Hey Fabio, There is a problem with the code. You seem to run either repoquery or repoclosure inside. However, that does not really check rich dependencies correctly. Do you want to check for FTI/FTBFS or that all dependencies are present in Fedora? On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 1:23 PM Fabio Valentini <decathorpe(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > > Hi everybody, > > I'm a bit concerned about the growing number of broken dependencies in > fedora, which leads to non-installable (FTI) and un-buildable (FTBFS) > packages. For rawhide [0], I see almost 400 source packages and almost > 200 x86_64 packages with broken deps. Especially the number of source > packages with broken dependencies has steadily been growing since 29. > > With a bit of effort, a lot of these broken packages could be fixed > quite easily, but it would still need a coordinated effort by a group > of people. I think an Objective would fit for that purpose. > > Fabio > > PS: Feel free to browse the data in the linked pagure repo. I'm > regenerating it daily with the latest state of all fedora branches. If > somebody is interested in getting notified about any of their packages > getting broken deps (for example, in -testing, before things get > broken in stable), I can work out some kind of automatic (opt-in) > notification system :) > > [0]: https://pagure.io/fedora-health-check/blob/master/f/reports/report-rawhid... > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 2:08 PM Igor Gnatenko <ignatenkobrain(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote: (snip) To follow up on this: It turns out DNF's repoclosure *does* correctly report broken dependencies, even for rich dependencies (or it's not as broken as we thought). Checking a random sample of the reported "broken rich dependencies" manually, it turned out every single one I checked was *actually unsatisfiable*, and not caused by a DNF / repoclosure bug. Fabio > Do you want to check for FTI/FTBFS or that all dependencies are > present in Fedora? > > On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 1:23 PM Fabio Valentini <decathorpe(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > > > > Hi everybody, > > > > I'm a bit concerned about the growing number of broken dependencies in > > fedora, which leads to non-installable (FTI) and un-buildable (FTBFS) > > packages. For rawhide [0], I see almost 400 source packages and almost > > 200 x86_64 packages with broken deps. Especially the number of source > > packages with broken dependencies has steadily been growing since 29. > > > > With a bit of effort, a lot of these broken packages could be fixed > > quite easily, but it would still need a coordinated effort by a group > > of people. I think an Objective would fit for that purpose. > > > > Fabio > > > > PS: Feel free to browse the data in the linked pagure repo. I'm > > regenerating it daily with the latest state of all fedora branches. If > > somebody is interested in getting notified about any of their packages > > getting broken deps (for example, in -testing, before things get > > broken in stable), I can work out some kind of automatic (opt-in) > > notification system :) > > > > [0]: https://pagure.io/fedora-health-check/blob/master/f/reports/report-rawhid... > > _______________________________________________ > > devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > > List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 5:40 PM Igor Gnatenko <ignatenkobrain(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote: No, it definitely checks both parts now. For example, the broken dependency reported as (crate(git2) >= 0.9.0 with crate(git2) < 0.10.0) is unsatisfiable since the rust-git2-devel package in rawhide has version 0.10.1 (and hence doesn't satisfy the second requirement). Fabio > On Thu, Nov 28, 2019, 17:33 Fabio Valentini <decathorpe(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >> >> On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 2:08 PM Igor Gnatenko >> <ignatenkobrain(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote: >> > >> > Hey Fabio, >> >> (snip) >> >> > There is a problem with the code. You seem to run either repoquery or >> > repoclosure inside. However, that does not really check rich >> > dependencies correctly. >> >> To follow up on this: It turns out DNF's repoclosure *does* correctly >> report broken dependencies, even for rich dependencies (or it's not as >> broken as we thought). >> Checking a random sample of the reported "broken rich dependencies" >> manually, it turned out every single one I checked was *actually >> unsatisfiable*, and not caused by a DNF / repoclosure bug. >> >> Fabio >> >> > Do you want to check for FTI/FTBFS or that all dependencies are >> > present in Fedora? >> > >> > On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 1:23 PM Fabio Valentini <decathorpe(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >> > > >> > > Hi everybody, >> > > >> > > I'm a bit concerned about the growing number of broken dependencies in >> > > fedora, which leads to non-installable (FTI) and un-buildable (FTBFS) >> > > packages. For rawhide [0], I see almost 400 source packages and almost >> > > 200 x86_64 packages with broken deps. Especially the number of source >> > > packages with broken dependencies has steadily been growing since 29. >> > > >> > > With a bit of effort, a lot of these broken packages could be fixed >> > > quite easily, but it would still need a coordinated effort by a group >> > > of people. I think an Objective would fit for that purpose. >> > > >> > > Fabio >> > > >> > > PS: Feel free to browse the data in the linked pagure repo. I'm >> > > regenerating it daily with the latest state of all fedora branches. If >> > > somebody is interested in getting notified about any of their packages >> > > getting broken deps (for example, in -testing, before things get >> > > broken in stable), I can work out some kind of automatic (opt-in) >> > > notification system :) >> > > >> > > [0]: https://pagure.io/fedora-health-check/blob/master/f/reports/report-rawhid... >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org >> > > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org >> > > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ >> > > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines >> > > List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org >> > _______________________________________________ >> > devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org >> > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org >> > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ >> > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines >> > List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org >> _______________________________________________ >> devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org >> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org >> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ >> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines >> List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 5:14 AM Fabio Valentini <decathorpe(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: This turned up a problem in the gap-pkg-polenta package, which I wish I had known about sooner. So, yes, I am interested in some kind of notification. I miss the old days when the broken deps report was part of the Rawhide compose email. Is there any chance of bringing that back? It was very useful. The report lists the mscore package, which surprised me, since I just built it a few days ago. It says: - mscore (src): o pkgconfig(Qt5WebEngine) There is no problem installing 'pkgconfig(Qt5WebEngine)' in mock on my machine. From the spec file: %ifarch %{qt5_qtwebengine_arches} BuildRequires: pkgconfig(Qt5WebEngine) %endif I suspect the check was run on a machine with an architecture not in qt5_qtwebengine_arches. In that case, this is a false positive. Do you have some way of telling when a BuildRequires is inside an %ifarch or %ifnarch block? Thanks for running this report, Fabio. -- Jerry James http://www.jamezone.org/

On Mon, 2019-11-25 at 13:13 +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: I'd say the main problem here is not a lack of an objective but a lack of information. Back when the tooling still worked and we got a daily email with a handy list of packages with broken deps, I and Kevin Fenzi and others would regularly go through it and fix the ones we could fix, occasionally we'd get down to zero, but we always kept on top of it to some extent. Now there isn't a handy list any more, we just don't do this as much because it's not as easy to find what needs fixing in the first place. The most useful thing to do here would be to fix up the tooling so we get a reliable daily report again. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net