Depcheck failed?

[Richard Shaw]

It passed for -testing but after submitting for stable[1] I got the following:

FAIL] f18
    Latest package: Field3D-1.3.2-1.fc18
    Latest pending package: None
    Error: Tested package must be less than or equal to the latest
(pending) package.

How did a .fc18 package end up in F17? Hopefully it's nothing I did wrong! :)

Thanks,
Richard

[1] http://autoqa.fedoraproject.org/results/311816-autotest/virt05.qa/upgradepat...

[Orion Poplawski]

On 03/23/2012 11:57 AM, Richard Shaw wrote:
> It passed for -testing but after submitting for stable[1] I got the following:
>
> FAIL] f18
>    Latest package: Field3D-1.3.2-1.fc18
>    Latest pending package: None
>    Error: Tested package must be less than or equal to the latest
> (pending) package.
>
> How did a .fc18 package end up in F17? Hopefully it's nothing I did wrong! :)
>
> Thanks,
> Richard
>
> [1] http://autoqa.fedoraproject.org/results/311816-autotest/virt05.qa/upgradepat...

Field3D-1.3.2-1.1.fc17 is > Field3D-1.3.2-1.fc18

Notice the extra .1

When updating branches and you don't want to affect later ones, add the .1 
*after* %{?dist}

[Richard Shaw]

On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Orion Poplawski  wrote:
> On 03/23/2012 11:57 AM, Richard Shaw wrote:
> > It passed for -testing but after submitting for stable[1] I got the
> > following:
> >
> > FAIL] f18
> >        Latest package: Field3D-1.3.2-1.fc18
> >        Latest pending package: None
> >        Error: Tested package must be less than or equal to the latest
> > (pending) package.
> >
> > How did a .fc18 package end up in F17? Hopefully it's nothing I did wrong!
> > :)
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Richard
> >
> > [1]
> > http://autoqa.fedoraproject.org/results/311816-autotest/virt05.qa/upgradepat...
>
> Field3D-1.3.2-1.1.fc17 is > Field3D-1.3.2-1.fc18
>
> Notice the extra .1
>
> When updating branches and you don't want to affect later ones, add the .1
> *after* %{?dist}

Darn... I was hoping that wouldn't bite me :) I'm assuming I can
ignore the error though? Or does it need to be fixed?

Thanks,
Richard

[Jon Ciesla]

On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 1:23 PM, Richard Shaw  wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Orion Poplawski  wrote:
> > On 03/23/2012 11:57 AM, Richard Shaw wrote:
> > > It passed for -testing but after submitting for stable[1] I got the
> > > following:
> > >
> > > FAIL] f18
> > >        Latest package: Field3D-1.3.2-1.fc18
> > >        Latest pending package: None
> > >        Error: Tested package must be less than or equal to the latest
> > > (pending) package.
> > >
> > > How did a .fc18 package end up in F17? Hopefully it's nothing I did wrong!
> > > :)
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Richard
> > >
> > > [1]
> > > http://autoqa.fedoraproject.org/results/311816-autotest/virt05.qa/upgradepat...
> >
> > Field3D-1.3.2-1.1.fc17 is > Field3D-1.3.2-1.fc18
> >
> > Notice the extra .1
> >
> > When updating branches and you don't want to affect later ones, add the .1
> > *after* %{?dist}
>
> Darn... I was hoping that wouldn't bite me :) I'm assuming I can
> ignore the error though? Or does it need to be fixed?

Fix.  :(
> Thanks,
> Richard
> --
> devel mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

[Richard Shaw]

On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Jon Ciesla  wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 1:23 PM, Richard Shaw  wrote:
> > Darn... I was hoping that wouldn't bite me :) I'm assuming I can
> > ignore the error though? Or does it need to be fixed?
>
> Fix.  :(

Which means I really need to bump the release in rawhide, right?
There's nothing I can do to the f17 package that would cause it to be
< the f18 package, unless killing the update is sufficient?

Thanks,
Richard

[Jon Ciesla]

On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Richard Shaw  wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Jon Ciesla  wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 1:23 PM, Richard Shaw  wrote:
> > > Darn... I was hoping that wouldn't bite me :) I'm assuming I can
> > > ignore the error though? Or does it need to be fixed?
> >
> > Fix.  :(
>
> Which means I really need to bump the release in rawhide, right?
> There's nothing I can do to the f17 package that would cause it to be
> < the f18 package, unless killing the update is sufficient?

Take off and bump EVR in rawhide, it's the only way to be sure.

As they say.

-J
> Thanks,
> Richard
> --
> devel mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

[Kamil Paral]

> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Jon Ciesla 
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 1:23 PM, Richard Shaw
> >  wrote:
> > > Darn... I was hoping that wouldn't bite me :) I'm assuming I can
> > > ignore the error though? Or does it need to be fixed?
> >
> > Fix.  :(
>
> Which means I really need to bump the release in rawhide, right?
> There's nothing I can do to the f17 package that would cause it to be
> < the f18 package, unless killing the update is sufficient?

Hey, have a look here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/AutoQA_tests/Upgradepath#Fixing_the_failures

which links here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Minor_release_bump...

This way you _can_ update just a single branch. Use '.fc17.1' suffix. Of course you must know whether you want to do this (whether the fix is really not needed in rawhide). And since pushing to rawhide is easy... your choice.

PS: This test is called 'upgradepath', not 'depcheck'. See the headline in the results document.