[EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL7 Bad-Dependencies Tracking Bug

Here are the list of packages with bad dependencies, their bug URL, and current status. For those that still have "No Comment" tomorrow, I will start going through and fixing. For those that want to be removed, I'll be doing that tomorrow as well.

airinv https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647583 - Rebuilt - On QA anjuta https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1648003 - Rebuilt - On QA banshee https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647999 - No Comment beets https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647995 - Wants Removed bionetgen https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647989 - Rebuilt - On QA cinnamon https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647181 - Want Removed cjdns-graph https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647987 - Rebuilt - On QA jabber-roster https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647977 - No Comment libpeas-loader-python3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647973 - No Comment notify-sharp3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647623 - No Comment opensips https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647622 - No Comment perl-GTop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647620 - Rebuilt - On QA python-atomic-reactor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647613 - Wants Removed python-django16 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647611 - Rebuilt - On QA python-proliantutils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647614 - No Comment python-adal https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647605 - Assigned python-pyfakefs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647603 - No Comment python-pygithub https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647602 - No Comment python-yamlordereddictloader https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647597 - No Comment ruby-qpid https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647592 - No Comment (I recommend removal) rubygem-apipie-bindings https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647585 - Wants Removed simcrs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647584 - Rebuilt - On QA slim https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647581 - No Comment xfce4-vala https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647569 - Rebuilt - On QA On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 1:35 PM Troy Dawson <tdawson(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 12:56 PM Troy Dawson <tdawson(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > > > Hi, > > I'm going through the lists of EPEL7 packages that are not able to be > > installed on RHEL 7.6, and opening bugzilla's for them. I am keeping > > track of all those bugs with a tracker bug.[1] > > My apologies to the epel-release maintainers for using their package > > for the tracker. > > > > I've only created 6 bugs thus far, and only 1 of those bugs is because > > of RHEL 7.6. > > Because I'm verifying each failed install, and tracking down the basic > > problem, it's taking me a little longer. It might take a couple of > > days. > > I'll send an email when I'm done. > > > > Troy > > > > [1] - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647564 > > I'm pretty much done for now. > I didn't do any nodejs or golang bugs because all of their failing > dependencies are in EPEL, not RHEL. Or perhaps I should say they > *aren't* in EPEL :) > > A few numbers > > bugs created for uninstallable EPEL7 packages - 24 > nodejs uninstallable packages - 11 > golang uninstallable packages - 18 > > Total EPEL7 binary packages[2] - 12,547 > ^^ Above installable on RHEL 7.6 - 12,043 > ^^ Above not installable on RHEL 7.6 - 504 > > Why such a big difference between 504 uninstallable binary packages, > but only 53 potential bugs? > 1 - bugs are against source packages. The bottom checks are against > binary packages. My guess is that the 50 bugs cover about 150 binary > packages because each source can have more than one package. And when > I was looking at the packages, it looked like about an average of > three binaries per source. > 2 - repoquery (used to generate the bug list) went to the heart of the > problems. So if package A is uninstallable, and package B depends on > A. We don't file a bug for package B, only A. For some of those > nodejs packages, I've seen one package A with a bad dependency, cause > 25 to 50 package B's, who aren't installable due to A not being > installable. > 3 - It's possible that we might have missed a few packages. > > Troy > > [2] - "binary packages" are the packages that you get build an rpm. > It doesn't mean the package contain *only* binaries, because it might > be an rpm full of scripts, or just documentation. _______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproj...