Gnome 3.14 copr on F20

[Ankur Sinha]

Hi,

I just read Matthais' post on the planet and couldn't wait to try out
the new *shiny* gnome packages from the 3.14 copr. Unfortunately, there
seem to be some breakages: 

dnf --refresh --best update gives me:

Error: nothing provides gnome-shell >= 3.13.2 needed by
gnome-shell-extension-common-3.13.2-2.fc20.noarch. nothing provides
gnome-shell >= 3.13.2 needed by
gnome-shell-extension-common-3.13.2-2.fc20.noarch. package
NetworkManager-l2tp-0.9.8.6-1.fc20.x86_64 requires ppp = 2.4.5, but none
of the providers can be installed. package
evolution-data-server-3.12.3-1.fc20.x86_64 requires
libgdata.so.13()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed.
package gnome-shell-3.12.2-1.fc20.x86_64 requires
libmutter-wayland.so.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed. package gnome-shell-3.12.2-1.fc20.x86_64 requires
libmutter-wayland.so.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed. package NetworkManager-l2tp-0.9.8.6-1.fc20.x86_64 requires
ppp = 2.4.5, but none of the providers can be installed

Omitting the --best flag doesn't work either. It wants to reinstall
evolution-data-server and errors out saying:

Error: Transaction check error:
  package evolution-data-server-3.12.3-1.fc20.x86_64 is already
installed

I was on the 3.12 copr already.

Thanks for putting up the new copr!
-- 
Thanks,
Warm regards,
Ankur (FranciscoD)

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha

Join Fedora! Come talk to us!
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG

[Richard Hughes]

On 27 June 2014 11:11, Ankur Sinha <sanjay.ankur(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  I just read Matthais' post on the planet and couldn't wait to
> try out
>  the new *shiny* gnome packages from the 3.14 copr. Unfortunately, there
>  seem to be some breakages: 
Dude, I'm not even using that COPR yet! :) mclazy.py is still churning
through the package list building all of 3.13.3...

Richard

[Ankur Sinha]

On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 11:21 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
>  Dude, I'm not even using that COPR yet! :) mclazy.py is still
> churning
>  through the package list building all of 3.13.3... 
Oh! LOL! Sorry!

New Gnome packages really get me excited - I'll test them out tomorrow
and post :)
-- 
Thanks,
Warm regards,
Ankur (FranciscoD)

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha

Join Fedora! Come talk to us!
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG

[Ankur Sinha]

On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 20:25 +1000, Ankur Sinha wrote:
>  I'll test them out tomorrow
>  and post :) 
I get this today:

$ dnf --refresh --best update -y 
....
Error: package NetworkManager-l2tp-0.9.8.6-1.fc20.x86_64 requires ppp =
2.4.5, but none of the providers can be installed. package
evolution-data-server-3.12.3-1.fc20.x86_64 requires
libgdata.so.13()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed.
package NetworkManager-l2tp-0.9.8.6-1.fc20.x86_64 requires ppp = 2.4.5,
but none of the providers can be installed

Is this something to do with how dnf handles package splits etc.?
-- 
Thanks,
Warm regards,
Ankur (FranciscoD)

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha

Join Fedora! Come talk to us!
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG

[Philip Whitehouse]

On Sun, 2014-06-29 at 13:20 +1000, Ankur Sinha wrote:
>  On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 20:25 +1000, Ankur Sinha wrote:
>  > I'll test them out tomorrow
>  > and post :)
>  
>  I get this today:
>  
>  $ dnf --refresh --best update -y 
>  ....
>  Error: package NetworkManager-l2tp-0.9.8.6-1.fc20.x86_64 requires ppp =
>  2.4.5, but none of the providers can be installed. package
>  evolution-data-server-3.12.3-1.fc20.x86_64 requires
>  libgdata.so.13()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed.
>  package NetworkManager-l2tp-0.9.8.6-1.fc20.x86_64 requires ppp = 2.4.5,
>  but none of the providers can be installed 
My output:

sudo dnf upgrade --refresh
...
Installing
....
Upgrading
....
Reinstalling:
 evolution-data-server                                           x86_64
3.12.3-1.fc20
rhughes-f20-gnome-3-14-x86_64                       2.9 M

I already thought this was wrong, but elected to let it check the
transaction:

Error: Transaction check error:
  package evolution-data-server-3.12.3-1.fc20.x86_64 is already
installed

I thought dnf was just broken here, obviously if it knows it's a
re-install earlier, it's already installed. That shouldn't be a
show-stopper.

However , yum provides a slightly more useful, which actually explained
why dnf was trying to re-install evolution-data-server. It also covers
the above case.

I think dnf needs a bit of work to provide a tractable error message and
correctly explain why it is trying to re-install a package on upgrade:

--> Finished Dependency Resolution
Error: Package: evolution-data-server-3.12.3-1.fc20.x86_64
(@rhughes-f20-gnome-3-12-x86_64)
           Requires: libgdata.so.13()(64bit)
           Removing: libgdata-0.14.1-1.fc20.x86_64 (@updates)
               libgdata.so.13()(64bit)
           Updated By: libgdata-0.15.1-2.fc20.x86_64
(rhughes-f20-gnome-3-14-x86_64)
              ~libgdata.so.19()(64bit)
           Available: libgdata-0.14.0-1.fc20.x86_64 (fedora)
               libgdata.so.13()(64bit)

To me this looks like e-d-s needs re-releasing to depend on the newer
libgdata

[Richard Hughes]

On 29 June 2014 13:56, Philip Whitehouse <philip(a)whiuk.com&gt; wrote:
>  Error: Transaction check error:
>    package evolution-data-server-3.12.3-1.fc20.x86_64 is already
>  installed 
Fixed in the copr today.

Richard.

[Ankur Sinha]

On Mon, 2014-06-30 at 13:35 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
>  
>  Fixed in the copr today. 
Confirming. The update went about smoothly. Got a scriptlet error
though:


>  /usr/bin/vala-0.24 has not been configured as an alternative for
> vala
>  /usr/bin/valac-0.24 has not been configured as an alternative for valac
>  /usr/share/man/man1/valac-0.24.1.gz has not been configured as an alternative for
> valac.1.gz
>  error: %preun(vala-0.24.0-1.fc20.x86_64) scriptlet failed, exit status 2
>  Error in PREUN scriptlet in rpm package vala                                             
>                                                                     520/546
>  error: vala-0.24.0-1.fc20.x86_64: erase failed 
Manually removed this after the update. No error this time. 
-- 
Thanks,
Warm regards,
Ankur (FranciscoD)

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha

Join Fedora! Come talk to us!
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG

[Richard Hughes]

On 30 June 2014 15:59, Ankur Sinha <sanjay.ankur(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
> > /usr/bin/vala-0.24 has not been configured as an alternative for
> vala
> > /usr/bin/valac-0.24 has not been configured as an alternative for valac
> > /usr/share/man/man1/valac-0.24.1.gz has not been configured as an alternative for
> valac.1.gz
> > error: %preun(vala-0.24.0-1.fc20.x86_64) scriptlet failed, exit status 2
> > Error in PREUN scriptlet in rpm package vala                                         
>                                                                         520/546
> > error: vala-0.24.0-1.fc20.x86_64: erase failed
>
>  Manually removed this after the update. No error this time. 
I think that should probably be reported against the vala package; the
same thing will happen with the rawhide package too.

Richard.

[Ankur Sinha]

On Mon, 2014-06-30 at 16:31 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
>  I think that should probably be reported against the vala package;
> the
>  same thing will happen with the rawhide package too. 
Ok. I'll file a bug. Thanks. 
-- 
Thanks,
Warm regards,
Ankur (FranciscoD)

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha

Join Fedora! Come talk to us!
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG

[Stephen Gallagher]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 06/30/2014 08:35 AM, Richard Hughes wrote:
>  On 29 June 2014 13:56, Philip Whitehouse <philip(a)whiuk.com&gt;
> wrote:
> > Error: Transaction check error: package
> > evolution-data-server-3.12.3-1.fc20.x86_64 is already installed
>  
>  Fixed in the copr today. 
I updated to 3.13.3 today. As expected, a fair number of my extensions
haven't been updated yet, but the one that surprised me was
https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/602/window-list/ which I have
installed as a system RPM (and is part of the set from Gnome Classic).

It's showing in tweak tool and on extensions.gnome.org as ERROR, but
I'm not sure exactly where to find logs to report the specific issue.
If someone can point me in the right direction, I'll get a bug filed.

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAlOxyg0ACgkQeiVVYja6o6O8WACfc3tEr6DrqSfKy3TLDVfdlvD9
> 5QEAn2RlFuJzs4vBDDoy395pRpRVLR5B
> =PxJx
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Ankur Sinha]

On Mon, 2014-06-30 at 16:35 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>  It's showing in tweak tool and on extensions.gnome.org as ERROR,
> but
>  I'm not sure exactly where to find logs to report the specific issue.
>  If someone can point me in the right direction, I'll get a bug filed. 
I think "looking glass" is one place where you can find extension errors
- alt f2 "lg". It has an extensions tab where you can see errors thrown
by them.
-- 
Thanks,
Warm regards,
Ankur (FranciscoD)

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha

Join Fedora! Come talk to us!
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG

[Stephen Gallagher]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 06/30/2014 08:41 PM, Ankur Sinha wrote:
>  On Mon, 2014-06-30 at 16:35 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > It's showing in tweak tool and on extensions.gnome.org as ERROR,
> > but I'm not sure exactly where to find logs to report the
> > specific issue. If someone can point me in the right direction,
> > I'll get a bug filed.
>  
>  I think "looking glass" is one place where you can find extension
>  errors - alt f2 "lg". It has an extensions tab where you can see
>  errors thrown by them.
>  
>  
>   
Wow! Looking Glass is quite handy. *Adds to tool belt*

The error I have is
global.screen.get_active_workspace(...) is null


Guess I'll go file a bug upstream.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAlOypJkACgkQeiVVYja6o6NRJgCfRg9FWNMd3jJbTZKChF5+jjKv
> u2MAn2DPwPbK74/j8yfxdxqcIcrilFy9
> =3IsT
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Ankur Sinha]

On Tue, 2014-07-01 at 08:07 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>  Wow! Looking Glass is quite handy. *Adds to tool belt*
>  
>  The error I have is
>  global.screen.get_active_workspace(...) is null
>  
>  
>  Guess I'll go file a bug upstream. 
Hi!

Will the F20 COPR get any more updates? Gnome 3.13.4 was released a
couple of weeks ago, but I haven't gotten any updates from COPR. There
are a couple of bug fixes in this release that I'd like to check up on.

If you folks are low on cycles, I could help with maintaining the COPR.
I think it's *really* useful for testing purposes. I do have a rawhide
box, but since I don't use it daily for mail and stuff I don't really
catch as many bugs in Evolution etc on it as I do on my daily use F20
system :)
-- 
Thanks,
Warm regards,
Ankur (FranciscoD)

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha

Join Fedora! Come talk to us!
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG

[Michael Catanzaro]

On Wed, 2014-08-20 at 10:59 +1000, Ankur Sinha wrote:
>  Will the F20 COPR get any more updates? Gnome 3.13.4 was released a
>  couple of weeks ago, but I haven't gotten any updates from COPR. There
>  are a couple of bug fixes in this release that I'd like to check up
>  on.
>  
>  If you folks are low on cycles, I could help with maintaining the
>  COPR.
>  I think it's *really* useful for testing purposes. I do have a rawhide
>  box, but since I don't use it daily for mail and stuff I don't really
>  catch as many bugs in Evolution etc on it as I do on my daily use F20
>  system :) 
In particular, it'd be good to get webkitgtk 2.4.4 into the copr.

[Ankur Sinha]

On Tue, 2014-08-19 at 22:17 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
>  In particular, it'd be good to get webkitgtk 2.4.4 into the copr.
There's a rather nasty evolution bug that makes evolution crash each
time you view images in a mail. The fix is in 3.13.4 and would improve
usability for quite a few of us
-- 
Thanks,
Warm regards,
Ankur (FranciscoD)

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha

Join Fedora! Come talk to us!
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG

[Richard Hughes]

On 22 August 2014 03:32, Ankur Sinha <sanjay.ankur(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  There's a rather nasty evolution bug that makes evolution crash
> each
>  time you view images in a mail. The fix is in 3.13.4 and would improve
>  usability for quite a few of us 
My server has been trying to submit builds to COPR for a few days now,
but COPR is very overloaded and very slow:
http://copr.fedoraproject.org/status/

I'm really thinking of deleting rhughes/f20-gnome-3-14 as it's
impossible to chain-build an 14-stage dependency tree when each sync
point has a 6h+ delay.

Richard

[Kalev Lember]

On 08/22/2014 01:21 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
>  I'm really thinking of deleting rhughes/f20-gnome-3-14 as
> it's
>  impossible to chain-build an 14-stage dependency tree when each sync
>  point has a 6h+ delay. 
For what it's worth, I think it makes sense to drop f20-gnome-3-14 and
instead try to get more people to switch to F21. We need people testing
it to get the necessary polish and having the 3.14 copr could undermine
that effort.

-- 
Kalev

[Michael Catanzaro]

On Fri, 2014-08-22 at 13:34 +0200, Kalev Lember wrote:
>  For what it's worth, I think it makes sense to drop
> f20-gnome-3-14 and
>  instead try to get more people to switch to F21. We need people
>  testing
>  it to get the necessary polish and having the 3.14 copr could
>  undermine
>  that effort. 
I think it would be best if the gnome-3-12 copr was the last time we do
a desktop environment in a copr.

[Ankur Sinha]

On Fri, 2014-08-22 at 12:21 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
>  My server has been trying to submit builds to COPR for a few days
> now,
>  but COPR is very overloaded and very slow:
>  http://copr.fedoraproject.org/status/
>  
>  I'm really thinking of deleting rhughes/f20-gnome-3-14 as it's
>  impossible to chain-build an 14-stage dependency tree when each sync
>  point has a 6h+ delay 
Makes sense. I'll go update to F21 :)

Thanks for the COPR again, Richard. It was very helpful.
-- 
Thanks,
Warm regards,
Ankur (FranciscoD)

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha

Join Fedora! Come talk to us!
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Join_SIG