A depcheck that got away ...

[James Laska]

Greetings gang,

While testing some TC1 installations this morning, I came across a
dependency problem that depcheck didn't hit.  Thought this might be an
interesting case-study.

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libtevent-0.9.13-1.fc16,libldb-1....

I'm not entirely sure why depcheck passed, but testing highlighted the
following dependency problems:

        sssd-1.6.0-2.fc16.x86_64 requires
        libtevent.so.0(TEVENT_0.9.9)(64bit)
        sssd-1.6.0-2.fc16.x86_64 requires libldb = 1.1.0

The build was updated to include a version of libtevent and libldb to
resolve the dependency problem above.  Looking through the logs it seems
to be searching for deps to satisfy the issues above, but I'm not able
to find where it finds them.

Thanks,
James

[Tim Flink]

On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 10:49:46 -0400
James Laska <jlaska(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:

>  Greetings gang,
>  
>  While testing some TC1 installations this morning, I came across a
>  dependency problem that depcheck didn't hit.  Thought this might be an
>  interesting case-study.
>  
>
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libtevent-0.9.13-1.fc16,libldb-1....
>  
>  I'm not entirely sure why depcheck passed, but testing highlighted the
>  following dependency problems:
>  
>          sssd-1.6.0-2.fc16.x86_64 requires
>          libtevent.so.0(TEVENT_0.9.9)(64bit)
>          sssd-1.6.0-2.fc16.x86_64 requires libldb = 1.1.0
>  
>  The build was updated to include a version of libtevent and libldb to
>  resolve the dependency problem above.  Looking through the logs it
>  seems to be searching for deps to satisfy the issues above, but I'm
>  not able to find where it finds them. 
After looking through this a bit, I'm wondering if it might be an issue
with the new yum (F16 is 3.4, F15 is 3.2). I don't have much in the way
of hard evidence to back this up, but there appear to have been some
changes in the handling of yum transactions (which we do use as part of
determining ACCEPTED/REJECTED) in 3.4.

I'm also seeing the following messages in the depcheck logs and I don't
remember seeing them before:

removing sssd-1.6.0-2.fc16.x86_64 from transaction
removing libmudflap-devel-4.6.1-6.fc16.x86_64 from transaction
removing libmudflap-devel-4.6.1-6.fc16.i686 from transaction
removing libmudflap-devel-4.6.1-6.fc16.x86_64 from pkgSack & updates
removing libmudflap-devel-4.6.1-6.fc16.x86_64 from pkgSack & updates
removing sssd-tools-1.6.0-2.fc16.x86_64 from transaction

Either way, this is going to require some more digging to at least
determine the impact and size of any potential fix. I'm going to see
what I can figure out the rest of today and will update before I sign
off for the night.

Tim

[Tim Flink]

On Thu, 4 Aug 2011 14:28:28 -0600
Tim Flink <tflink(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:

<snip>

>  Either way, this is going to require some more digging to at least
>  determine the impact and size of any potential fix. I'm going to see
>  what I can figure out the rest of today and will update before I sign
>  off for the night. 
I wasn't able to get to the bottom of this today but I know where I
want to keep poking.

The interesting things that I have found are:
 - the depsolve run in yum was not successful
 - even though the problematic packages were removed from the
   transaction, they're still making it into the ACCEPTED list

I'll keep looking into this tomorrow unless someone else figures it
out.

Tim