Please make it stop.
milter-regex-1.7-6.fc12.ppc requires /bin/sh
I guess this is happening because of dropping ppc/ppc64 as primary arches?
ISTR the last time the dep checker went off on a mailbombing session it was suggested that it checks for broken deps against obvious things like /bin/sh and declared itself insane, sparing us all the pointless mails?
Paul.
Paul Howarth paul@city-fan.org writes:
Please make it stop.
+1
ISTR the last time the dep checker went off on a mailbombing session it was suggested that it checks for broken deps against obvious things like /bin/sh and declared itself insane, sparing us all the pointless mails?
/bin/sh and libc.so both ought to be trigger points for an I'm-not-sane kill switch. Or maybe reverse the logic: if you fail to find *any* of a package's dependencies, you're probably broken and should shut up.
regards, tom lane
Le samedi 14 novembre 2009 à 16:12 +0000, Paul Howarth a écrit :
Please make it stop.
milter-regex-1.7-6.fc12.ppc requires /bin/sh
I guess this is happening because of dropping ppc/ppc64 as primary arches?
I think pretty much everyone will be mailbombed this way. Seems /bin/sh was dropped from provides, but the packages have not been rebuilt not to require it
+1
Henrique "LonelySpooky" Junior http://www.lonelyspooky.com ------------------------------------------------------------- "In a world without walls and fences, who needs windows and gates?!"
2009/11/14 Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de
On 11/14/2009 05:12 PM, Paul Howarth wrote:
Please make it stop.
+1 ...
... so far, I've received ca. 1200 of these mails and the figure is still growing by the minute.
Ralf
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
On Sat, 14 Nov 2009, Henrique Junior wrote:
+1
Are people +1'ing getting rid of the broken dependencies script altogether? or +1'ing to predicting the future and stopping it before it breaks?
-Mike
Henrique "LonelySpooky" Junior http://www.lonelyspooky.com
"In a world without walls and fences, who needs windows and gates?!"
2009/11/14 Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de On 11/14/2009 05:12 PM, Paul Howarth wrote: Please make it stop.
+1 ...
... so far, I've received ca. 1200 of these mails and the figure is still growing by the minute.
Ralf
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
On 11/14/2009 10:12 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
On Sat, 14 Nov 2009, Henrique Junior wrote:
+1
Are people +1'ing getting rid of the broken dependencies script altogether? or +1'ing to predicting the future and stopping it before it breaks?
No, it's raising hands to
a) draw attention of those persons who "flipped this switch" this time.
b) draw attention of those persons who have the means to take countermeasures against the damage this "flipping the switch" had.
c) to draw attention of those persons, who are in charge to supervise those persons who "flipped this switch" this time.
Ralf
Mike McGrath mmcgrath@redhat.com writes:
Are people +1'ing getting rid of the broken dependencies script altogether? or +1'ing to predicting the future and stopping it before it breaks?
I thought the +1's were for putting in some circuit breakers, so that when (not if) it breaks again, it won't spam the entire package maintainer list. We can predict the future to the extent of being sure this will happen again.
The thing is useful when it's working, but it will stop being useful if people get conditioned to ignore it.
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane writes:
Mike McGrath mmcgrath@redhat.com writes:
Are people +1'ing getting rid of the broken dependencies script altogether? or +1'ing to predicting the future and stopping it before it breaks?
I thought the +1's were for putting in some circuit breakers, so that when (not if) it breaks again, it won't spam the entire package
Proposed circuit breaker: if more than 5% of packages supposedly have broken dependencies.
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 10:53 PM, Sam Varshavchik mrsam@courier-mta.com wrote:
Tom Lane writes:
Mike McGrath mmcgrath@redhat.com writes:
Are people +1'ing getting rid of the broken dependencies script altogether? or +1'ing to predicting the future and stopping it before it breaks?
I thought the +1's were for putting in some circuit breakers, so that when (not if) it breaks again, it won't spam the entire package
Proposed circuit breaker: if more than 5% of packages supposedly have broken dependencies.
I would produce a report before sending any mails. A report suming up the occurrence of each missing dependency. Eyeballing the top slots of this list should highlight some obvious things to fix first like the /bin/sh one. You want to avoid reporting global or near global items on a per package basis.
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
On Nov 14, 2009, at 13:53, Sam Varshavchik mrsam@courier-mta.com wrote:
Tom Lane writes:
Mike McGrath mmcgrath@redhat.com writes:
Are people +1'ing getting rid of the broken dependencies script altogether? or +1'ing to predicting the future and stopping it before it breaks?
I thought the +1's were for putting in some circuit breakers, so that when (not if) it breaks again, it won't spam the entire package
Proposed circuit breaker: if more than 5% of packages supposedly have broken dependencies.
Sounds reasonable. Accepting patches if you want this done in the new future.
-- Jes
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 11:06 PM, Jesse Keating jkeating@j2solutions.net wrote:
On Nov 14, 2009, at 13:53, Sam Varshavchik mrsam@courier-mta.com wrote:
Tom Lane writes:
Mike McGrath mmcgrath@redhat.com writes:
Are people +1'ing getting rid of the broken dependencies script
altogether? or +1'ing to predicting the future and stopping it before it
breaks?
I thought the +1's were for putting in some circuit breakers, so
that when (not if) it breaks again, it won't spam the entire package
Proposed circuit breaker: if more than 5% of packages supposedly have broken dependencies.
Sounds reasonable. Accepting patches if you want this done in the new future.
$ repoclosure -r updates | grep '^ ' | sort | uniq -c | sort -gr | head 167 rtld(GNU_HASH) 130 /sbin/ldconfig 127 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) 127 libc.so.6()(64bit) 101 /bin/sh
on the repo... But this is not the new rawhide (it's updates on its own) repo of course. I'm not sure where that actually is at the moment? Will look at how the rawhide report is created. The results belong in there.
-- Jes -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 23:36:27 +0100, Steve wrote:
$ repoclosure -r updates | grep '^ ' | sort | uniq -c | sort -gr | head 167 rtld(GNU_HASH) 130 /sbin/ldconfig 127 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) 127 libc.so.6()(64bit) 101 /bin/sh
on the repo... But this is not the new rawhide (it's updates on its own) repo of course. I'm not sure where that actually is at the moment?
Bad choice of -r options. "updates" depend on base packages. Either add the missing repos or run repoclosure without -r options to use default yum repo config.
On Sat, 14 Nov 2009, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Nov 14, 2009, at 13:53, Sam Varshavchik mrsam@courier-mta.com wrote:
Tom Lane writes: Mike McGrath <mmcgrath@redhat.com> writes: Are people +1'ing getting rid of the broken dependencies script altogether? or +1'ing to predicting the future and stopping it before it breaks? I thought the +1's were for putting in some circuit breakers, so that when (not if) it breaks again, it won't spam the entire package Proposed circuit breaker: if more than 5% of packages supposedly have broken dependencies.Sounds reasonable. Accepting patches if you want this done in the new future.
Anyone on the list irritated enough to work on these scripts or just irritated enough to complain via email and let it be someone else's problem?
-Mike
On 2009/11/14 7:13 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
Anyone on the list irritated enough to work on these scripts or just irritated enough to complain via email and let it be someone else's problem?
-Mike
Where can we find a copy those scripts? I would be happy to take a look and see if we can implement a simple "do not send any mail if" blacklist for the broken deps.
Stewart
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 02:41:21 -0500, Stewart wrote:
Where can we find a copy those scripts? I would be happy to take a look and see if we can implement a simple "do not send any mail if" blacklist for the broken deps.
repoclosure is part of the "yum-utils" package. The rawhide broken deps mail is created by the tools in the "mash" package.
On Sun, 2009-11-15 at 02:41 -0500, Stewart Adam wrote:
Where can we find a copy those scripts? I would be happy to take a look and see if we can implement a simple "do not send any mail if" blacklist for the broken deps.
There are two scripts. One, spam-o-matic, is what emails the individual maintainers about a problem. The other, repodiff, is what generates the broken deps part of the daily rawhide report. spam-o-matic can be found in the rel-eng git repo, git://git.fedorahosted.org/git/releng repodiff can be found in the yumutils git.
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 11:06 PM, Jesse Keating jkeating@j2solutions.net wrote:
Sounds reasonable. Accepting patches if you want this done in the new future.
But until patched, please just turn the damn thing off!
I can accept over a thousand spams once, but for it happen again the next day is really too much.
On Sun, 2009-11-15 at 16:55 +0100, Iain Arnell wrote:
But until patched, please just turn the damn thing off!
I can accept over a thousand spams once, but for it happen again the next day is really too much.
Sorry about this. We forgot to turn off the composing of ppc/ppc64 when we switched to Fedora 13 based rawhide. I just fixed that so we won't see this problem tonight.
I apologize for not getting to this sooner, I don't normally work weekends and I've been rather disconnected this particular weekend.
On Sun, 2009-11-15 at 10:08 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Sun, 2009-11-15 at 16:55 +0100, Iain Arnell wrote:
But until patched, please just turn the damn thing off!
I can accept over a thousand spams once, but for it happen again the next day is really too much.
Sorry about this. We forgot to turn off the composing of ppc/ppc64 when we switched to Fedora 13 based rawhide. I just fixed that so we won't see this problem tonight.
I apologize for not getting to this sooner, I don't normally work weekends and I've been rather disconnected this particular weekend.
Argh. It helps if I check the patch into CVS before doing the build. Sorry about that. :/
-
Henrique Junior -
Iain Arnell -
Jesse Keating -
Jesse Keating -
Michael Schwendt -
Mike McGrath -
Nicolas Mailhot -
Paul Howarth -
Ralf Corsepius -
Sam Varshavchik -
Steve Traylen -
Stewart Adam -
Tom Lane