[AutoQA] #376: failed QA because wrong checking of nvr

[fedora-badges]

#376: failed QA because wrong checking of nvr
----------------------+-----------------------------------------------------
 Reporter:  mmaslano  |       Owner:              
     Type:  defect    |      Status:  new         
 Priority:  major     |   Milestone:  Future tasks
Component:  core      |    Keywords:              
----------------------+-----------------------------------------------------
 <snip>
 Update FAILED: perl-CPAN-Meta-YAML-0.003-7.fc16
   Build FAILED: perl-CPAN-Meta-YAML-0.003-7.fc16
     Ignored:
       perl-CPAN-Meta-YAML-0.003-7.fc16

 Detailed Results

 Package matching perl-CPAN-Meta-YAML-0.003-7.fc16.noarch already
 installed. Checking for update.
 </snip>

 perl-CPAN-Meta-YAML is shipped twice. Once in perl and once in separated
 package. The one from perl has nvr: perl-CPAN-Meta-
 YAML-0:0.003-166.fc16.noarch
 It was already installed and autoqa doesn't count with this option. It's
 only valid for Perl packages. It wouldn't be problem, I can ignore it, but
 error message is confusing:
 Package matching perl-CPAN-Meta-YAML-0.003-7.fc16.noarch already
 installed. Checking for update.

 http://autoqa.fedoraproject.org/results/167954-autotest/10.5.124.164/depc...
 /perl-CPAN-Meta-YAML-.html

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/ticket/376>
AutoQA <http://autoqa.fedorahosted.org>
Automated QA project

[fedora-badges]

#376: failed QA because wrong checking of nvr
----------------------+-----------------------------------------------------
 Reporter:  mmaslano  |        Owner:          
     Type:  defect    |       Status:  new     
 Priority:  major     |    Milestone:  Depcheck
Component:  tests     |   Resolution:          
 Keywords:            |  
----------------------+-----------------------------------------------------
Comment (by jskladan):

 Hi,

 '''tl;dr''': yes, you can safely ignore the "fail".

 '''Long version:'''

 The thing is, that Depcheck behaves like the content of (in this
 particular case) stable, updates and updates-testing (since the perl-CPAN-
 Meta-YAML-0.003-7.fc16 is marked as updates-testing-pending) as installed,
 and then tries to install the packages from the -pending over it using
 yum.

 And since the version currently in updates-testing provided by perl
 package <http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=2646263>

 perl-CPAN-Meta-YAML-0.003-185.fc16

 has bigger EVR than the build currently tested

 perl-CPAN-Meta-YAML-0.003-7.fc16

 depcheck ignores it as "lower version than currently available". Hence the
 message (rather cryptic, but it's yum's doing) "Package matching XYZ
 already installed" and the perl-CPAN-Meta-YAML-0.003-7.fc16 ending in
 Ignored.

 Hope it helps.

 /me proposes closing this with NOTABUG, once all the questions are
 answered

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/ticket/376#comment:2>
AutoQA <http://autoqa.fedorahosted.org>
Automated QA project

[fedora-badges]

#376: failed QA because wrong checking of nvr
----------------------+-----------------------------------------------------
 Reporter:  mmaslano  |        Owner:          
     Type:  defect    |       Status:  closed  
 Priority:  major     |    Milestone:  Depcheck
Component:  tests     |   Resolution:  wontfix 
 Keywords:            |  
----------------------+-----------------------------------------------------
Changes (by mmaslano):

  * status:  new => closed
  * resolution:  => wontfix

Comment:

 Not sure how to solve it. Therefore it can be closed :-/ I will try ignore
 it.

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/ticket/376#comment:3>
AutoQA <http://autoqa.fedorahosted.org>
Automated QA project

[fedora-badges]

#376: failed QA because wrong checking of nvr
----------------------+-----------------------------------------------------
 Reporter:  mmaslano  |        Owner:          
     Type:  defect    |       Status:  closed  
 Priority:  major     |    Milestone:  Depcheck
Component:  tests     |   Resolution:  wontfix 
 Keywords:            |  
----------------------+-----------------------------------------------------
Comment (by kparal):

 Marcela, we are sorry to send you invalid results. We'll try to improve it
 in the future. Current depcheck implementation is probably at its limits -
 it works well most of the time, but fails for some corner-cases.
 Unfortunately it fails often when perl packages are in the mix, as far as
 I have noticed. We have plans for trying a different approach in some
 time.

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/ticket/376#comment:4>
AutoQA <http://autoqa.fedorahosted.org>
Automated QA project