Orphaned Packages in rawhide (2015-10-07)

Petr Lautrbach plautrba at fedoraproject.org
Thu Oct 8 06:59:16 UTC 2015


On 10/08/2015 07:42 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 10/08/2015 07:11 AM, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 09:56:53PM +0000, opensource at till.name wrote:
>>> Note: If you received this mail directly you (co)maintain one of the
>>> affected
>>> packages or a package that depends on one. Please adopt the affected
>>> package or
>>> retire your depending package to avoid broken dependencies, otherwise
>>> your
>>> package will be retired when the affected package gets retired.
>>
>>>
>>>     iipsrv (maintained by: trasher)
>>>         iipsrv-1.0.0-4.0.git2431b45.fc23.i686 requires /sbin/restorecon
>>>
>>>     ipsilon (maintained by: puiterwijk, simo)
>>>         ipsilon-base-1.1.0-1.fc24.noarch requires /usr/sbin/restorecon
>>>
>>>     ladvd (maintained by: ixs, ttorcz)
>>>         ladvd-selinux-1.1.0-4.fc24.i686 requires /sbin/restorecon,
>>> /usr/sbin/semodule
>>>
>>>     ocp (maintained by: cra)
>>>         ocp-0.1.22-0.6.20150224gita07bf5d.fc23.i686 requires
>>> /sbin/restorecon
>>>
>>>     ocsinventory (maintained by: remi, xavierb)
>>>         ocsinventory-reports-2.1.2-6.fc23.noarch requires
>>> /sbin/restorecon
>>>         ocsinventory-server-2.1.2-6.fc23.noarch requires
>>> /sbin/restorecon
>>
>>    So what is correct requires nowadays? /usr/sbin/restorecon?
>> Something else?
> Both should work.
> 
> /usr/sbin/restorecon is a file-provides of the policycoreutils package
> and
> /sbin/restorecon is an explicit provides of the policycoreutils package
> 
> # rpm -qlp policycoreutils-2.4-13.fc24.x86_64.rpm \
>  | grep sbin/restorecon
> ...
> /usr/sbin/restorecon
> 
> # rpm -q --provides -p policycoreutils-2.4-13.fc24.x86_64.rpm \
>  | grep sbin/restorecon
> ...
> /sbin/restorecon
> 
> => Likely, something is broken with the depchecker used to generated the
> reports above.
> 

policycoreutils depends on lzma which was in the orphaned packages list.
But according to pkgdb it's owned again. I'd consider this as already
fixed and next run of depchecker should confirm it.

Petr
-- 
Petr Lautrbach


More information about the devel mailing list