I've had some bug reports recently against a couple of my packages. These bugs apparently manifest only in Rawhide. So now I am trying to get a virtual machine setup with Rawhide installed so I can debug these problems. I'd like to keep it around long-term, too, so I can help debug things as they come up.
However, I've had a few ... issues ... getting started with Rawhide. Is there a "Getting started with Rawhide" guide anywhere?
First, I couldn't get the Rawhide CD image to finish an installation. Weirdly, it failed in different ways every time I tried to use it. So I tried to use the F10 -> Rawhide update method with yum documented here [1]. I installed from my F10 DVD, then *without updating F10*, changed repositories and did an update from the Rawhide repository.
It appears that glibc in Rawhide (2.8.90) is older than the glibc in the initial F10 release (2.9). Am I seeing that correctly? If so, should I downgrade, or wait for Rawhide to catch up?
Can anybody tell me how to get a screen resolution higher than 800x600 in the virtual machine?
Incidentally, the yum upgrade spit out somewhere around a million [2] warnings that /usr/lib64/libxcb-xlib.so.0 is not a symbolic link, apparently every time that ldconfig ran. Since "rpm -V libxcb" produces no output, this appears to be intentional. F10 gets this right (/usr/lib64/libxcb-xlib.so.0 is a symbolic link to /usr/lib64/libxcb-xlib.so.0.0.0).
If I can get the kernel to stay up long enough to do anything, I'll start trying things out and flinging bug reports where appropriate. So far, it hasn't stayed up for very long. Good thing I've still got the F10 kernel around...
Footnotes: [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/Rawhide [2] I may be exaggerating slightly.
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 15:37:47 -0700, Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com wrote:
First, I couldn't get the Rawhide CD image to finish an installation.
There were warnings about rawhide not being installable for a bit.
Weirdly, it failed in different ways every time I tried to use it. So I tried to use the F10 -> Rawhide update method with yum documented here [1]. I installed from my F10 DVD, then *without updating F10*, changed repositories and did an update from the Rawhide repository.
That's what I did.
It appears that glibc in Rawhide (2.8.90) is older than the glibc in the initial F10 release (2.9). Am I seeing that correctly? If so, should I downgrade, or wait for Rawhide to catch up?
There are a few other things that have higher versions in F10. That caused me a bit of grief. The dejavu fonts change also caused some problems. Something that couldn't be updated pinned some other package that was needed for another package and skip broken couldn't figure out how to fix things. (It would be nice if it could at least tell it couldn't succeed rather than going on in an endless loop.) There are also a few kde-i18 and kde-i10 packages that have conflicting files.
For some things I uninstalled them in F10 to get the upgrade to succeed and then the other stuff I cleaned up later using rpm to do a downgrade. I used package-cleanup to find things that needed looking at.
Can anybody tell me how to get a screen resolution higher than 800x600 in the virtual machine?
That I can't help you with.
Incidentally, the yum upgrade spit out somewhere around a million [2] warnings that /usr/lib64/libxcb-xlib.so.0 is not a symbolic link, apparently every time that ldconfig ran. Since "rpm -V libxcb" produces no output, this appears to be intentional. F10 gets this right (/usr/lib64/libxcb-xlib.so.0 is a symbolic link to /usr/lib64/libxcb-xlib.so.0.0.0).
There's been a bug filed on that from about 4 months ago. The problem seems relatively harmless, so you don't need to do anything about it.
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Bruno Wolff III bruno@wolff.to wrote:
There are a few other things that have higher versions in F10. That caused me a bit of grief. The dejavu fonts change also caused some problems. Something that couldn't be updated pinned some other package that was needed for another package and skip broken couldn't figure out how to fix things. (It would be nice if it could at least tell it couldn't succeed rather than going on in an endless loop.) There are also a few kde-i18 and kde-i10 packages that have conflicting files.
For some things I uninstalled them in F10 to get the upgrade to succeed and then the other stuff I cleaned up later using rpm to do a downgrade. I used package-cleanup to find things that needed looking at.
Ah, yes, I forgot about package-cleanup. So, skipping the F-10 kernel, here is what "package-cleanup --orphans" reports on my virtual Rawhide machine:
glibc-2.9-2.x86_64 glibc-common-2.9-2.x86_64 glibc-devel-2.9-2.x86_64 glibc-headers-2.9-2.x86_64 libdhcp-1.99.8-1.fc10.x86_64 libdhcp4client-4.0.0-30.fc10.x86_64 libdhcp6client-1.0.22-1.fc10.x86_64 nscd-2.9-2.x86_64 xorg-x11-drv-mga-1.4.9-1.fc9.x86_64 xorg-x11-drv-mouse-1.3.0-2.fc9.x86_64
I admit that having glibc on that list really surprises me. It's such a fundamental piece of the system...
Thanks,
Le mercredi 31 décembre 2008 à 18:33 -0600, Bruno Wolff III a écrit :
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 15:37:47 -0700,
It appears that glibc in Rawhide (2.8.90) is older than the glibc in the initial F10 release (2.9). Am I seeing that correctly? If so, should I downgrade, or wait for Rawhide to catch up?
There are a few other things that have higher versions in F10. That caused me a bit of grief. The dejavu fonts change also caused some problems.
Could you please expand? The update path is supposed to work, and I notified every single packager that needed to change its deps when the packages were re-organised.
On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 18:35:52 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net wrote:
Le mercredi 31 décembre 2008 à 18:33 -0600, Bruno Wolff III a écrit :
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 15:37:47 -0700,
It appears that glibc in Rawhide (2.8.90) is older than the glibc in the initial F10 release (2.9). Am I seeing that correctly? If so, should I downgrade, or wait for Rawhide to catch up?
There are a few other things that have higher versions in F10. That caused me a bit of grief. The dejavu fonts change also caused some problems.
Could you please expand? The update path is supposed to work, and I notified every single packager that needed to change its deps when the packages were re-organised.
Well it doesn't. Updates have been pushed for a few packages in F10 updates and/or updates testing that have high NVRs than the corresponding rawhide NVRs. Yum won't update those packages. Normally that wouldn't be a big deal as skip broken would skip these and they would show up as orphans after the update and you could manually downgrade them. But because so much stuff depends on python the failure is complicated enough that skip broken can't deal with it effectively. (In my case there was an infinite loop where it tried to remove something, but that something was brought back in by a dependency, resulting in the same failing package set continually being retried.) If you uninstall a few key packages, you can get the update to work. Once the vast majority of packages have been updated, you can use package-cleanup --orphans to find problem packages and deal with them. And then you can probably also reinstall some or all of what you have to remove to get the update to work.
Le samedi 03 janvier 2009 à 11:45 -0600, Bruno Wolff III a écrit :
On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 18:35:52 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net wrote:
Le mercredi 31 décembre 2008 à 18:33 -0600, Bruno Wolff III a écrit :
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 15:37:47 -0700,
It appears that glibc in Rawhide (2.8.90) is older than the glibc in the initial F10 release (2.9). Am I seeing that correctly? If so, should I downgrade, or wait for Rawhide to catch up?
There are a few other things that have higher versions in F10. That caused me a bit of grief. The dejavu fonts change also caused some problems.
Could you please expand? The update path is supposed to work, and I notified every single packager that needed to change its deps when the packages were re-organised.
Well it doesn't. Updates have been pushed for a few packages in F10 updates and/or updates testing that have high NVRs than the corresponding rawhide NVRs.
Well, I should have been clearer: which dejavu fonts problems did you encounter?
On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 18:59:49 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net wrote:
Well, I should have been clearer: which dejavu fonts problems did you encounter?
Mostly games. I think today's update covers the last of the games I was interested in for the games spin. (I am still working on getting the update though.) So you probably won't have install problems due to that. However, I was using those fonts for Firefox, so there was some extra grief. (Especially since I am sharing /home between my F10 and F11 installs.)
On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 11:45:49 -0600, Bruno Wolff III bruno@wolff.to wrote:
being retried.) If you uninstall a few key packages, you can get the update to work. Once the vast majority of packages have been updated, you can use package-cleanup --orphans to find problem packages and deal with them. And then you can probably also reinstall some or all of what you have to remove to get the update to work.
I submitted an RFE (478697) to yum-utils to provide a way to find those packages ahead of an update.
-
Bruno Wolff III -
Jerry James -
Kevin Kofler -
Nicolas Mailhot