Re: Broken dependencies: parcellite

[Christoph Wickert]

Am Mittwoch, den 21.03.2012, 12:52 +0000 schrieb
buildsys(a)fedoraproject.org:
>  
>  parcellite has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree:
>  On i386:
>  	parcellite-1.0.2-0.1.rc5.fc17.i686 requires libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
>  	parcellite-1.0.2-0.1.rc5.fc17.i686 requires libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
>  	parcellite-1.0.2-0.1.rc5.fc17.i686 requires libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
>  	parcellite-1.0.2-0.1.rc5.fc17.i686 requires libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
>  	parcellite-1.0.2-0.1.rc5.fc17.i686 requires libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
>  	parcellite-1.0.2-0.1.rc5.fc17.i686 requires libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit)
>  	parcellite-1.0.2-0.1.rc5.fc17.i686 requires libX11.so.6()(64bit)
>  Please resolve this as soon as possible. 
I resolved this on March 10th with 1.0.2-0.2.rc5
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=306351
but still I keep getting these mails. Why? And why is the script
complaining about the F17 package when there is a F18 one in rawhide?

Kind regards,
Christoph

Broken dependencies: parcellite

[Thomas Spura]

On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Christoph Wickert
<christoph.wickert(a)googlemail.com&gt; wrote:
>  Am Mittwoch, den 21.03.2012, 12:52 +0000 schrieb
>  buildsys(a)fedoraproject.org:
> >
> > parcellite has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree:
> > On i386:
> >       parcellite-1.0.2-0.1.rc5.fc17.i686 requires libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
> >       parcellite-1.0.2-0.1.rc5.fc17.i686 requires libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
> >       parcellite-1.0.2-0.1.rc5.fc17.i686 requires libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
> >       parcellite-1.0.2-0.1.rc5.fc17.i686 requires libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
> >       parcellite-1.0.2-0.1.rc5.fc17.i686 requires libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
> >       parcellite-1.0.2-0.1.rc5.fc17.i686 requires libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit)
> >       parcellite-1.0.2-0.1.rc5.fc17.i686 requires libX11.so.6()(64bit)
> > Please resolve this as soon as possible.
>
>  I resolved this on March 10th with 1.0.2-0.2.rc5
>  http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=306351
>  but still I keep getting these mails. Why? And why is the script
>  complaining about the F17 package when there is a F18 one in rawhide? 
Looks like the script looks for fc17, but says it's rawhide...
(There are still broken deps in fc17, because your update is not yet stable:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-3933/parcellite-1.0.2...
)

Greetings,
   Tom

Broken dependencies: parcellite

[Christoph Wickert]

Am Mittwoch, den 21.03.2012, 18:30 +0100 schrieb Thomas Spura:
>  On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Christoph Wickert
>  <christoph.wickert(a)googlemail.com&gt; wrote:
>  > Am Mittwoch, den 21.03.2012, 12:52 +0000 schrieb
>  > buildsys(a)fedoraproject.org:
>  >>
>  >> parcellite has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree:
>  >> On i386:
>  >>       parcellite-1.0.2-0.1.rc5.fc17.i686 requires libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
>  >>       parcellite-1.0.2-0.1.rc5.fc17.i686 requires libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
>  >>       parcellite-1.0.2-0.1.rc5.fc17.i686 requires libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
>  >>       parcellite-1.0.2-0.1.rc5.fc17.i686 requires libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
>  >>       parcellite-1.0.2-0.1.rc5.fc17.i686 requires libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
>  >>       parcellite-1.0.2-0.1.rc5.fc17.i686 requires libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit)
>  >>       parcellite-1.0.2-0.1.rc5.fc17.i686 requires libX11.so.6()(64bit)
>  >> Please resolve this as soon as possible.
>  >
>  > I resolved this on March 10th with 1.0.2-0.2.rc5
>  > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=306351
>  > but still I keep getting these mails. Why? And why is the script
>  > complaining about the F17 package when there is a F18 one in rawhide?
>  
>  Looks like the script looks for fc17, but says it's rawhide... 
Yeah, except that I get another mail for F17.

>  (There are still broken deps in fc17, because your update is not yet
> stable:
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-3933/parcellite-1.0.2...
>  ) 
I was aware of the F17 update not yet being pushed. The funny (?) thing
is that the F17 mails stopped after the update was in testing, only
rawhide continues and I have no idea why.

Regards,
Christoph

Broken dependencies: parcellite

[Michael Schwendt]

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:41:37 +0100, CW (Christoph) wrote:

>  Am Mittwoch, den 21.03.2012, 18:30 +0100 schrieb Thomas Spura:
>  > On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Christoph Wickert <christoph.wickert> wrote:
>  > > Am Mittwoch, den 21.03.2012, 12:52 +0000 schrieb buildsys:
>  > >>
>  > >> parcellite has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree:
>  > >> On i386:
>  > >>       parcellite-1.0.2-0.1.rc5.fc17.i686 requires
> libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
>  > >>       parcellite-1.0.2-0.1.rc5.fc17.i686 requires
> libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
>  > >>       parcellite-1.0.2-0.1.rc5.fc17.i686 requires
> libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
>  > >>       parcellite-1.0.2-0.1.rc5.fc17.i686 requires
> libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
>  > >>       parcellite-1.0.2-0.1.rc5.fc17.i686 requires
> libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
>  > >>       parcellite-1.0.2-0.1.rc5.fc17.i686 requires
> libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit)
>  > >>       parcellite-1.0.2-0.1.rc5.fc17.i686 requires libX11.so.6()(64bit)
>  > >> Please resolve this as soon as possible.
>  > >
>  > > I resolved this on March 10th with 1.0.2-0.2.rc5
>  > > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=306351
>  > > but still I keep getting these mails. Why? And why is the script
>  > > complaining about the F17 package when there is a F18 one in rawhide?
>  > 
>  > Looks like the script looks for fc17, but says it's rawhide...
>  
>  Yeah, except that I get another mail for F17.
>  
>  > (There are still broken deps in fc17, because your update is not yet stable:
>  >
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-3933/parcellite-1.0.2...
>  > )
>  
>  I was aware of the F17 update not yet being pushed. The funny (?) thing
>  is that the F17 mails stopped after the update was in testing, only
>  rawhide continues and I have no idea why. 
Are you sure about that?

parcellite is still listed in the "F-17 Branched report" broken deps,
but not in the "rawhide report".

The Branched report covers F17 + updates, but not updates-testing.

Broken dependencies: parcellite

[Christoph Wickert]

Am Donnerstag, den 22.03.2012, 14:53 +0100 schrieb Michael Schwendt:
>  On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:41:37 +0100, CW (Christoph) wrote:
>  
>  > Am Mittwoch, den 21.03.2012, 18:30 +0100 schrieb Thomas Spura:
>  > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Christoph Wickert <christoph.wickert>
> wrote:
>  > > > Am Mittwoch, den 21.03.2012, 12:52 +0000 schrieb buildsys:
>  > > >>
>  > > >> parcellite has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree:
>  > > >> On i386:
>  > > >>       parcellite-1.0.2-0.1.rc5.fc17.i686 requires
> libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
>  > > >>       parcellite-1.0.2-0.1.rc5.fc17.i686 requires
> libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
>  > > >>       parcellite-1.0.2-0.1.rc5.fc17.i686 requires
> libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
>  > > >>       parcellite-1.0.2-0.1.rc5.fc17.i686 requires
> libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
>  > > >>       parcellite-1.0.2-0.1.rc5.fc17.i686 requires
> libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit)
>  > > >>       parcellite-1.0.2-0.1.rc5.fc17.i686 requires
> libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit)
>  > > >>       parcellite-1.0.2-0.1.rc5.fc17.i686 requires
> libX11.so.6()(64bit)
>  > > >> Please resolve this as soon as possible.
>  > > >
>  > > > I resolved this on March 10th with 1.0.2-0.2.rc5
>  > > > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=306351
>  > > > but still I keep getting these mails. Why? And why is the script
>  > > > complaining about the F17 package when there is a F18 one in rawhide?
>  > > 
>  > > Looks like the script looks for fc17, but says it's rawhide...
>  > 
>  > Yeah, except that I get another mail for F17.
>  > 
>  > > (There are still broken deps in fc17, because your update is not yet stable:
>  > >
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-3933/parcellite-1.0.2...
>  > > )
>  > 
>  > I was aware of the F17 update not yet being pushed. The funny (?) thing
>  > is that the F17 mails stopped after the update was in testing, only
>  > rawhide continues and I have no idea why.
>  
>  Are you sure about that?
>  
>  parcellite is still listed in the "F-17 Branched report" broken deps,
>  but not in the "rawhide report".
>  
>  The Branched report covers F17 + updates, but not updates-testing. 
Last mail I got for rawhide was Wed, 21 Mar 2012 12:52:55 +0000 (UTC)
Last mail for F17 is date Mon, 19 Mar 2012 11:00:01.

Kind regards,
Christoph

Broken dependencies: parcellite

[Kalev Lember]

On 03/22/2012 04:24 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote:
>  Am Donnerstag, den 22.03.2012, 14:53 +0100 schrieb Michael Schwendt:
> > On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:41:37 +0100, CW (Christoph) wrote:
> >> I was aware of the F17 update not yet being pushed. The funny (?) thing
> >> is that the F17 mails stopped after the update was in testing, only
> >> rawhide continues and I have no idea why.
> >
> > Are you sure about that?
> >
> > parcellite is still listed in the "F-17 Branched report" broken deps,
> > but not in the "rawhide report".
> >
> > The Branched report covers F17 + updates, but not updates-testing.
>  
>  Last mail I got for rawhide was Wed, 21 Mar 2012 12:52:55 +0000 (UTC)
>  Last mail for F17 is date Mon, 19 Mar 2012 11:00:01. 
My guess would be that the broken deps mail you got for rawhide was
actually for the F17 tree. Someone must have just messed up the
script that mails out broken deps, and it says "rawhide" instead of
"F17 Branched".

-- 
Kalev

Broken dependencies: parcellite

[Dennis Gilmore]

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

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 19:02:57 +0200
Kalev Lember <kalevlember(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

>  On 03/22/2012 04:24 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote:
>  > Am Donnerstag, den 22.03.2012, 14:53 +0100 schrieb Michael Schwendt:
>  >> On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:41:37 +0100, CW (Christoph) wrote:
>  >>> I was aware of the F17 update not yet being pushed. The funny (?)
>  >>> thing is that the F17 mails stopped after the update was in
>  >>> testing, only rawhide continues and I have no idea why.
>  >>
>  >> Are you sure about that?
>  >>
>  >> parcellite is still listed in the "F-17 Branched report" broken
>  >> deps, but not in the "rawhide report".
>  >>
>  >> The Branched report covers F17 + updates, but not updates-testing.
>  > 
>  > Last mail I got for rawhide was Wed, 21 Mar 2012 12:52:55 +0000
>  > (UTC) Last mail for F17 is date Mon, 19 Mar 2012 11:00:01.
>  
>  My guess would be that the broken deps mail you got for rawhide was
>  actually for the F17 tree. Someone must have just messed up the
>  script that mails out broken deps, and it says "rawhide" instead of
>  "F17 Branched".
>  
>  
yes, i rewrote the script this week so that it can be used for both
primary and secondary arches. and i missed that bit its been fixed now
and will say f17 from tomorrow

Dennis
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAk9rXKcACgkQkSxm47BaWfdmMACgh7WYX1pRXVhbkYAdOeLooK7S
> AMQAmgPrHCERdRI2GYtHff46xaAFc95D
> =VnpG
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>