devel November 2015

devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

228 participants
281 discussions

Can Koji handle a soname change and a self-dependency?
by Björn Persson 13 Dec '15

13 Dec '15

Is there a way to deal with the following situation in Koji? · Build tool B has a build-time dependency on itself. · B is linked to library L version 1. · L gets upgraded to version 2, which changes its soname. B needs to be rebuilt to link to libL.so.2, but building B requires a working B, which requires libL.so.1 because it hasn't been rebuilt yet. As I understand it, when the L-2 package goes into the buildroot it immediately replaces L-1. Is there a way to keep L-1 available until B has been rebuilt? Is the answer to link B statically? Björn Persson

3 7

Fedora 23 cloud image (and, for that matter, minimal anything) bloat
by Matthew Miller 07 Dec '15

07 Dec '15

Fedora-Cloud-Base-20141203-21.x86_64.qcow2: 151M Fedora-Cloud-Base-23_Beta-20150915.x86_64.qcow2: 275M In just one year — 82% more awesome? I'd really like this to stay below 200MB as a competitive threshold. Or, if we're going to be bigger than that, be bigger for REASONS, not just accretion. tl;dr: grub2 is a lot to blame, but there seem to be some new questionable dep chains from systemd, and general dep growth across the board. Disk use at first boot: [f21]$ df -h / Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/vda1 20G 359M 19G 2% / [f23b]$ df -h / Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/vda1 20G 578M 19G 4% / RPMs installed: [f21]$ rpm -qa | wc -l 226 [f23b]$ rpm -qa | wc -l 264 Top 20 rpms by reported size: $ rpm -qa --qf '%{size} %{name}\n'|sort -nr|head -20 120417342 glibc-common 42307839 kernel-core 25000497 python-libs 22438155 systemd 14623272 coreutils 14000291 glibc 11282056 ruby-libs # hey, at least we lost this 10845519 glib2 10593004 selinux-policy-targeted 9389116 cracklib-dicts # https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865521 9078043 python-boto 8792531 util-linux 7084188 bash 6669884 gnupg2 5844544 yum 4893790 policycoreutils 3786564 file-libs 3540004 shadow-utils 3458312 groff-base # who doesn't love groff? 2997717 tar $ rpm -qa --qf '%{size} %{name}\n'|sort -nr|head -20 125195206 glibc-common 86298752 linux-firmware # sadface, but hard 53291365 kernel-core 36004297 grub2-tools # this is ridiculous 28453336 python3-libs # 13% growth 27233273 systemd # 21% growth 16648994 grub2 # *sigh* 14486819 glibc 14287847 coreutils # this package got _smaller!_ 11143743 glib2 11129880 selinux-policy-targeted 9389116 cracklib-dicts 9261499 python3-boto 9237998 util-linux 9224255 fedora-logos # this is also grub's fault. 7517574 gnupg2 7143418 bash 6574678 python3-pip # :( 5888883 hwdata # this is ALSO grub's fault 5423400 xkeyboard-config # really???? looks like a systemd dep chain involving plymouth Okay, let's look on disk: [f21]$ sudo du -sh * 2>/dev/null|sort -h [...] 36K home 40K root 228K run 21M boot 22M etc 34M var 276M usr [f23b]$ sudo du -sh * 2>/dev/null|sort -h [...] 40K root 264K run 16M etc 45M boot # ugh 171M var # oww 463M usr # oww oww oww Breakdown: - boot is mostly grub, but initramfs is also doubled - var: DNF cache is full of stuff! 123M... oh, hey, that wasn't there when we booted. `df -h /` is now up to 702M. Maybe multiple repos would help here, or some other more clever design. Does every cloud image in the world _really_ need to replicate dependency data so I can `dnf install /usr/share/minetest/builtin/mainmenu/init_simple.lua`? - usr: * linux-firmware is the biggest thing here * python3 is another good chunk * also kernel modules, but, eh, whatchagonnado * oh, and of course, grub2. -- Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org> Fedora Project Leader

27 52

Dealing with rolling release versioning
by Richard Shaw 06 Dec '15

06 Dec '15

I have a project that stopped providing versioned releases and went to a rolling release model using the date. In this case these are not "pre" or "post" releases or snapshot releases. Is there any reason not to use the date as the version? It's in YYYYMMDD format so there shouldn't be a upgrade path issue but this isn't explicitly covered in the packaging guidelines that I can find. Thanks, Richard

6 6

F24 System Wide Change: Fedora 24 Boost 1.60 uplift
by Jan Kurik 03 Dec '15

03 Dec '15

= System Wide Change: Fedora 24 Boost 1.60 uplift = https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/F24Boost160 Change owner(s): * Jonathan Wakely < jwakely AT redhat DOT com > This change brings Boost 1.60.0 to Fedora 24. This will mean F24 ships with the latest upstream Boost release. == Detailed Description == The aim is to synchronize Fedora with the most recent Boost release. Because ABI stability is one of explicit Boost non-goals, this entails rebuilding of all dependent packages. This has also always entailed yours truly assisting maintainers of client packages in decoding cryptic boostese seen in output from g++. Such care is to be expected this time around as well. Boost 1.60 is scheduled for release on 2 Dec 2015 and a beta release is already available for testing The equivalent changes for previous releases were Fedora 22 Change and Fedora 23 Change. == Scope == Proposal owners: * Build will be done with Boost.Build v2 (which is upstream-sanctioned way of building Boost) * Request a "f24-boost" build system tag (discussion): https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6235 → f24-boost * Build boost into that tag (take a look at the build #606493 for inspiration) * Post a request for rebuilds to fedora-devel (XXX link to fedora-devel message here) * Work on rebuilding dependent packages in the tag. * When most is done, re-tag all the packages to rawhide * Watch fedora-devel and assist in rebuilding broken Boost clients (by fixing the client, or Boost). In order to discover any problems ASAP the proposal owner has created a COPR and built the Boost 1.60.0 beta, and started rebuilding the 300+ dependent packages. The results of this COPR will be thrown away, but it means any bugs in the upstream release can be reported and fixed before the final release (rather than patched in the Fedora package) and any changes needed in dependent packages will be known sooner. Other developers: Those who depend on Boost DSOs will have to rebuild their packages. Feature owners will alleviate some of this work as indicated above, and will assist those whose packages fail to build in debugging them. The proposal owner has already started test rebuilds of affected packages and identifying the needed changes, and will propose patches to Boost upstream or to the client packages' upstreams as appropriate. Release engineering: * Side tag creation. List of deliverables: * All deliverables will include updated Boost packages Policies and guidelines: * Apart from scope, this is business as usual, so no policies, no guidelines. Trademark approval: * N/A (not needed for this Change) -- Jan Kuřík Platform & Fedora Program Manager Red Hat Czech s.r.o., Purkynova 99/71, 612 45 Brno, Czech Republic

6 10

Freerdp update with bundle in guacamole-server
by Pavel Alexeev 02 Dec '15

02 Dec '15

Hello. More than half year in the past freerdp was updated and then reverted version to current present [1], mostly to allow built guacamole-server [2]. As I see it still stick with that version. Meantime freerdp move forward. Remmina, which require fresh versions of freerdp also can't be updated. Recently our bundling policy changed [3]. From freerdp depends: $ dnf repoquery --source --alldeps --whatrequires freerdp-libs ... freerdp-1.2.0-0.9.git.24a752a.fc23.src.rpm guacamole-server-0.9.7-1.fc23.src.rpm medusa-2.2-0.rc1.2.fc23.1.src.rpm remmina-1.2.0-0.8.git.b3237e8.fc23.src.rpm vinagre-3.18.1-1.fc23.src.rpm vlc-2.2.2-0.1.fc23.src.rpm (rpmfusion.org) weston-1.9.0-1.fc23.src.rpm $ dnf repoquery --source --alldeps --whatrequires freerdp ... krdc-15.04.2-2.fc23.src.rpm Today I have try build freerdp [4] from master and all dependencies against it. And again, *only* guacamole-server fails to build with: In file included from rdp_stream.h:29:0, from rdp_fs.c:27: rdp_svc.h:28:38: fatal error: freerdp/utils/svc_plugin.h: No such file or directory compilation terminated. It relied on old svc_plugin which has been rid in 2013 year [5]. Main question. Is it a good reason to bundle copy of current version freerdp into guacamole-server (at least until someone do not willing port it) and update it for rest of Fedora? I have not tried to do such bundle yet, but if no one argue I could try do that with update freerdp and rebuild all other deps too. [1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2015-March/209140.html [2] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2015-March/209181.html [3] https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/575 [4] https://github.com/FreeRDP/FreeRDP [5] https://github.com/FreeRDP/FreeRDP/pull/1574 -- With best wishes, Pavel Alexeev. Yes, I'm a fool - I believe in people, honesty, goodness and justice. And also in the fact that I can make this world just a little better unless stop fighting. http://hubbitus.info

4 16

Package review skipped and straight to repos?
by James Hogarth 01 Dec '15

01 Dec '15

I was flicking through package review requests to see if anything jumped out as interesting when I saw this: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1280422 Thought I'd take a look as I hadn't had time to review it when it first appeared and the requester had fixed the github breaking fedora-review issue ... I was very surprised to see : Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpg Given that there is no assignee, no review and no flags on the bug was there just a mistake in an automated process or has policy changed on actually needing a review?

11 15

Fedora Rawhide 20151130 compose check report
by Fedora compose checker 01 Dec '15

01 Dec '15

Missing expected images: Cloud disk raw i386 Cloud disk raw x86_64 Cloud_atomic disk raw x86_64 Images in this compose but not Rawhide 20151129: Design_suite live x86_64 Workstation live x86_64 Workstation live i386 Cinnamon live i386 Mate live i386 Workstation disk raw armhfp Mate disk raw armhfp Cinnamon live x86_64 Design_suite live i386 Mate live x86_64 No images in Rawhide 20151129 but not this. Failed openQA tests: 51 of 52 ID: 9276 Test: x86_64 kde_live default_install ID: 9275 Test: i386 kde_live default_install ID: 9274 Test: i386 workstation_live default_install ID: 9273 Test: x86_64 workstation_live default_install@uefi ID: 9272 Test: x86_64 workstation_live default_install ID: 9271 Test: i386 generic_boot default_install ID: 9270 Test: x86_64 generic_boot default_install@uefi ID: 9269 Test: x86_64 generic_boot default_install ID: 9268 Test: i386 universal upgrade_desktop_32bit ID: 9267 Test: i386 universal server_lvmthin ID: 9266 Test: i386 universal server_ext3 ID: 9265 Test: i386 universal server_btrfs ID: 9264 Test: i386 universal server_software_raid ID: 9263 Test: i386 universal server_simple_encrypted ID: 9262 Test: i386 universal server_repository_http_graphical ID: 9261 Test: i386 universal server_scsi_updates_img ID: 9260 Test: i386 universal package_set_minimal ID: 9259 Test: x86_64 universal server_no_swap@uefi ID: 9258 Test: x86_64 universal server_lvmthin@uefi ID: 9257 Test: x86_64 universal server_ext3@uefi ID: 9256 Test: x86_64 universal server_btrfs@uefi ID: 9255 Test: x86_64 universal server_software_raid@uefi ID: 9254 Test: x86_64 universal server_multi_empty@uefi ID: 9253 Test: x86_64 universal server_simple_free_space@uefi ID: 9252 Test: x86_64 universal server_simple_encrypted@uefi ID: 9251 Test: x86_64 universal server_delete_partial@uefi ID: 9250 Test: x86_64 universal server_delete_pata@uefi ID: 9249 Test: x86_64 universal server_sata_multi@uefi ID: 9248 Test: x86_64 universal european_language_install ID: 9247 Test: x86_64 universal server_shrink_ntfs ID: 9246 Test: x86_64 universal server_shrink_ext4 ID: 9245 Test: x86_64 universal server_updates_img_local ID: 9244 Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_desktop_64bit ID: 9242 Test: x86_64 universal server_kickstart_hdd ID: 9241 Test: x86_64 universal server_no_swap ID: 9240 Test: x86_64 universal server_lvmthin ID: 9239 Test: x86_64 universal server_ext3 ID: 9238 Test: x86_64 universal server_btrfs ID: 9237 Test: x86_64 universal server_software_raid ID: 9236 Test: x86_64 universal server_multi_empty ID: 9235 Test: x86_64 universal server_simple_free_space ID: 9234 Test: x86_64 universal server_simple_encrypted ID: 9233 Test: x86_64 universal server_delete_partial ID: 9232 Test: x86_64 universal server_repository_http_variation ID: 9231 Test: x86_64 universal server_repository_http_graphical ID: 9230 Test: x86_64 universal server_mirrorlist_graphical ID: 9229 Test: x86_64 universal server_delete_pata ID: 9228 Test: x86_64 universal server_kickstart_user_creation ID: 9227 Test: x86_64 universal server_scsi_updates_img ID: 9226 Test: x86_64 universal server_sata_multi ID: 9225 Test: x86_64 universal package_set_minimal Passed openQA tests: 1 of 52 -- Mail generated by check-compose: https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/fedora-qa.git/tree/check-compose

2 1

Infrastructure Outage: mailman/nagios 2015-12-02 0300 UTC
by Stephen John Smoogen 30 Nov '15

30 Nov '15

Planned Outage: Mailman / Nagios - 2015-12-02 03:00 UTC There will be an outage starting at 2015-12-02 03:00 UTC, which will last approximately 1 hour. To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto or run: date -d '2015-12-02 03:00 UTC' Reason for outage: We will be re-adding a replaced hard drive. Affected Services: virthost17:bugzilla2fedmsg01.phx2.fedoraproject.org:running:1 virthost17:db-datanommer02.phx2.fedoraproject.org:running:1 virthost17:ipsilon02.phx2.fedoraproject.org:running:1 virthost17:kerneltest01.phx2.fedoraproject.org:running:1 virthost17:mailman01.phx2.fedoraproject.org:running:1 virthost17:memcached01.phx2.fedoraproject.org:running:1 virthost17:noc01.phx2.fedoraproject.org:running:1 virthost17:proxy10.phx2.fedoraproject.org:running:1 Mosts of the services are redundant except for Mailman (lists.fedoraproject.org lists.fedorahosted.org) and Nagios NOC01 (admin.fedoraproject.org/nagios/) Contact Information: Ticket Link: https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/5007 Please join #fedora-admin or #fedora-noc on irc.freenode.net or add comments to the ticket for this outage above. -- Stephen J Smoogen.

1 0

DNF is completly unable to act with local packages
by Reindl Harald 30 Nov '15

30 Nov '15

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1263888 Error: nothing provides rpm-libs(x86-64) = 4.13.0-0.rc1.5.fc23 needed *what* is that hard to solve the dependencies of packages given with * on the commandline when yum does that fine for a decade, frankly if you are trying to early test fedora builds for give karma or find issues you can throw away DNF completly - that's alpha class software ___________________________________________________ yum-deprecated: Updated: rpm.x86_64 0:4.13.0-0.rc1.5.fc23 rpm-build-libs.x86_64 0:4.13.0-0.rc1.5.fc23 rpm-libs.x86_64 0:4.13.0-0.rc1.5.fc23 rpm-plugin-selinux.x86_64 0:4.13.0-0.rc1.5.fc23 rpm-plugin-systemd-inhibit.x86_64 0:4.13.0-0.rc1.5.fc23 rpm-python.x86_64 0:4.13.0-0.rc1.5.fc23 rpm-python3.x86_64 0:4.13.0-0.rc1.5.fc23 ___________________________________________________ [root@srv-rhsoft:/downloads]$ ls | grep rpm | grep 4.13 -rw-r----- 1 harry verwaltung 508K 2015-11-07 13:09 rpm-4.13.0-0.rc1.5.fc23.x86_64.rpm -rw-r----- 1 harry verwaltung 135K 2015-11-07 13:09 rpm-build-4.13.0-0.rc1.5.fc23.x86_64.rpm -rw-r----- 1 harry verwaltung 114K 2015-11-07 13:09 rpm-build-libs-4.13.0-0.rc1.5.fc23.x86_64.rpm -rw-r----- 1 harry verwaltung 292K 2015-11-07 13:09 rpm-libs-4.13.0-0.rc1.5.fc23.x86_64.rpm -rw-r----- 1 harry verwaltung 50K 2015-11-07 13:10 rpm-plugin-selinux-4.13.0-0.rc1.5.fc23.x86_64.rpm -rw-r----- 1 harry verwaltung 50K 2015-11-07 13:09 rpm-plugin-systemd-inhibit-4.13.0-0.rc1.5.fc23.x86_64.rpm -rw-r----- 1 harry verwaltung 99K 2015-11-07 13:10 rpm-python-4.13.0-0.rc1.5.fc23.x86_64.rpm -rw-r----- 1 harry verwaltung 99K 2015-11-07 13:13 rpm-python3-4.13.0-0.rc1.5.fc23.x86_64.rpm [root@srv-rhsoft:/downloads]$ dnf update rpm*.rpm Last metadata expiration check performed 0:13:57 ago on Sat Nov 7 13:00:12 2015. Package rpm-build not installed, cannot update it. Error: nothing provides rpm-libs(x86-64) = 4.13.0-0.rc1.5.fc23 needed by rpm-build-libs-4.13.0-0.rc1.5.fc23.x86_64. package rpm-libs-4.13.0-0.rc1.5.fc23.x86_64 is not installable. package rpm-plugin-selinux-4.13.0-0.rc1.5.fc23.x86_64 is not installable. package rpm-plugin-systemd-inhibit-4.13.0-0.rc1.5.fc23.x86_64 is not installable. package rpm-python-4.13.0-0.rc1.5.fc23.x86_64 is not installable. package rpm-python3-4.13.0-0.rc1.5.fc23.x86_64 is not installable. package rpm-4.13.0-0.rc1.5.fc23.x86_64 requires librpm.so.7()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed (try to add '--allowerasing' to command line to replace conflicting packages)

16 45

wayland in rawhide
by Ray Strode 30 Nov '15

30 Nov '15

Hey guys, Today I built snapshots of gnome-session gdm gnome-shell and mutter that change how we do sessions at the login screen. We'll no longer have separate items for GNOME and GNOME on Wayland. Instead they're now both consolidated under the GNOME item. That item will use wayland if it can, but if it falls back (because of a failure or nvidia proprietary drivers, or the user explicitly disables wayland in /etc/gdm/custom.conf) then that GNOME item will use Xorg instead. I'm doing this for now in rawhide as preparation for this system-wide f24 change: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/WaylandByDefault If things don't pan out for whatever reason, or the change gets otherwise rejected for f24, we'll split the items back out into two items. But it's good to get this in rawhide now, so we can get as much exposure as possible to potential wayland problems and get them fixed up before release. Just a heads up ! If you're a rawhide user please test! --Ray

23 47

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

devel November 2015