Not sure if this is the right place to bring this up, but attempting to install rpmdevtools on a RHEL 5.3 beta machine fails because of a file conflict - /usr/lib/rpm/check-rpaths-worker is now included as part of rpm-build, and need not be included in rpmdevtools.
Fun thing is this is obviously an incompatible change - on RHEL version <= 5.3, it's there, but > 5.3 it's not. Not sure how to handle this in EPEL-land..
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Jon Stanley jonstanley@gmail.com wrote:
Not sure if this is the right place to bring this up, but attempting to install rpmdevtools on a RHEL 5.3 beta machine fails because of a file conflict - /usr/lib/rpm/check-rpaths-worker is now included as part of rpm-build, and need not be included in rpmdevtools.
Fun thing is this is obviously an incompatible change - on RHEL version <= 5.3, it's there, but > 5.3 it's not. Not sure how to handle this in EPEL-land..
Ugh.. file a bug and tell them to fix their crap :)[TM]? On the other hand, this is one of those things I think we have run into with each 5.x release. I think we need to work on a more general plan... since fixing it on our side breaks 5.2 people
I can raise an issue in IT, but not sure where that will go (I'm bcc'ing my TAM and cc'ing John Poelstra on this so maybe they can give me some guidance). This late in the 5.3 game, not sure what can change at this point (or if this has already changed).
Agreed that we need something more general than this specific instance though, and something that works for the community - not just those that happen to be large RH customers. We need some sort of visibility as to what's coming in the next point release prior to the public beta, and some sort of input as to those changes in what might be incompatible to EPEL (even internally running repoclosure against new RHEL+EPEL would work IMHO)
Enough ranting for tonight :)
On 12/15/08, Stephen John Smoogen smooge@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Jon Stanley jonstanley@gmail.com wrote:
Not sure if this is the right place to bring this up, but attempting to install rpmdevtools on a RHEL 5.3 beta machine fails because of a file conflict - /usr/lib/rpm/check-rpaths-worker is now included as part of rpm-build, and need not be included in rpmdevtools.
Fun thing is this is obviously an incompatible change - on RHEL version <= 5.3, it's there, but > 5.3 it's not. Not sure how to handle this in EPEL-land..
Ugh.. file a bug and tell them to fix their crap :)[TM]? On the other hand, this is one of those things I think we have run into with each 5.x release. I think we need to work on a more general plan... since fixing it on our side breaks 5.2 people
-- Stephen J Smoogen. -- BSD/GNU/Linux How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"
epel-devel-list mailing list epel-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
We had a heads up on this quite awhile ago, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=466939 there is plans to fix this when RHEL 5.3 is released. we really do need the RHEL pm to let us know when things move into RHEL from EPEL though. every point release of 5.x so far has had something from EEPL move in.
Dennis
On Monday 15 December 2008 08:52:21 pm Jon Stanley wrote:
I can raise an issue in IT, but not sure where that will go (I'm bcc'ing my TAM and cc'ing John Poelstra on this so maybe they can give me some guidance). This late in the 5.3 game, not sure what can change at this point (or if this has already changed).
Agreed that we need something more general than this specific instance though, and something that works for the community - not just those that happen to be large RH customers. We need some sort of visibility as to what's coming in the next point release prior to the public beta, and some sort of input as to those changes in what might be incompatible to EPEL (even internally running repoclosure against new RHEL+EPEL would work IMHO)
Enough ranting for tonight :)
On 12/15/08, Stephen John Smoogen smooge@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Jon Stanley jonstanley@gmail.com wrote:
Not sure if this is the right place to bring this up, but attempting to install rpmdevtools on a RHEL 5.3 beta machine fails because of a file conflict - /usr/lib/rpm/check-rpaths-worker is now included as part of rpm-build, and need not be included in rpmdevtools.
Fun thing is this is obviously an incompatible change - on RHEL version <= 5.3, it's there, but > 5.3 it's not. Not sure how to handle this in EPEL-land..
Ugh.. file a bug and tell them to fix their crap :)[TM]? On the other hand, this is one of those things I think we have run into with each 5.x release. I think we need to work on a more general plan... since fixing it on our side breaks 5.2 people
-- Stephen J Smoogen. -- BSD/GNU/Linux How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"
epel-devel-list mailing list epel-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 10:33:29PM -0600, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
We had a heads up on this quite awhile ago, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=466939 there is plans to fix this when RHEL 5.3 is released. we really do need the RHEL pm to let us know when things move into RHEL from EPEL though. every point release of 5.x so far has had something from EEPL move in.
Last release we asked Spot to inform the EPEL SIG of what is coming in the next point release, specifically for this reason.
Should we remind him next time?
The point is not that Spot himself should know, but that someone who can get answers from the product managers is accountable for supplying answers to EPEL at the earliest opportunity.
- Karsten
On Tuesday 16 December 2008, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
We had a heads up on this quite awhile ago, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=466939 there is plans to fix this when RHEL 5.3 is released.
There are experimental rpmdevtools 6.8 packages available to play with now, see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/466939#c7 for details.
When these are ready for the EL-5 build, how/when should I do the build? Just do it when possible, and let the repo masters know that it shouldn't be pushed anywhere before EL 5.3 is out? Or push it to testing even before 5.3 is out, and to stable as simultaneously as possible with 5.3 goes GA? Or should I just tag but hold building it until ...?
On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 14:52:49 +0200 Ville Skyttä ville.skytta@iki.fi wrote:
On Tuesday 16 December 2008, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
We had a heads up on this quite awhile ago, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=466939 there is plans to fix this when RHEL 5.3 is released.
There are experimental rpmdevtools 6.8 packages available to play with now, see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/466939#c7 for details.
When these are ready for the EL-5 build, how/when should I do the build? Just do it when possible, and let the repo masters know that it shouldn't be pushed anywhere before EL 5.3 is out? Or push it to testing even before 5.3 is out, and to stable as simultaneously as possible with 5.3 goes GA? Or should I just tag but hold building it until ...?
Well, it's up to you... I would personally suggest waiting until 5.3 is out, then building and pushing to testing, wait and if all looks ok push to stable.
kevin
On Friday 26 December 2008, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 14:52:49 +0200
Ville Skyttä ville.skytta@iki.fi wrote:
When these are ready for the EL-5 build, how/when should I do the build? Just do it when possible, and let the repo masters know that it shouldn't be pushed anywhere before EL 5.3 is out? Or push it to testing even before 5.3 is out, and to stable as simultaneously as possible with 5.3 goes GA? Or should I just tag but hold building it until ...?
Well, it's up to you... I would personally suggest waiting until 5.3 is out, then building and pushing to testing, wait and if all looks ok push to stable.
That's what I'd do for a usual less crucial update, but in this case, as mentioned in bug 466939, having an old rpmdevtools release installed will break/prevent upgrading to 5.3 if the new one is not available.
On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Ville Skyttä ville.skytta@iki.fi wrote:
That's what I'd do for a usual less crucial update, but in this case, as mentioned in bug 466939, having an old rpmdevtools release installed will break/prevent upgrading to 5.3 if the new one is not available.
How about we simply apply the patch that Panu suggested in the current version so the conflict is gone (i.e. identical md5sum between RHEL rpm-build and EPEL rpmdevtools), and wait to push this new version until after 5.3. Is there some compelling reason to push this earlier? What else has changed?
I realize that patching so our md5sum becomes identical is full of fail, but it *is* an immediate term option.
On Saturday 27 December 2008, Jon Stanley wrote:
On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Ville Skyttä ville.skytta@iki.fi wrote:
That's what I'd do for a usual less crucial update, but in this case, as mentioned in bug 466939, having an old rpmdevtools release installed will break/prevent upgrading to 5.3 if the new one is not available.
How about we simply apply the patch that Panu suggested in the current version so the conflict is gone (i.e. identical md5sum between RHEL rpm-build and EPEL rpmdevtools), and wait to push this new version until after 5.3.
Yeah, on a 2nd thought, this is probably be the best approach. I'll look into it. Differing timestamps on multiply owned files don't cause conflicts, they just show up in "rpm -V" output, right?
What else has changed?
Over 2 years of bug fixes and enhancements, too much to list here. But it's roughly [0] what's in %changelog between Oct 25 2006 and today in https://fedorahosted.org/rpmdevtools/browser/rpmdevtools.spec?rev=b0fe7d36a6...
[0] Some changes that aren't "backwards compatible enough" and thus inappropriate for EL have been omitted, and some additional backwards compat things have been added.
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Dennis Gilmore -
Jon Stanley -
Karsten Wade -
Kevin Fenzi -
Stephen John Smoogen -
Ville Skyttä