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
On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 12:56 PM Troy Dawson tdawson@redhat.com 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
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.
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@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 12:56 PM Troy Dawson tdawson@redhat.com 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
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.
On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 at 13:00, Troy Dawson tdawson@redhat.com wrote:
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.
Thanks. We 'approved' this at the meeting today so go ahead. Thank you very much for the work. And I agree with your assessments on package that might need removal if needed.
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@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 12:56 PM Troy Dawson tdawson@redhat.com 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
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@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave@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.fedoraproject...
My apologies for delaying my work on this. Priorities got shifted so I'm starting this work today. On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 10:50 AM Stephen John Smoogen smooge@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 at 13:00, Troy Dawson tdawson@redhat.com wrote:
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.
Thanks. We 'approved' this at the meeting today so go ahead. Thank you very much for the work. And I agree with your assessments on package that might need removal if needed.
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@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 12:56 PM Troy Dawson tdawson@redhat.com 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
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@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave@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.fedoraproject...
-- Stephen J Smoogen. _______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave@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.fedoraproject...
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Stephen John Smoogen -
Troy Dawson