love
-d. bowie
12:48 p.m.
Am 12.03.2012 18:46, schrieb Jon Ciesla:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Jesse Keating
<jkeating(a)j2solutions.net> wrote:
> On 3/12/12 10:43 AM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
>>
>> No, it looks like it stayed in testing because the version was
>> updated. I don't see where it was ever in stable.
>>
>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-2673
>
>
> He expected that it /would/ be pushed to stable.
Well, yes. And I can understand that. But as you said, that's no
guarantee it'll ever hit stable.
but what should i do now a half year later
i need subversion >= 1.7.0, this was installed
until today i upgraded to F16 and worked well
currently tehre is not working >= 1.7.x package
for F16 available anywhere
2:33 p.m.
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl(a)thelounge.net> wrote:
Am 12.03.2012 18:46, schrieb Jon Ciesla:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Jesse Keating
> <jkeating(a)j2solutions.net> wrote:
>> On 3/12/12 10:43 AM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
>>>
>>> No, it looks like it stayed in testing because the version was
>>> updated. I don't see where it was ever in stable.
>>>
>>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-2673
>>
>>
>> He expected that it /would/ be pushed to stable.
>
> Well, yes. And I can understand that. But as you said, that's no
> guarantee it'll ever hit stable.
but what should i do now a half year later
i need subversion >= 1.7.0, this was installed
until today i upgraded to F16 and worked well
currently tehre is not working >= 1.7.x package
for F16 available anywhere
I'm not sure. Install the build deps needed to rebuild the f17 SRPMs?
-J
--
devel mailing list
devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
--
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love
-d. bowie
2:59 p.m.
Am 12.03.2012 20:33, schrieb Jon Ciesla:
>>> He expected that it /would/ be pushed to stable.
>>
>> Well, yes. And I can understand that. But as you said, that's no
>> guarantee it'll ever hit stable.
>
> but what should i do now a half year later
>
> i need subversion >= 1.7.0, this was installed
> until today i upgraded to F16 and worked well
>
> currently there is not working >= 1.7.x package
> for F16 available anywhere
>
I'm not sure. Install the build deps needed to rebuild the f17 SRPMs?
they are NOT solveable for the available src.rpms on F16
that is why it makes me so crazy that once built and
working packages are removed in the meantime
don't do the testing on productive systems.
Do the testing in a separate system (or in a VM)
i DO testing in many virtual machines and tests was succesful
how should i imagine that a F15 testing-version will it
make even not in F16 while other packages are RELEASED
as RC and even not updated after upstream-final (dbmail)
4:49 p.m.
On 3/12/12 12:59 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> > I'm not sure. Install the build deps needed to rebuild
the f17 SRPMs?
they are NOT solveable for the available src.rpms on F16
that is why it makes me so crazy that once built and
working packages are removed in the meantime
> > don't do the testing on productive systems.
> > Do the testing in a separate system (or in a VM)
i DO testing in many virtual machines and tests was succesful
how should i imagine that a F15 testing-version will it
make even not in F16 while other packages are RELEASED
as RC and even not updated after upstream-final (dbmail)
Every package is different. While the subversion update required hand
management to bring up to date, the dbmail may not have (note I do not
know if this is true or not).
You can't judge one package by another, upstream version numbers are
practically meaningless, particularly when trying to compare behavior
between two packages.
--
Help me fight child abuse: http://tinyurl.com/jlkcourage
- jlk
4:54 p.m.
Am 12.03.2012 22:49, schrieb Jesse Keating:
Every package is different. While the subversion update required
hand management to bring up to date, the dbmail may not have (note
I do not know if this is true or not)
what i meant here is why the maintainer does not update to
stable release for so long time?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=797118
even 3.0 final was badly broken in many ways and needed
nearly a month debugging with the upstream-developer
and now while 3.0.2 is really fine fedora users not building
their own packages does not get a update while the would
not have these many troubles by not inclduding a RC in GA release
4:58 p.m.
On 3/12/12 2:54 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
what i meant here is why the maintainer does not update to
stable release for so long time?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=797118
even 3.0 final was badly broken in many ways and needed
nearly a month debugging with the upstream-developer
and now while 3.0.2 is really fine fedora users not building
their own packages does not get a update while the would
not have these many troubles by not inclduding a RC in GA release
I do not know the back story here, nor do I think it's relevant to the
discussion about subversion update not making it out of updates-testing.
For dbmail, you might have the start of a non-responsive maintainer action.
--
Help me fight child abuse: http://tinyurl.com/jlkcourage
- jlk
1:16 p.m.
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:46:08PM -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Jesse Keating
<jkeating(a)j2solutions.net> wrote:
> On 3/12/12 10:43 AM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
>>
>> No, it looks like it stayed in testing because the version was
>> updated. I don't see where it was ever in stable.
>>
>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-2673
>
>
> He expected that it /would/ be pushed to stable.
Well, yes. And I can understand that. But as you said, that's no
guarantee it'll ever hit stable.
If needed, the OP should be able to scratch-build the 1.7.0-2 packages
from the package git repository, or (hopefully) some later and
presumably improved 1.7.x version. +1 on the guarantee, but that
doesn't help the OP if he has converted repos. Caveat emptor.
--
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
The open source story continues to grow: http://opensource.com
1:46 p.m.
Am 12.03.2012 19:16, schrieb Paul W. Frields:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:46:08PM -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Jesse Keating
> <jkeating(a)j2solutions.net> wrote:
>> On 3/12/12 10:43 AM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
>>>
>>> No, it looks like it stayed in testing because the version was
>>> updated. I don't see where it was ever in stable.
>>>
>>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-2673
>>
>>
>> He expected that it /would/ be pushed to stable.
>
> Well, yes. And I can understand that. But as you said, that's no
> guarantee it'll ever hit stable.
If needed, the OP should be able to scratch-build the 1.7.0-2 packages
from the package git repository, or (hopefully) some later and
presumably improved 1.7.x version. +1 on the guarantee, but that
doesn't help the OP if he has converted repos. Caveat emptor.
i tried a "rpmbuild --rebuild" with one of the later
F17 src.rpm on my F16 build-vm but it failed because
build-requirements
2:37 p.m.
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl(a)thelounge.net> wrote:
Am 12.03.2012 19:16, schrieb Paul W. Frields:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:46:08PM -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Jesse Keating
>> <jkeating(a)j2solutions.net> wrote:
>>> On 3/12/12 10:43 AM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
>>>>
>>>> No, it looks like it stayed in testing because the version was
>>>> updated. I don't see where it was ever in stable.
>>>>
>>>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-2673
>>>
>>>
>>> He expected that it /would/ be pushed to stable.
>>
>> Well, yes. And I can understand that. But as you said, that's no
>> guarantee it'll ever hit stable.
>
> If needed, the OP should be able to scratch-build the 1.7.0-2 packages
> from the package git repository, or (hopefully) some later and
> presumably improved 1.7.x version. +1 on the guarantee, but that
> doesn't help the OP if he has converted repos. Caveat emptor.
i tried a "rpmbuild --rebuild" with one of the later
F17 src.rpm on my F16 build-vm but it failed because
build-requirements
[jwboyer@zod fedora]$ fedpkg clone subversion
Cloning into 'subversion'...
remote: Counting objects: 1329, done.
remote: Compressing objects: 100% (768/768), done.
remote: Total 1329 (delta 664), reused 1064 (delta 502)
Receiving objects: 100% (1329/1329), 496.62 KiB | 489 KiB/s, done.
Resolving deltas: 100% (664/664), done.
[jwboyer@zod fedora]$ cd subversion/
[jwboyer@zod subversion]$ fedpkg switch-branch f16
Branch f16 set up to track remote branch f16 from origin.
[jwboyer@zod subversion]$ fedpkg scratch-build
cat: /usr/include/httpd/.mmn: No such file or directory
sh: ruby: command not found
sh: ruby: command not found
sh: ruby: command not found
cat: /usr/include/httpd/.mmn: No such file or directory
sh: ruby: command not found
sh: ruby: command not found
sh: ruby: command not found
Building subversion-1.7.1-1.fc16 for f16-candidate
Created task: 3887068
Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3887068
Watching tasks (this may be safely interrupted)...
3887068 build (f16-candidate,
/subversion:d882fd1d57d847e251ccd5a888282200e54cd45b): free
3887068 build (f16-candidate,
/subversion:d882fd1d57d847e251ccd5a888282200e54cd45b): free -> open
(ppc12.phx2.fedoraproject.org)
3887071 buildSRPMFromSCM
(/subversion:d882fd1d57d847e251ccd5a888282200e54cd45b): open
(x86-13.phx2.fedoraproject.org)
If that works, then there you go. If not, then you can figure out why and
duplicate the same steps.
josh
2:43 p.m.
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl(a)thelounge.net> wrote:
the F17 src.rpm can not be rebuilded with "rpmbuild
--rebuild"
on F16 because BuildRequirements - so i am f**ed up because
tessted and expected after all is running fine this was
pushed to stable updates long ago
Well that does not help you now but to avoid hitting this situation
again ... don't do the testing on productive systems.
Do the testing in a separate system (or in a VM).
4:34 p.m.
New subject: [PARTLY SOLVED] Re: why are is subversion 1.7 for F16/F17 removed
Am 12.03.2012 20:43, schrieb drago01:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Reindl Harald
<h.reindl(a)thelounge.net> wrote:
> the F17 src.rpm can not be rebuilded with "rpmbuild --rebuild"
> on F16 because BuildRequirements - so i am f**ed up because
> tessted and expected after all is running fine this was
> pushed to stable updates long ago
Well that does not help you now but to avoid hitting this situation
again ... don't do the testing on productive systems.
Do the testing in a separate system (or in a VM)
i usually test in vritual machines, but after tests was successful
and i had a prepared transission to subversion 1.7 for my working
data i did the update also on my desktop station
however:
i partly solved the problem for now
the "1.7.1-1"-fc17 package can be rebuilt by disabling autotests
on F16 including "subversion-kde" and also rebuilt "svn2cl"
makes me not much happy that newer ones can not be rebuilt
by hitting cross-deps with newer ruby/ruby-devel versions
but it makes my situation much more relaxed
subversion-1.7.1-1.fc16.20120312.rh.x86_64
subversion-kde-1.7.1-1.fc16.20120312.rh.x86_64
subversion-libs-1.7.1-1.fc16.20120312.rh.x86_64
4:49 p.m.
New subject: [PARTLY SOLVED] Re: why are is subversion 1.7 for F16/F17 removed
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 10:34 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl(a)thelounge.net> wrote:
Am 12.03.2012 20:43, schrieb drago01:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl(a)thelounge.net> wrote:
>
>> the F17 src.rpm can not be rebuilded with "rpmbuild --rebuild"
>> on F16 because BuildRequirements - so i am f**ed up because
>> tessted and expected after all is running fine this was
>> pushed to stable updates long ago
>
> Well that does not help you now but to avoid hitting this situation
> again ... don't do the testing on productive systems.
> Do the testing in a separate system (or in a VM)
i usually test in vritual machines, but after tests was successful
and i had a prepared transission to subversion 1.7 for my working
data i did the update also on my desktop station
Well usually you should test in the VM (or another safe environment),
give karma in bodhi and wait for the update to hit stable before
deploying it.
4483
days inactive
4483
days old
18 comments
7 participants
participants (7)
-
drago01 -
Jesse Keating -
Jon Ciesla -
Josh Boyer -
Paul Howarth -
Paul W. Frields -
Reindl Harald