RPMs in FC13 with wrong or missing release

[Jonathan Ryshpan]

There are a number of packages in the FC13 repos that have wrong or
missing release IDs.  For example: 
        evolution-remove-duplicates-0.0.4-4.fc12.x86_64
which is in fact intended for evolution-2.28, and not for
evolution-2.30, which is included in FC13.  (And so it doesn't work)

There are a lot of such packages and many packages with no release ID at
all, like:
        glibc-common-2.12-1.x86_64
too many to be included in an email of reasonable length, but here is a
summary:
        $ wc -l *
         1416 rpm.ALL		Number of RPMs on the system
          220 rpm.fc12		Those with ".fc12." in their name 
           17 rpm.none		Those with neither ".fc12." nor ".fc13."

Is this harmful?  Should it be reported to the Fedora Bugzilla?

Thanks - jon

[Patrick O'Callaghan]

On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 19:55 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
>  No need to pull out the elitest card. 
Elitist? Moi?

poc

[Rahul Sundaram]

On 06/02/2010 07:25 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>  On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 07:52 +0100, Frank Murphy wrote:
>    
> > On 01/06/10 23:24, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
> > --snip--
> >     
> >> I filed a bug report against evolution-remove-duplicates in the Fedora
> >> bugzilla.  But maybe it should be in the Evolution Bugzilla.  Who *is*
> >> responsible for this?
> >>
> >>       
> > you filed the bug they will get it.
> >
> > But there might be nothing they can do about it.
> > http://people.gnome.org/~carlosg/stuff/evolution/
> >
> > Has the functionality been built in to the main app?
> >     
>  The main problem for now is that the packager didn't create an rpm for
>  F13 and Evo 2.30, so it doesn't install correctly. This is a Fedora
>  problem.
>     
If anyone has a bug report filed, pass it on and I will take a look.

Rahul

[Patrick O'Callaghan]

On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 07:52 +0100, Frank Murphy wrote:
>  On 01/06/10 23:24, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
>  --snip--
>  > 
>  > I filed a bug report against evolution-remove-duplicates in the Fedora
>  > bugzilla.  But maybe it should be in the Evolution Bugzilla.  Who *is*
>  > responsible for this?
>  > 
>  you filed the bug they will get it.
>  
>  But there might be nothing they can do about it.
>  http://people.gnome.org/~carlosg/stuff/evolution/
>  
>  Has the functionality been built in to the main app? 
The main problem for now is that the packager didn't create an rpm for
F13 and Evo 2.30, so it doesn't install correctly. This is a Fedora
problem.

poc

[Frank Murphy]

On 01/06/10 23:24, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
--snip--
>  
>  I filed a bug report against evolution-remove-duplicates in the Fedora
>  bugzilla.  But maybe it should be in the Evolution Bugzilla.  Who *is*
>  responsible for this?
>   
you filed the bug they will get it.

But there might be nothing they can do about it.
http://people.gnome.org/~carlosg/stuff/evolution/

Has the functionality been built in to the main app?

-- 
Regards,

Frank Murphy
UTF_8 Encoded
Friend of Fedora

[Michael Cronenworth]

On 06/01/2010 06:37 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>  Once again: this package is not part of the standard Gnome plugin
> set
>  for Evolution. It's a third-party add-on. In fact it installs in the
>  wrong place in F13, under /usr/lib64/evolution/2.28/plugins instead
>  of /usr/lib64/evolution/2.30/plugins. It should be reported to the
>  Fedora BZ.
>      
No need to pull out the elitest card. My analogy was a generic one. I 
would have hoped he would be intelligent enough to figure out where he 
needed to go for support for that particular add-on.

[Craig White]

On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 15:24 -0700, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
>  On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 13:24 -0700, Craig White wrote:
>  > On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 13:05 -0700, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
>  > > There are a number of packages in the FC13 repos that have wrong or
>  > > missing release IDs.  For example: 
>  > >         evolution-remove-duplicates-0.0.4-4.fc12.x86_64
>  > > which is in fact intended for evolution-2.28, and not for
>  > > evolution-2.30, which is included in FC13.  (And so it doesn't work)
>  ...
>  > not all packages are rebuilt with every release so it is probably not
>  > unusual for a package that has an fc12 designation that is still working
>  > with fc13.
>  > 
>  > I would think that any of them that don't work properly with current F13
>  > release you should file an individual bugzilla entry for (ie evolution
>  > remove duplicates package and the package will be notified).
>  
>  I filed a bug report against evolution-remove-duplicates in the Fedora
>  bugzilla.  But maybe it should be in the Evolution Bugzilla.  Who *is*
>  responsible for this? 
----
I don't know - I didn't look but it will automatically be assigned if
you filed the bug against evolution so it should be fine.

Craig



-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

[Patrick O'Callaghan]

On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 17:31 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
>  Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
>  > I filed a bug report against evolution-remove-duplicates in the Fedora
>  > bugzilla.  But maybe it should be in the Evolution Bugzilla.  Who*is*
>  > responsible for this?
>  
>  Package maintenance (read the RPM itself) is the distribution's 
>  responsibility (read Fedora).
>  
>  Software maintenance (read Evolution itself) is the author's 
>  responsibility (read Gnome). 
Once again: this package is not part of the standard Gnome plugin set
for Evolution. It's a third-party add-on. In fact it installs in the
wrong place in F13, under /usr/lib64/evolution/2.28/plugins instead
of /usr/lib64/evolution/2.30/plugins. It should be reported to the
Fedora BZ.

poc

[Patrick O'Callaghan]

On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 15:24 -0700, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
>  On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 13:24 -0700, Craig White wrote:
>  > On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 13:05 -0700, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
>  > > There are a number of packages in the FC13 repos that have wrong or
>  > > missing release IDs.  For example: 
>  > >         evolution-remove-duplicates-0.0.4-4.fc12.x86_64
>  > > which is in fact intended for evolution-2.28, and not for
>  > > evolution-2.30, which is included in FC13.  (And so it doesn't work)
>  ...
>  > not all packages are rebuilt with every release so it is probably not
>  > unusual for a package that has an fc12 designation that is still working
>  > with fc13.
>  > 
>  > I would think that any of them that don't work properly with current F13
>  > release you should file an individual bugzilla entry for (ie evolution
>  > remove duplicates package and the package will be notified).
>  
>  I filed a bug report against evolution-remove-duplicates in the Fedora
>  bugzilla.  But maybe it should be in the Evolution Bugzilla.  Who *is*
>  responsible for this? 
If it's a packaging issue then the Fedora BZ would be the one to report
to. AFAIK evolution-remove-duplicates is not a standard part of
Evolution as distributed with Gnome.

poc

[Michael Cronenworth]

Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
>  I filed a bug report against evolution-remove-duplicates in the
> Fedora
>  bugzilla.  But maybe it should be in the Evolution Bugzilla.  Who*is*
>  responsible for this? 
Package maintenance (read the RPM itself) is the distribution's 
responsibility (read Fedora).

Software maintenance (read Evolution itself) is the author's 
responsibility (read Gnome).

As to your original post, there is no problem, as stated by several 
individuals.

[Jonathan Ryshpan]

On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 13:24 -0700, Craig White wrote:
>  On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 13:05 -0700, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
>  > There are a number of packages in the FC13 repos that have wrong or
>  > missing release IDs.  For example: 
>  >         evolution-remove-duplicates-0.0.4-4.fc12.x86_64
>  > which is in fact intended for evolution-2.28, and not for
>  > evolution-2.30, which is included in FC13.  (And so it doesn't work) 
...
>  not all packages are rebuilt with every release so it is probably
> not
>  unusual for a package that has an fc12 designation that is still working
>  with fc13.
>  
>  I would think that any of them that don't work properly with current F13
>  release you should file an individual bugzilla entry for (ie evolution
>  remove duplicates package and the package will be notified). 
I filed a bug report against evolution-remove-duplicates in the Fedora
bugzilla.  But maybe it should be in the Evolution Bugzilla.  Who *is*
responsible for this?

jon

[Frank Murphy]

On 01/06/10 21:05, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
--snip--
>  
>  Is this harmful?  Should it be reported to the Fedora Bugzilla?
>  
>  Thanks - jon
>  
>   
Perfectly fine, as there was no mass rebuild for F13.
Nothing to panic about.


-- 
Regards,

Frank Murphy
UTF_8 Encoded
Friend of Fedora

[Craig White]

On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 13:05 -0700, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
>  There are a number of packages in the FC13 repos that have wrong or
>  missing release IDs.  For example: 
>          evolution-remove-duplicates-0.0.4-4.fc12.x86_64
>  which is in fact intended for evolution-2.28, and not for
>  evolution-2.30, which is included in FC13.  (And so it doesn't work)
>  
>  There are a lot of such packages and many packages with no release ID at
>  all, like:
>          glibc-common-2.12-1.x86_64
>  too many to be included in an email of reasonable length, but here is a
>  summary:
>          $ wc -l *
>           1416 rpm.ALL		Number of RPMs on the system
>            220 rpm.fc12		Those with ".fc12." in their name 
>             17 rpm.none		Those with neither ".fc12." nor ".fc13."
>  
>  Is this harmful?  Should it be reported to the Fedora Bugzilla? 
----
not all packages are rebuilt with every release so it is probably not
unusual for a package that has an fc12 designation that is still working
with fc13.

I would think that any of them that don't work properly with current F13
release you should file an individual bugzilla entry for (ie evolution
remove duplicates package and the package will be notified).

Craig


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.