yes, sounds like that. please take the patch, I plan to publish new build with that change and without the exclusive arch that I added
On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Nir Soffer <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Sandro Bonazzola <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> FYI, Fedora reviewed vdsm spec file regarding obsoletes. >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Igor Gnatenko <[email protected]> >> Date: Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 1:14 PM >> Subject: Unversioned and >/=/>= obsoletes >> To: Development discussions related to Fedora < >> [email protected]>, [email protected] >> >> >> All guidelines mandate the use of </<= Obsoletes, but unfortunately we >> have some number of packages (179 source rpms -> 292 binary rpms) with >> unversioned Obsoletes or with >/=/>= Obsoletes. >> >> It is causing problems with upgrade (if package is getting re-added) >> or with 3rd-party repositories. Older package is obsoleting new >> package. >> >> Problem categories (in following text by "never" I mean latest N-2 >> releases): >> >> * Package/SubPackage was never built in Fedora >> Package "python" has "Obsoletes: python2" which was never built -> >> drop Obsoletes >> SubPackage "qpid-proton-c" of "qpid-proton" has "Obsoletes: >> qpid-proton" which was not the package for long time -> drop Obsoletes >> >> * Package replacement >> Package "storaged" has "Obsoletes: udisks2" -> take latest version >> from koji (2.1.7-1) and make Obsoletes versioned: udisks2 < 2.1.7-2 >> storaged is not simple use-case as it replaces udisks2, but latter is >> still not retired. >> >> * "=" Obsoletes >> "rubygem-vte" has "Obsoletes: ruby-vte = 3.0.9-1.fc26" (probably it's >> macro in spec) which seems really weird as it will not obsolete >> F24/F25 with such version >> >> * Obsoletes by Provides >> It doesn't work to prevent undefined behavior. Imagine you have >> installed "A" and "B", both providing "C". Package "D" has "Obsoletes: >> C", it should not remove "A" and "B". >> ** %{?_isa} >> "glibc-headers" has "Obsoletes: glibc-headers(i686)". %{?_isa} is just >> text, it's not part of architecture or something else. >> ** Other provides >> "rubygem-http_connection" has "Obsoletes: >> rubygem(right_http_connection)". Latter is virtual provides. >> >> * Weird obsoletes (broken) >> "krb5-server" has "Obsoletes: krb5-server-1.14.3-8.fc26.i686". >> Basically it will not obsolete anything because it's threated as >> package name (and we definitely don't have such package name). >> >> * >/>= Obsoletes >> "vdsm" has "Obsoletes: vdsm-infra >= 4.16.0". It's almost same as >> unversioned Obsoletes. So it must not be used. >> > > Should be fixed here if I understood the problem > https://gerrit.ovirt.org/63215 > -- *Yaniv Bronhaim.*
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
