Hi,
I've just got a bug on gxine about missing dependency on gecko-libs = 1.8.0.12 and after some exploration I've found that Firefox was upgraded to 3.0 in CentOS 5.2 and that CentOS 5.2 was released about three weeks ago, but I didn't noticed any message, or warning, here on the epel-devel-list. So the question is, are the builders set to build against 5.1 or against 5.2?
Thanks, Martin
2008/7/16 Martin Sourada martin.sourada@gmail.com:
Hi,
I've just got a bug on gxine about missing dependency on gecko-libs = 1.8.0.12 and after some exploration I've found that Firefox was upgraded to 3.0 in CentOS 5.2 and that CentOS 5.2 was released about three weeks ago, but I didn't noticed any message, or warning, here on the epel-devel-list. So the question is, are the builders set to build against 5.1 or against 5.2?
Thanks, Martin
epel-devel-list mailing list epel-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
We actually build against RHEL. I think the builders are still at 5.1, if I am recalling correctly.
Anybody else ?
stahnma
On Wednesday 16 July 2008, Michael Stahnke wrote:
2008/7/16 Martin Sourada martin.sourada@gmail.com:
Hi,
I've just got a bug on gxine about missing dependency on gecko-libs = 1.8.0.12 and after some exploration I've found that Firefox was upgraded to 3.0 in CentOS 5.2 and that CentOS 5.2 was released about three weeks ago, but I didn't noticed any message, or warning, here on the epel-devel-list. So the question is, are the builders set to build against 5.1 or against 5.2?
We actually build against RHEL. I think the builders are still at 5.1, if I am recalling correctly.
Anybody else ?
The should be using RHEL-5.2 now if not file a bug and we will get it fixed
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:27:08 -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
On Wednesday 16 July 2008, Michael Stahnke wrote:
2008/7/16 Martin Sourada martin.sourada@gmail.com:
Hi,
I've just got a bug on gxine about missing dependency on gecko-libs = 1.8.0.12 and after some exploration I've found that Firefox was upgraded to 3.0 in CentOS 5.2 and that CentOS 5.2 was released about three weeks ago, but I didn't noticed any message, or warning, here on the epel-devel-list. So the question is, are the builders set to build against 5.1 or against 5.2?
We actually build against RHEL. I think the builders are still at 5.1, if I am recalling correctly.
Anybody else ?
The should be using RHEL-5.2 now if not file a bug and we will get it fixed
This broken dep is in the repoclosure report since early July. And unless the private reports have been disabled, this broken dep has been reported weekly to:
martin.sourada AT gmail.com gxine - 0.5.11-14.el5.i386
The script is still misconfigured to run for i386 instead of i686, but that doesn't affect gxine+firefox.
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 00:45 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
This broken dep is in the repoclosure report since early July. And unless the private reports have been disabled, this broken dep has been reported weekly to:
martin.sourada AT gmail.com gxine - 0.5.11-14.el5.i386The script is still misconfigured to run for i386 instead of i686, but that doesn't affect gxine+firefox.
Yeah, I got that mail a few times, and every time I checked the rest of the broken deps in that batch, there were obvious false positives like missing dependency: kernel-devel, and given that in 5.1 there is still firefox 2.0.0.12, I thought it was result of the broken skript. My bad.
Going to rebuild now against xulrunner. What is the fastest way to get it to repos?
Thanks, Martin
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:51:15 +0200, Martin Sourada wrote:
The script is still misconfigured to run for i386 instead of i686, but that doesn't affect gxine+firefox.
Yeah, I got that mail a few times, and every time I checked the rest of the broken deps in that batch, there were obvious false positives like missing dependency: kernel-devel,
That's because kernel and kernel-devel (and a few other packages) are NOT available for i386. They are i686-only for RHEL afaik, not even i586. For the parameters passed to repoclosure this means "-a i686" and NOT "-a i386".
That's an EasyFix for whoever has write-access where the script is stored. [Restoring the single-mail-per-report feature is unrelated. That was okay around May this year.]
Going to rebuild now against xulrunner. What is the fastest way to get it to repos?
Mail epel signers according to the epel faq.
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:51:15 +0200, Martin Sourada wrote:
The script is still misconfigured to run for i386 instead of i686, but that doesn't affect gxine+firefox.
Yeah, I got that mail a few times, and every time I checked the rest of the broken deps in that batch, there were obvious false positives like missing dependency: kernel-devel,
That's because kernel and kernel-devel (and a few other packages) are NOT available for i386. They are i686-only for RHEL afaik, not even i586. For the parameters passed to repoclosure this means "-a i686" and NOT "-a i386".
Just so I don't mailbomb everyone again. Changing:
process_deps 5 i386 testing yes
to
process_deps 5 i686 testing yes
?
-Mike
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 13:59:09 -0500 (CDT), Mike McGrath wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:51:15 +0200, Martin Sourada wrote:
The script is still misconfigured to run for i386 instead of i686, but that doesn't affect gxine+firefox.
Yeah, I got that mail a few times, and every time I checked the rest of the broken deps in that batch, there were obvious false positives like missing dependency: kernel-devel,
That's because kernel and kernel-devel (and a few other packages) are NOT available for i386. They are i686-only for RHEL afaik, not even i586. For the parameters passed to repoclosure this means "-a i686" and NOT "-a i386".
Just so I don't mailbomb everyone again. Changing:
process_deps 5 i386 testing yes
to
process_deps 5 i686 testing yes
?
Ah, no, I forgot that somebody added that stuff. In the context of process_deps this additional line near the top, where a similar thing is done for ppc, would be needed (I only see a diff of a script called checkEpel.sh):
[ $arch == "i386" ] && arch_label=i686 || arch_label=$arch
$arch is used in the repo ids, $arch_label passed to Yum.
Dunno where that process_deps() function comes from. It's broken as I've told stahnma (who might be its author). It ought to run rc-report on all report-files at once as was done around May.
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:44:00 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Just so I don't mailbomb everyone again. Changing:
process_deps 5 i386 testing yes
to
process_deps 5 i686 testing yes
?
Ah, no, I forgot that somebody added that stuff. In the context of process_deps this additional line near the top, where a similar thing is done for ppc, would be needed (I only see a diff of a script called checkEpel.sh):
[ $arch == "i386" ] && arch_label=i686 || arch_label=$arch
As the 'OR' is troublesome, it ought to be dropped in favour of giving $arch_label a default value earlier. Top of function should look like this:
process_deps() { release=$1 arch=$2 testing=$3 mail=$4 [ -z $4 ] && mail="no" || mail="yes" - [ $arch = "ppc" ] && arch_label=ppc64 || arch_label=$arch + arch_label=$arch + [ $arch == "i386" ] && arch_label=i686 + [ $arch == "ppc" ] && arch_label=ppc64 command="/usr/local/bin/rc-modified -d mdcache -n -c $YUM_CONF_LOC -a
Hi,
I've just got a bug on gxine about missing dependency on gecko-libs = 1.8.0.12 and after some exploration I've found that Firefox was upgraded to 3.0 in CentOS 5.2
Is anyone else surprised about this move? It appears to have broken IDL on 5.2.
- Orion
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 8:57 PM, orion@cora.nwra.com wrote:
Hi,
I've just got a bug on gxine about missing dependency on gecko-libs = 1.8.0.12 and after some exploration I've found that Firefox was upgraded to 3.0 in CentOS 5.2
Is anyone else surprised about this move? It appears to have broken IDL on 5.2.
Not really. Red Hat (CentOS's upstream) announced early on in the 5.x series that they would move to firefox 3.0 when it was ready. The Red Hat 5.2 beta had firefox-3.0 in it, and it had been discussed on this list before.
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 8:57 PM, orion@cora.nwra.com wrote:
Is anyone else surprised about this move? It appears to have broken IDL on 5.2.
Not really. Red Hat (CentOS's upstream) announced early on in the 5.x series that they would move to firefox 3.0 when it was ready. The Red Hat 5.2 beta had firefox-3.0 in it, and it had been discussed on this list before.
Well, not so much surprised by the appearance as surprised by the decision to make a change that was likely to cause incompatibilities with software built against 1.5. I moved to EL versions to try to avoid such things...
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com wrote:
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 8:57 PM, orion@cora.nwra.com wrote:
Is anyone else surprised about this move? It appears to have broken IDL on 5.2.
Not really. Red Hat (CentOS's upstream) announced early on in the 5.x series that they would move to firefox 3.0 when it was ready. The Red Hat 5.2 beta had firefox-3.0 in it, and it had been discussed on this list before.
Well, not so much surprised by the appearance as surprised by the decision to make a change that was likely to cause incompatibilities with software built against 1.5. I moved to EL versions to try to avoid such things...
I think this was the reason for the Red Hat 5.x.y releases. There were paying customers who wanted a new desktop and others who wanted an old one. Red Hat 5.1.x will be locked with firefox-1.5 etc, but the various users that want 3.0 with 5 will get it with 5.2,5.3 series.
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Dennis Gilmore -
Martin Sourada -
Michael Schwendt -
Michael Stahnke -
Mike McGrath -
Orion Poplawski -
Stephen John Smoogen