Hi,
I just read Matthais' post on the planet and couldn't wait to try out the new *shiny* gnome packages from the 3.14 copr. Unfortunately, there seem to be some breakages:
dnf --refresh --best update gives me:
Error: nothing provides gnome-shell >= 3.13.2 needed by gnome-shell-extension-common-3.13.2-2.fc20.noarch. nothing provides gnome-shell >= 3.13.2 needed by gnome-shell-extension-common-3.13.2-2.fc20.noarch. package NetworkManager-l2tp-0.9.8.6-1.fc20.x86_64 requires ppp = 2.4.5, but none of the providers can be installed. package evolution-data-server-3.12.3-1.fc20.x86_64 requires libgdata.so.13()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed. package gnome-shell-3.12.2-1.fc20.x86_64 requires libmutter-wayland.so.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed. package gnome-shell-3.12.2-1.fc20.x86_64 requires libmutter-wayland.so.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed. package NetworkManager-l2tp-0.9.8.6-1.fc20.x86_64 requires ppp = 2.4.5, but none of the providers can be installed
Omitting the --best flag doesn't work either. It wants to reinstall evolution-data-server and errors out saying:
Error: Transaction check error: package evolution-data-server-3.12.3-1.fc20.x86_64 is already installed
I was on the 3.12 copr already.
Thanks for putting up the new copr!
On 27 June 2014 11:11, Ankur Sinha sanjay.ankur@gmail.com wrote:
I just read Matthais' post on the planet and couldn't wait to try out the new *shiny* gnome packages from the 3.14 copr. Unfortunately, there seem to be some breakages:
Dude, I'm not even using that COPR yet! :) mclazy.py is still churning through the package list building all of 3.13.3...
Richard
On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 11:21 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
Dude, I'm not even using that COPR yet! :) mclazy.py is still churning through the package list building all of 3.13.3...
Oh! LOL! Sorry!
New Gnome packages really get me excited - I'll test them out tomorrow and post :)
On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 20:25 +1000, Ankur Sinha wrote:
I'll test them out tomorrow and post :)
I get this today:
$ dnf --refresh --best update -y .... Error: package NetworkManager-l2tp-0.9.8.6-1.fc20.x86_64 requires ppp = 2.4.5, but none of the providers can be installed. package evolution-data-server-3.12.3-1.fc20.x86_64 requires libgdata.so.13()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed. package NetworkManager-l2tp-0.9.8.6-1.fc20.x86_64 requires ppp = 2.4.5, but none of the providers can be installed
Is this something to do with how dnf handles package splits etc.?
On Sun, 2014-06-29 at 13:20 +1000, Ankur Sinha wrote:
On Fri, 2014-06-27 at 20:25 +1000, Ankur Sinha wrote:
I'll test them out tomorrow and post :)
I get this today:
$ dnf --refresh --best update -y .... Error: package NetworkManager-l2tp-0.9.8.6-1.fc20.x86_64 requires ppp = 2.4.5, but none of the providers can be installed. package evolution-data-server-3.12.3-1.fc20.x86_64 requires libgdata.so.13()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed. package NetworkManager-l2tp-0.9.8.6-1.fc20.x86_64 requires ppp = 2.4.5, but none of the providers can be installed
My output:
sudo dnf upgrade --refresh ... Installing .... Upgrading .... Reinstalling: evolution-data-server x86_64 3.12.3-1.fc20 rhughes-f20-gnome-3-14-x86_64 2.9 M
I already thought this was wrong, but elected to let it check the transaction:
Error: Transaction check error: package evolution-data-server-3.12.3-1.fc20.x86_64 is already installed
I thought dnf was just broken here, obviously if it knows it's a re-install earlier, it's already installed. That shouldn't be a show-stopper.
However , yum provides a slightly more useful, which actually explained why dnf was trying to re-install evolution-data-server. It also covers the above case.
I think dnf needs a bit of work to provide a tractable error message and correctly explain why it is trying to re-install a package on upgrade:
--> Finished Dependency Resolution Error: Package: evolution-data-server-3.12.3-1.fc20.x86_64 (@rhughes-f20-gnome-3-12-x86_64) Requires: libgdata.so.13()(64bit) Removing: libgdata-0.14.1-1.fc20.x86_64 (@updates) libgdata.so.13()(64bit) Updated By: libgdata-0.15.1-2.fc20.x86_64 (rhughes-f20-gnome-3-14-x86_64) ~libgdata.so.19()(64bit) Available: libgdata-0.14.0-1.fc20.x86_64 (fedora) libgdata.so.13()(64bit)
To me this looks like e-d-s needs re-releasing to depend on the newer libgdata
On 29 June 2014 13:56, Philip Whitehouse philip@whiuk.com wrote:
Error: Transaction check error: package evolution-data-server-3.12.3-1.fc20.x86_64 is already installed
Fixed in the copr today.
Richard.
On Mon, 2014-06-30 at 13:35 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
Fixed in the copr today.
Confirming. The update went about smoothly. Got a scriptlet error though:
/usr/bin/vala-0.24 has not been configured as an alternative for vala /usr/bin/valac-0.24 has not been configured as an alternative for valac /usr/share/man/man1/valac-0.24.1.gz has not been configured as an alternative for valac.1.gz error: %preun(vala-0.24.0-1.fc20.x86_64) scriptlet failed, exit status 2 Error in PREUN scriptlet in rpm package vala 520/546 error: vala-0.24.0-1.fc20.x86_64: erase failed
Manually removed this after the update. No error this time.
On 30 June 2014 15:59, Ankur Sinha sanjay.ankur@gmail.com wrote:
/usr/bin/vala-0.24 has not been configured as an alternative for vala /usr/bin/valac-0.24 has not been configured as an alternative for valac /usr/share/man/man1/valac-0.24.1.gz has not been configured as an alternative for valac.1.gz error: %preun(vala-0.24.0-1.fc20.x86_64) scriptlet failed, exit status 2 Error in PREUN scriptlet in rpm package vala 520/546 error: vala-0.24.0-1.fc20.x86_64: erase failed
Manually removed this after the update. No error this time.
I think that should probably be reported against the vala package; the same thing will happen with the rawhide package too.
Richard.
On Mon, 2014-06-30 at 16:31 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
I think that should probably be reported against the vala package; the same thing will happen with the rawhide package too.
Ok. I'll file a bug. Thanks.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 06/30/2014 08:35 AM, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 29 June 2014 13:56, Philip Whitehouse philip@whiuk.com wrote:
Error: Transaction check error: package evolution-data-server-3.12.3-1.fc20.x86_64 is already installed
Fixed in the copr today.
I updated to 3.13.3 today. As expected, a fair number of my extensions haven't been updated yet, but the one that surprised me was https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/602/window-list/ which I have installed as a system RPM (and is part of the set from Gnome Classic).
It's showing in tweak tool and on extensions.gnome.org as ERROR, but I'm not sure exactly where to find logs to report the specific issue. If someone can point me in the right direction, I'll get a bug filed.
On Mon, 2014-06-30 at 16:35 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
It's showing in tweak tool and on extensions.gnome.org as ERROR, but I'm not sure exactly where to find logs to report the specific issue. If someone can point me in the right direction, I'll get a bug filed.
I think "looking glass" is one place where you can find extension errors - alt f2 "lg". It has an extensions tab where you can see errors thrown by them.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 06/30/2014 08:41 PM, Ankur Sinha wrote:
On Mon, 2014-06-30 at 16:35 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
It's showing in tweak tool and on extensions.gnome.org as ERROR, but I'm not sure exactly where to find logs to report the specific issue. If someone can point me in the right direction, I'll get a bug filed.
I think "looking glass" is one place where you can find extension errors - alt f2 "lg". It has an extensions tab where you can see errors thrown by them.
Wow! Looking Glass is quite handy. *Adds to tool belt*
The error I have is global.screen.get_active_workspace(...) is null
Guess I'll go file a bug upstream.
On Tue, 2014-07-01 at 08:07 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
Wow! Looking Glass is quite handy. *Adds to tool belt*
The error I have is global.screen.get_active_workspace(...) is null
Guess I'll go file a bug upstream.
Hi!
Will the F20 COPR get any more updates? Gnome 3.13.4 was released a couple of weeks ago, but I haven't gotten any updates from COPR. There are a couple of bug fixes in this release that I'd like to check up on.
If you folks are low on cycles, I could help with maintaining the COPR. I think it's *really* useful for testing purposes. I do have a rawhide box, but since I don't use it daily for mail and stuff I don't really catch as many bugs in Evolution etc on it as I do on my daily use F20 system :)
On Wed, 2014-08-20 at 10:59 +1000, Ankur Sinha wrote:
Will the F20 COPR get any more updates? Gnome 3.13.4 was released a couple of weeks ago, but I haven't gotten any updates from COPR. There are a couple of bug fixes in this release that I'd like to check up on.
If you folks are low on cycles, I could help with maintaining the COPR. I think it's *really* useful for testing purposes. I do have a rawhide box, but since I don't use it daily for mail and stuff I don't really catch as many bugs in Evolution etc on it as I do on my daily use F20 system :)
In particular, it'd be good to get webkitgtk 2.4.4 into the copr.
On Tue, 2014-08-19 at 22:17 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
In particular, it'd be good to get webkitgtk 2.4.4 into the copr.
There's a rather nasty evolution bug that makes evolution crash each time you view images in a mail. The fix is in 3.13.4 and would improve usability for quite a few of us
On 22 August 2014 03:32, Ankur Sinha sanjay.ankur@gmail.com wrote:
There's a rather nasty evolution bug that makes evolution crash each time you view images in a mail. The fix is in 3.13.4 and would improve usability for quite a few of us
My server has been trying to submit builds to COPR for a few days now, but COPR is very overloaded and very slow: http://copr.fedoraproject.org/status/
I'm really thinking of deleting rhughes/f20-gnome-3-14 as it's impossible to chain-build an 14-stage dependency tree when each sync point has a 6h+ delay.
Richard
On 08/22/2014 01:21 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
I'm really thinking of deleting rhughes/f20-gnome-3-14 as it's impossible to chain-build an 14-stage dependency tree when each sync point has a 6h+ delay.
For what it's worth, I think it makes sense to drop f20-gnome-3-14 and instead try to get more people to switch to F21. We need people testing it to get the necessary polish and having the 3.14 copr could undermine that effort.
On Fri, 2014-08-22 at 13:34 +0200, Kalev Lember wrote:
For what it's worth, I think it makes sense to drop f20-gnome-3-14 and instead try to get more people to switch to F21. We need people testing it to get the necessary polish and having the 3.14 copr could undermine that effort.
I think it would be best if the gnome-3-12 copr was the last time we do a desktop environment in a copr.
On Fri, 2014-08-22 at 12:21 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
My server has been trying to submit builds to COPR for a few days now, but COPR is very overloaded and very slow: http://copr.fedoraproject.org/status/
I'm really thinking of deleting rhughes/f20-gnome-3-14 as it's impossible to chain-build an 14-stage dependency tree when each sync point has a 6h+ delay
Makes sense. I'll go update to F21 :)
Thanks for the COPR again, Richard. It was very helpful.
desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Ankur Sinha -
Kalev Lember -
Michael Catanzaro -
Philip Whitehouse -
Richard Hughes -
Stephen Gallagher