On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 10:29 -0400, Kamil Paral wrote:
On Mon, 2011-06-27 at 18:46 -0600, Tim Flink wrote:
On 06/27/2011 09:13 AM, Kamil Paral wrote:
Hi Tim,
we (kamil and I) briefly went through the log, and althought we did not really find out what's the 'primary cause' of the update's failure, we at least discovered, what do these blocks
SKIPBROKEN: --> Package: erlang-js-0.5.0-2.fc15.x86_64 (f15) --> Requires: libjs.so.1()(64bit) --> Removing: js-1.70-13.fc15.x86_64 (f15) --> libjs.so.1()(64bit) --> Updated By: 1:js-1.8.5-6.fc15.x86_64 (pending) --> Not found [view »]
mean.
I added the description of this problem into
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/AutoQA_tests/Depcheck#.22Not_Found.22_errors
Cool, thanks.
I'm still looking for more examples to put up there. If anyone knows of good ones, please pass them on.
Yeah, nice failure mode ... thanks for adding Kamil.
Do the two suggested resolutions apply for the new "Not found" error? What would a maintainer do in this case?
Should we add something like...
Correct the dependencies If your package failed because the dependencies of other packages changed (features they were providing changed or were removed), update the requirements of your package or consult it with maintainers of the corresponding third-party packages.
I made a few adjustments to merge what Tim wrote, with your suggestion. Feel free to adjust/revert as needed.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/AutoQA_tests/Depcheck#Fixing_Failures
Thanks, James