On 02/25/2016 11:07 AM, Jan Cholasta wrote:
On 25.2.2016 11:03, Milan Kubík wrote:
On 02/15/2016 05:39 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
On (15/02/16 17:00), Petr Vobornik wrote:
On 02/15/2016 04:37 PM, Milan Kubík wrote:
Reflect the updated name of the package.

Seems to me as a packaging bug in python-polib. It should use
macro to handle the transition.
There is not a bug in python-polib

sh# rpm -q python2-polib

sh# rpm -q --provides python2-polib
python-polib = 1.0.7-2.fc23
python2-polib = 1.0.7-2.fc23

However it is a change in behaviour in dnf/yum.
You can see more details in BZ1291850 or better BZ1096506.

This a readon why "dnf builddep" will try to remove package.
(it's not downgrade from dnf point of view)

sh# dnf builddep freeipa.spec
Last metadata expiration check performed 0:17:37 ago on Mon Feb 15
Package python-setuptools-18.0.1-2.fc23.noarch is already installed,
Package systemd-222-10.fc23.x86_64 is already installed, skipping.
Package systemd-222-10.fc23.x86_64 is already installed, skipping.
Error: installed package python2-polib-1.0.7-2.fc23.noarch obsoletes
python-polib < 1.0.7-2.fc23 provided by python-polib-1.0.3-6.fc23.noarch
(try to add '--allowerasing' to command line to replace conflicting

You might try to file a dnf BZ but mine 1291850 was two tiles closed
as not a
but and then closed as a duplicate of another bug.

IMHO the simplest solution would to push the patch with better
in's a workaround.

LSommit message becuase it's a workaround.

Updated patch with reworded commit message.

Please also add "workaround for https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096506"; comment above the changed requires.


Milan Kubik

From 591eb0a92f79f234307cb3b7f4407bb1aa857ff5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?Milan=20Kub=C3=ADk?= <mku...@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 15:54:40 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] spec file: rename the python-polib dependency name to

Trying to install the package depending on python-polib breaks
when the system has newer (and renamed) version python2-polib.

*This patch is an workaround* for the issue described in [1].
If a renamed package's provides is equal to an older package's
name, dnf tries to install the older package.
When the newer package is in the system, this leads to a conflict.

[1]: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096506
 freeipa.spec.in | 6 ++++--
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/freeipa.spec.in b/freeipa.spec.in
index 48fec974246dbc2933dd172318157f3e0e050a3b..c8fd9db8fcdc14313eab724514b4f4a7f6095a37 100644
--- a/freeipa.spec.in
+++ b/freeipa.spec.in
@@ -77,7 +77,8 @@ BuildRequires:  python-gssapi >= 1.1.2
 BuildRequires:  python-rhsm
 BuildRequires:  pyOpenSSL
 BuildRequires:  pylint >= 1.0
-BuildRequires:  python-polib
+# workaround for https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096506
+BuildRequires:  python2-polib
 BuildRequires:  python-libipa_hbac
 BuildRequires:  python-memcached
 BuildRequires:  python-lxml
@@ -562,7 +563,8 @@ Requires: python-nose
 Requires: pytest >= 2.6
 Requires: python-paste
 Requires: python-coverage
-Requires: python-polib
+# workaround for https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096506
+Requires: python2-polib
 Requires: python-pytest-multihost >= 0.5
 Requires: python-pytest-sourceorder
 Requires: ldns-utils

Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-devel mailing list:
Contribute to FreeIPA: http://www.freeipa.org/page/Contribute/Code

Reply via email to