2:40 a.m.
This morning I got an email notification:
================================================================================
Package Arch Version Repository Size
================================================================================
Aktualisieren:
libnghttp2 x86_64 1.41.0-1.module_el8+9071+b2b61c14 epel-modular 78 k
Enabling module streams:
nodejs 10
As far as I know "libnghttp2" is provided in CentOS/RHEL base so this modular
package just replaced the previous from CentOS? Also the "nodejs" module got
enabled automatically?
What is going on here? I thought we had contained the modularity fallout
pretty much with Fedora's (+EPEL's) policies.
Felix
8:51 a.m.
New subject: EPEL 8: modular libnghttp2 replaces package from RHEL base
Policies don't mean mistakes won't happen.
A mistake happened and
A) We are trying to clean it up as soon as possible [1]
B) We are trying to work with mbs and infrastructure to make sure this
can't happen in the future.
I'm sorry this is so short on details, but I need to either write a
short email now, or a long email later.
Hopefully others can fill in the details.
Troy
[1] https://pagure.io/releng/issue/9554
On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 12:41 AM Felix Schwarz
<fschwarz(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
This morning I got an email notification:
================================================================================
Package Arch Version Repository Size
================================================================================
Aktualisieren:
libnghttp2 x86_64 1.41.0-1.module_el8+9071+b2b61c14 epel-modular 78 k
Enabling module streams:
nodejs 10
As far as I know "libnghttp2" is provided in CentOS/RHEL base so this modular
package just replaced the previous from CentOS? Also the "nodejs" module got
enabled automatically?
What is going on here? I thought we had contained the modularity fallout
pretty much with Fedora's (+EPEL's) policies.
Felix
_______________________________________________
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://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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproj...
8:57 a.m.
New subject: EPEL 8: modular libnghttp2 replaces package from RHEL base
Hi Troy,
thank you for the pointer and sorry if my tone was a bit harsh.
I filed also https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1851642 - is that
the right place?
Felix
10:16 a.m.
New subject: EPEL 8: modular libnghttp2 replaces package from RHEL base
Hi Felix,
I wasn't offended by your tone. I felt the same way when I saw this on Friday.
Although dnf sees these as two different modules, since they have same
name and stream, dnf lumps them together. When that happens, dnf uses
the packages with the highest Name-Version-Release (NVR). In this
case, unfortunately, the EPEL package NVR's are higher, and thus dnf
is choosing them.
This is a known behavior.
We were hoping that EPEL module maintainers would avoid these
conflicts. But as I said earlier, mistakes happen.
When we looked last week, we saw that there were now three modules
with the same module and stream names as RHEL modules. Only one was
enabled by default, but clearly something needed to be done.
We (The EPEL Steering Committee) are working on not only a policy
change, but hopefully a solution that will keep this from happening in
the future.
https://pagure.io/epel/issue/104
I've put this same information in your bugzilla, but I wanted to also
put it here, so people don't have to go to the bug to see this
information.
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 6:57 AM Felix Schwarz
<fschwarz(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
Hi Troy,
thank you for the pointer and sorry if my tone was a bit harsh.
I filed also https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1851642 - is that
the right place?
Felix
10:32 a.m.
New subject: EPEL 8: modular libnghttp2 replaces package from RHEL base
Am 29.06.20 um 17:16 schrieb Troy Dawson:
Hi Felix,
I wasn't offended by your tone. I felt the same way when I saw this on Friday.
Although dnf sees these as two different modules, since they have same
name and stream, dnf lumps them together. When that happens, dnf uses
the packages with the highest Name-Version-Release (NVR). In this
case, unfortunately, the EPEL package NVR's are higher, and thus dnf
is choosing them.
This is a known behavior.
We were hoping that EPEL module maintainers would avoid these
conflicts. But as I said earlier, mistakes happen.
When we looked last week, we saw that there were now three modules
with the same module and stream names as RHEL modules. Only one was
enabled by default, but clearly something needed to be done.
We (The EPEL Steering Committee) are working on not only a policy
change, but hopefully a solution that will keep this from happening in
the future.
https://pagure.io/epel/issue/104
I've put this same information in your bugzilla, but I wanted to also
put it here, so people don't have to go to the bug to see this
information.
For those that have an automated update process in place.
What steps are needed to revert this mistake?
--
Leon
2:41 p.m.
New subject: EPEL 8: modular libnghttp2 replaces package from RHEL base
On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 17:32:58 +0200
Leon Fauster <leonfauster(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
For those that have an automated update process in place.
What steps are needed to revert this mistake?
"dnf distro-sync" after issue has been corrected. Issue has been fixed
but not applied yet. It only gets fixed after next module compose.
--
Tuomo Soini <tis(a)foobar.fi>
Foobar Linux services
+358 40 5240030
Foobar Oy <https://foobar.fi/>
2:58 p.m.
New subject: EPEL 8: modular libnghttp2 replaces package from RHEL base
Am 29.06.20 um 21:41 schrieb Tuomo Soini:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 17:32:58 +0200
Leon Fauster <leonfauster(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> For those that have an automated update process in place.
> What steps are needed to revert this mistake?
"dnf distro-sync" after issue has been corrected. Issue has been fixed
but not applied yet. It only gets fixed after next module compose.
Okay, thanks.
--
Leon
1394
days inactive
1396
days old
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
6 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Felix Schwarz -
Leon Fauster -
Troy Dawson -
Tuomo Soini