rawhide report: 20141223 changes
Compose started at Tue Dec 23 05:15:07 UTC 2014 Broken deps for i386 -- [3Depict] 3Depict-0.0.16-3.fc22.i686 requires libmgl.so.7.2.0 [Sprog] Sprog-0.14-27.fc20.noarch requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.18.0) [aeskulap] aeskulap-0.2.2-0.19beta1.fc22.i686 requires libofstd.so.3.6 aeskulap-0.2.2-0.19beta1.fc22.i686 requires liboflog.so.3.6 aeskulap-0.2.2-0.19beta1.fc22.i686 requires libijg8.so.3.6 aeskulap-0.2.2-0.19beta1.fc22.i686 requires libijg16.so.3.6 aeskulap-0.2.2-0.19beta1.fc22.i686 requires libijg12.so.3.6 aeskulap-0.2.2-0.19beta1.fc22.i686 requires libdcmnet.so.3.6 aeskulap-0.2.2-0.19beta1.fc22.i686 requires libdcmjpeg.so.3.6 aeskulap-0.2.2-0.19beta1.fc22.i686 requires libdcmimgle.so.3.6 aeskulap-0.2.2-0.19beta1.fc22.i686 requires libdcmimage.so.3.6 aeskulap-0.2.2-0.19beta1.fc22.i686 requires libdcmdata.so.3.6 [boswars] boswars-2.7-5.fc22.i686 requires libtolua++-5.1.so [cab] cab-0.1.9-12.fc22.i686 requires cabal-dev [dnssec-check] dnssec-check-1.14.0.1-4.fc20.i686 requires libval-threads.so.14 dnssec-check-1.14.0.1-4.fc20.i686 requires libsres.so.14 [ember] ember-0.7.2-2.fc22.i686 requires libtolua++-5.1.so [fawkes] fawkes-lua-0.5.0-19.fc22.i686 requires libtolua++-5.1.so fawkes-plugin-katana-0.5.0-19.fc22.i686 requires libtolua++-5.1.so fawkes-plugin-pantilt-0.5.0-19.fc22.i686 requires libtolua++-5.1.so fawkes-plugin-roomba-0.5.0-19.fc22.i686 requires libtolua++-5.1.so fawkes-plugin-skiller-0.5.0-19.fc22.i686 requires libtolua++-5.1.so [gcc-python-plugin] gcc-python2-debug-plugin-0.13-2.fc22.i686 requires gcc = 0:4.9.2-1.fc22 gcc-python2-plugin-0.13-2.fc22.i686 requires gcc = 0:4.9.2-1.fc22 gcc-python3-debug-plugin-0.13-2.fc22.i686 requires gcc = 0:4.9.2-1.fc22 gcc-python3-plugin-0.13-2.fc22.i686 requires gcc = 0:4.9.2-1.fc22 [glances] glances-2.1.2-2.fc22.noarch requires python-psutil = 0:2.0.0 [google-roboto-fonts] google-roboto-condensed-fonts-1.2-6.fc22.noarch requires google-roboto-common = 0:1.2-6.fc22 [gtatool] gtatool-dcmtk-1.5.2-14.fc22.i686 requires libofstd.so.3.6 gtatool-dcmtk-1.5.2-14.fc22.i686 requires liboflog.so.3.6 gtatool-dcmtk-1.5.2-14.fc22.i686 requires libijg8.so.3.6 gtatool-dcmtk-1.5.2-14.fc22.i686 requires libijg16.so.3.6 gtatool-dcmtk-1.5.2-14.fc22.i686 requires libijg12.so.3.6 gtatool-dcmtk-1.5.2-14.fc22.i686 requires libdcmjpeg.so.3.6 gtatool-dcmtk-1.5.2-14.fc22.i686 requires libdcmimgle.so.3.6 gtatool-dcmtk-1.5.2-14.fc22.i686 requires libdcmdata.so.3.6 [guacamole-server] libguac-client-rdp-0.9.3-1.fc22.i686 requires libfreerdp-utils.so.1.2 libguac-client-rdp-0.9.3-1.fc22.i686 requires libfreerdp-core.so.1.2 libguac-client-rdp-0.9.3-1.fc22.i686 requires libfreerdp-codec.so.1.2 libguac-client-rdp-0.9.3-1.fc22.i686 requires libfreerdp-cache.so.1.2 [libreoffice] 1:libreoffice-core-4.4.0.0-5.beta2.fc22.i686 requires libcmis-0.4.so.4 [nodejs-got] nodejs-got-2.2.0-1.fc22.noarch requires npm(duplexify) 0:4 nodejs-got-2.2.0-1.fc22.noarch requires npm(duplexify) = 0:3.2.0 [nodejs-html-minifier] nodejs-html-minifier-0.6.9-1.fc22.noarch requires npm(relateurl) 0:0.3 nodejs-html-minifier-0.6.9-1.fc22.noarch requires npm(relateurl) = 0:0.2 nodejs-html-minifier-0.6.9-1.fc22.noarch requires npm(change-case) 0:2.2 nodejs-html-minifier-0.6.9-1.fc22.noarch requires npm(change-case) = 0:2.1 [nwchem] nwchem-openmpi-6.3.2-11.fc21.i686 requires libmpi_usempi.so.1 [pam_mapi] pam_mapi-0.2.0-3.fc22.i686 requires libmapi.so.0 [python-selenium] python3-selenium-2.43.0-1.fc22.noarch requires python3-rdflib [shogun] shogun-doc-3.2.0.1-0.27.git20140804.96f3cf3.fc22.noarch requires shogun-data = 0:0.8.1-0.18.git20140804.48a1abb.fc22 [stratagus] stratagus-2.2.7-4.fc22.i686 requires libtolua++-5.1.so [uwsgi] uwsgi-plugin-gridfs-2.0.7-2.fc22.i686 requires libmongoclient.so uwsgi-stats-pusher-mongodb-2.0.7-2.fc22.i686 requires libmongoclient.so [vfrnav] vfrnav-20140510-2.fc22.i686 requires libpolyclipping.so.16 vfrnav-utils-20140510-2.fc22.i686 requires libpolyclipping.so.16 Broken deps for x86_64 -- [3Depict] 3Depict-0.0.16-3.fc22.x86_64 requires libmgl.so.7.2.0()(64bit) [Sprog] Sprog-0.14-27.fc20.noarch requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.18.0) [aeskulap] aeskulap-0.2.2-0.19beta1.fc22.x86_64 requires libofstd.so.3.6()(64bit) aeskulap-0.2.2-0.19beta1.fc22.x86_64 requires liboflog.so.3.6()(64bit) aeskulap-0.2.2-0.19beta1.fc22.x86_64 requires libijg8.so.3.6()(64bit) aeskulap-0.2.2-0.19beta1.fc22.x86_64
Re: Self-introduction: Carlos Morel-Riquelme
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 03:57:05PM -0300, Carlos Morel-Riquelme wrote: Hello folks My name is Carlos Morel-Riquelme i'm from Chile and i'm contributor for Fedora Project since F20 in Testing ( Bodhi ) though i start using Fedora since F15, also i'm student of computer engineering and i have a little knowledge in Ruby and GTK+ . Well for finish i want say that i really apreciate the good enery and gratitude of Fedora team for my participation in F21 testing, read my name in the heroes of fedora is great :) Thank a lot http://fedoramagazine.org/heroes-of-fedora-qa-fedora-21-part-2/ https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Empateinfinito Glad to have you aboard Carlos! Looking forward to seeing more of you in the Heroes of Fedora :) Welcome to QA! -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
rpm database corrupted after fedeup from 20 to 21
Hi; I was running FC20 fully updated. [root@localhost ~]# fedup --network 21 --product=nonproduct Which worked. Now when I try to 'yum update' [root@localhost ~]# yum update error: rpmdb: BDB0641 __db_meta_setup: /var/lib/rpm/Packages: unexpected file type or format error: cannot open Packages index using db5 - Invalid argument (22) error: cannot open Packages database in /var/lib/rpm CRITICAL:yum.main: Error: rpmdb open failed [root@localhost ~]# Or rpm--rebuilddb [root@localhost ~]# rpm --rebuilddb error: rpmdb: BDB0641 __db_meta_setup: /var/lib/rpm/Packages: unexpected file type or format error: cannot open Packages index using db5 - Invalid argument (22) [root@localhost ~]# Any ideas? Apart from this the system is working fine. MM -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
nss-3.17.3-2.fc21 update could use some karma
Could someone test and provide karma to https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17085/nss-3.17.3-2.fc21 It's important that this one gets pushed to stable ahead of the one for f20 as nss has the same nvr. This is to prevent upgrade problems later on if someone tries to upgrade their f20 system to f21. Thanks in advance, Elio -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Release criterion proposal: Package sets (Alpha and Beta)
The Package sets criterion for Alpha currently reads: When doing a graphical install using the dedicated installer images, the installer must be able to install each of the release blocking desktops, as well as the minimal package set. This was drafted prior to Product-ization. It has a bug - you can't do that from the Server DVD, and that's intended - and two problems - it's too focused on desktops for the new Product-y world, and the 'graphical' restriction seems arbitrary (TUI should work regarding package sets too). It also is missing something: there's no requirement about what the *default* package set should be. I propose we re-word the Alpha criterion to: When installing with a release-blocking dedicated installer image, the installer must be able to install the default package set. and add a Beta criterion: When installing with a release-blocking dedicated installer image, the default package set must be correct. with an explanatory note that 'correct' means the package set intended by the group responsible for the image - Product WG, FESCo or whoever. I'm not sure whether we need a requirement for non-default package sets. Note that the case for offline media is already covered by Alpha criterion No broken packages: There must be no errors in any package on the release-blocking images which cause the package to fail to install. network installs using updates media don't really need to block on package set issues, as they can be fixed. That leaves the question of whether we'd want to block the release if, say, there was a bug which meant that if you tried to netinst KDE without the updates repos enabled, it failed. What do folks think about that? -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Release criterion proposal: Package sets (Alpha and Beta)
On Tue, 2014-12-23 at 10:21 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: The Package sets criterion for Alpha currently reads: When doing a graphical install using the dedicated installer images, the installer must be able to install each of the release blocking desktops, as well as the minimal package set. This was drafted prior to Product-ization. It has a bug - you can't do that from the Server DVD, and that's intended - and two problems - it's too focused on desktops for the new Product-y world, and the 'graphical' restriction seems arbitrary (TUI should work regarding package sets too). It also is missing something: there's no requirement about what the *default* package set should be. Just for the record, this proposal was prompted by noticing the default package set for Rawhide boot.iso is wrong since the switch to dnf by default. If anyone else notices that, I've already filed the bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177002 if this proposal is accepted, that bug can be a Beta blocker. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Fedora 21 updates-testing report
The following Fedora 21 Security updates need testing: Age URL 34 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-15342/rubygem-actionpack-4.1.5-2.fc21 33 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-15413/rubygem-sprockets-2.12.1-3.fc21 30 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-15570/python-pip-1.5.6-3.fc21 11 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-16557/bind-9.9.6-5.P1.fc21 11 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-16782/mutt-1.5.23-7.fc21 10 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-16823/tcpdump-4.6.2-3.fc21 10 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-16880/libhtp-0.5.16-1.fc21 10 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-16833/asterisk-11.14.2-1.fc21 8 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-16967/mpfr-3.1.2-8.fc21 6 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17049/openvas-cli-1.3.1-1.fc21,openvas-manager-5.0.7-1.fc21,openvas-scanner-4.0.5-1.fc21 5 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17090/ettercap-0.8.1-2.fc21 5 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17118/subversion-1.8.11-1.fc21 5 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17126/seamonkey-2.31-1.fc21 5 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17177/python-django-horizon-2014.1.3-2.fc21 5 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17195/httpd-2.4.10-15.fc21 4 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17241/php-5.6.4-2.fc21 4 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17259/mingw-jasper-1.900.1-25.fc21 4 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-16292/jasper-1.900.1-29.fc21 4 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17243/mailx-12.5-14.fc21 4 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17278/mediawiki-1.24.1-1.fc21 4 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17281/unrtf-0.21.7-1.fc21 3 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17324/libssh-0.6.4-1.fc21 3 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17341/eclipse-jgit-3.5.3-1.fc21,eclipse-egit-3.5.3-1.fc21 2 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17384/thermostat-1.0.6-1.fc21 1 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17139/aeskulap-0.2.2-0.20beta1.fc21,orthanc-0.8.5-2.fc21,dcmtk-3.6.1-1.fc21 1 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17450/roundcubemail-1.0.4-2.fc21 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17497/glpi-0.84.8-3.fc21 The following Fedora 21 Critical Path updates have yet to be approved: Age URL 11 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-16645/libinput-0.7.0-2.20141211git58abea394.fc21 11 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-16548/tracker-1.2.5-1.fc21 11 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-16591/libsoup-2.48.1-1.fc21 11 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-16536/device-mapper-multipath-0.4.9-68.fc21.2 11 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-16509/anaconda-21.48.22-1.fc21 11 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-16566/libevdev-1.3.2-1.fc21 10 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-16899/sqlite-3.8.7.4-1.fc21,spatialite-tools-4.2.0-6.fc21 10 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-16905/ppp-2.4.7-6.fc21 10 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-16855/perl-Filter-1.51-1.fc21 8 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-16970/libnl3-3.2.25-5.fc21 8 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-16967/mpfr-3.1.2-8.fc21 6 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17060/sgml-common-0.6.3-42.fc21 5 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17124/libteam-1.15-1.fc21 5 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17192/ca-certificates-2014.2.2-1.0.fc21 5 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17137/initscripts-9.56.1-6.fc21 5 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17120/crypto-policies-20140905-2.git4649b7d.fc21 5 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17180/dracut-038-32.git20141216.fc21 5 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17105/pungi-3.12-3.fc21 4 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17240/dbus-1.8.12-3.fc21 4 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17271/llvm-3.5.0-5.fc21 4 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17268/hwdata-0.273-1.fc21 4 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17285/poppler-0.26.2-6.fc21 4 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17232/upower-0.99.2-1.fc21 4 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-16630/ibus-1.5.9-8.fc21 4 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-16292/jasper-1.900.1-29.fc21 3
Fedora 20 updates-testing report
The following Fedora 20 Security updates need testing: Age URL 81 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-11969/krb5-1.11.5-16.fc20 34 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-15371/rubygem-actionpack-4.0.0-5.fc20 32 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-15489/rubygem-sprockets-2.8.2-5.fc20 19 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-16250/cpio-2.11-28.fc20 17 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-16357/pyxdg-0.25-5.fc20 16 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-16459/gpgme-1.3.2-5.fc20 11 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-16572/links-2.8-4.fc20 11 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-16494/mutt-1.5.23-4.fc20 10 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-16845/resteasy-3.0.6-3.fc20 10 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-16825/asterisk-11.14.2-1.fc20 10 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-16869/docker-io-1.4.0-1.fc20 10 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-16854/freetype-2.5.0-7.fc20 10 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-16932/libhtp-0.5.6-2.fc20 10 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-16838/rpm-4.11.3-2.fc20 8 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-16964/mpfr-3.1.2-5.fc20 6 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17067/denyhosts-2.6-29.fc20.1 5 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17107/ettercap-0.8.1-2.fc20 5 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-16530/nss-util-3.17.3-1.fc20,nss-3.17.3-2.fc20,nss-softokn-3.17.3-1.fc20 5 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17153/httpd-2.4.10-2.fc20 5 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17219/seamonkey-2.31-1.fc20 5 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17222/subversion-1.8.11-1.fc20 4 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-16349/jasper-1.900.1-27.fc20 4 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17245/mailx-12.5-11.fc20 4 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17228/mediawiki-1.23.8-1.fc20 4 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17229/php-5.5.20-2.fc20 4 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17272/ca-certificates-2014.2.2-1.0.fc20 4 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17274/mingw-jasper-1.900.1-25.fc20 3 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17303/libssh-0.6.4-1.fc20 2 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17415/thermostat-1.0.6-1.fc20 1 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17089/aeskulap-0.2.2-0.20beta1.fc20,orthanc-0.8.5-2.fc20,dcmtk-3.6.1-1.fc20 1 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17461/roundcubemail-1.0.4-2.fc20 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17520/glpi-0.84.8-3.fc20 The following Fedora 20 Critical Path updates have yet to be approved: Age URL 10 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-16810/ppp-2.4.5-35.fc20 5 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-16530/nss-util-3.17.3-1.fc20,nss-3.17.3-2.fc20,nss-softokn-3.17.3-1.fc20 4 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17287/btrfs-progs-3.17.3-1.fc20 4 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-16705/ibus-1.5.9-8.fc20 4 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-16349/jasper-1.900.1-27.fc20 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17495/pulseaudio-5.0-25.fc20 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17528/xorg-x11-drv-synaptics-1.7.7-1.fc20 The following builds have been pushed to Fedora 20 updates-testing 4Pane-3.0-6.fc20 devilspie2-0.38-3.fc20 drupal7-context-3.5-1.fc20 edgar-1.19-1.fc20 glpi-0.84.8-3.fc20 kde-plasma-redshift-1.0-2.fc20 libconcord-1.1-6.fc20 nodejs-as-number-1.0.0-1.fc20 nodejs-ascii-tree-0.1.1-1.fc20 nodejs-from-0.1.3-1.fc20 nodejs-got-2.2.0-1.fc20 nodejs-grunt-angular-templates-0.5.7-1.fc20 nodejs-html-minifier-0.6.9-1.fc20 nodejs-object-assign-2.0.0-2.fc20 nodejs-registry-url-2.0.0-2.fc20 nodejs-relateurl-0.2.5-3.fc20 nodejs-split-0.3.2-1.fc20 nodejs-stream-reduce-1.0.3-1.fc20 pgadmin3-1.20.0-1.fc20 postgis-2.1.5-1.fc20 pulseaudio-5.0-25.fc20 python-bitmath-1.1.0-1.fc20 python-webassets-0.9-5.fc20 qcustomplot-1.2.1-2.fc20 rubygem-unicode-0.4.4.1-2.fc20 shared-color-targets-0.1.5-1.fc20 wordpress-4.1-1.fc20 xorg-x11-drv-synaptics-1.7.7-1.fc20 xrdp-0.6.1-7.fc20 yadifa-2.0.4-1.fc20 zaz-1.0.0-11.fc20 zbackup-1.3-4.fc20 Details about builds: 4Pane-3.0-6.fc20 (FEDORA-2014-17485) Multi-pane, detailed-list file manager
Fedora 19 updates-testing report
The following Fedora 19 Security updates need testing: Age URL 423 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-19963/openstack-glance-2013.1.4-1.fc19 81 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-12057/krb5-1.11.3-29.fc19 57 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-13551/wpa_supplicant-2.0-12.fc19 48 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-14237/claws-mail-plugins-3.11.1-1.fc19,claws-mail-3.11.1-2.fc19,libetpan-1.6-1.fc19 41 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-14738/gnutls-3.1.20-6.fc19 39 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-12407/sddm-0.10.0-2.fc19 35 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-15248/kde-runtime-4.11.5-3.fc19 34 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-15378/rubygem-actionpack-3.2.13-7.fc19 32 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-15466/rubygem-sprockets-2.8.2-4.fc19 28 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-15740/facter-1.6.18-8.fc19 21 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-15999/libreoffice-4.1.6.2-10.fc19 21 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-16045/util-linux-2.23.2-6.fc19 16 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-16485/pam-1.1.6-13.fc19 16 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-16479/python3-3.3.2-11.fc19 16 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-16466/pyxdg-0.25-5.fc19 11 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-16576/bind-9.9.3-16.P2.fc19 11 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-16690/curl-7.29.0-27.fc19 10 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-16896/tcpdump-4.4.0-5.fc19 10 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-16874/asterisk-11.14.2-1.fc19 10 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-16728/xorg-x11-server-1.14.4-5.fc19 10 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-16865/docker-io-1.4.0-1.fc19 6 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17053/openjpeg-1.5.1-13.fc19 6 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17081/denyhosts-2.6-28.fc19.1 5 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-16826/nss-3.17.3-2.fc19,nss-util-3.17.3-1.fc19,nss-softokn-3.17.3-1.fc19 5 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17110/mariadb-5.5.40-2.fc19 5 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17210/ettercap-0.8.1-2.fc19 5 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17217/seamonkey-2.31-1.fc19 4 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17277/mailx-12.5-9.fc19 4 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-16465/jasper-1.900.1-26.fc19 4 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17244/kernel-3.14.27-100.fc19 4 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17264/mediawiki-1.23.8-1.fc19 4 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17276/php-5.5.20-2.fc19 4 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17270/mingw-jasper-1.900.1-25.fc19 4 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17284/ca-certificates-2014.2.2-1.0.fc19 3 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17354/libssh-0.6.4-1.fc19 2 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17395/ntp-4.2.6p5-13.fc19 0 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17508/glpi-0.83.9.1-5.fc19 The following Fedora 19 Critical Path updates have yet to be approved: Age URL 371 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-22326/fedora-bookmarks-15-5.fc19 297 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-3245/testdisk-6.14-2.fc19.1,ntfs-3g-2014.2.15-1.fc19 11 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-16576/bind-9.9.3-16.P2.fc19 11 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-16770/hicolor-icon-theme-0.14-1.fc19 11 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-16690/curl-7.29.0-27.fc19 10 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-16892/poppler-0.22.1-7.fc19 10 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-16866/perl-Filter-1.51-1.fc19 10 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-16728/xorg-x11-server-1.14.4-5.fc19 6 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17053/openjpeg-1.5.1-13.fc19 5 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-16826/nss-3.17.3-2.fc19,nss-util-3.17.3-1.fc19,nss-softokn-3.17.3-1.fc19 4 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17244/kernel-3.14.27-100.fc19 4 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17284/ca-certificates-2014.2.2-1.0.fc19 4 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-16465/jasper-1.900.1-26.fc19 2 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-17395/ntp-4.2.6p5-13.fc19 The following builds have been pushed to Fedora 19 updates-testing drupal7-context-3.5-1.fc19 glpi-0.83.9.1-5.fc19
Re: rpm database corrupted after fedeup from 20 to 21
On Tue, 2014-12-23 at 08:06 -0800, Mick wrote: Hi; I was running FC20 fully updated. [root@localhost ~]# fedup --network 21 --product=nonproduct Which worked. Now when I try to 'yum update' [root@localhost ~]# yum update error: rpmdb: BDB0641 __db_meta_setup: /var/lib/rpm/Packages: unexpected file type or format error: cannot open Packages index using db5 - Invalid argument (22) error: cannot open Packages database in /var/lib/rpm CRITICAL:yum.main: Error: rpmdb open failed [root@localhost ~]# Or rpm--rebuilddb [root@localhost ~]# rpm --rebuilddb error: rpmdb: BDB0641 __db_meta_setup: /var/lib/rpm/Packages: unexpected file type or format error: cannot open Packages index using db5 - Invalid argument (22) [ root@localhost ~]# Any ideas? Apart from this the system is working fine. Try: mv /var/lib/rpm/__db* /tmp rpm --rebuilddb if it doesn't help, move the __db* files back, you may want to keep them in case some RPM guru can help you debug. Hope this helps! -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Release criterion proposal: Package sets (Alpha and Beta)
On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 10:21:11AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: snip I propose we re-word the Alpha criterion to: When installing with a release-blocking dedicated installer image, the installer must be able to install the default package set. and add a Beta criterion: When installing with a release-blocking dedicated installer image, the default package set must be correct. with an explanatory note that 'correct' means the package set intended by the group responsible for the image - Product WG, FESCo or whoever. +1 to the rewording. I'm not sure whether we need a requirement for non-default package sets. Note that the case for offline media is already covered by Alpha criterion No broken packages: There must be no errors in any package on the release-blocking images which cause the package to fail to install. network installs using updates media don't really need to block on package set issues, as they can be fixed. That leaves the question of whether we'd want to block the release if, say, there was a bug which meant that if you tried to netinst KDE without the updates repos enabled, it failed. What do folks think about that? I'd be for blocking on a broken netinst (like your example), but if the repos are the same used for image creation this shouldn't really be an issue, right? (Yeah, I know I used the S word :p ) AIUI things would break in other places if this particular issue was to come up. Is my understanding correct? -- // Mike -- Fedora QA freenode: roshi http://roshi.fedorapeople.org -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Release criterion proposal: Package sets (Alpha and Beta)
On Tue, 2014-12-23 at 15:39 -0700, Mike Ruckman wrote: I'd be for blocking on a broken netinst (like your example), but if the repos are the same used for image creation this shouldn't really be an issue, right? (Yeah, I know I used the S word :p ) AIUI things would break in other places if this particular issue was to come up. Is my understanding correct? Not entirely, no, because the netinst can do much more than any offline install image, let alone the release-blocking ones. The release-blocking images cover the environment groups for Workstation, Server, Cloud, and the KDE desktop, pretty much. netinst can install any environment group listed in comps, with any of its optional package groups. In practice I suspect we'd only be likely to block on the netinst not being able to install one of the env groups that corresponds to a release blocking image, and in practice that would be unlikely to happen without breaking that image, yeah (though there's probably some corner case or other, e.g. where there's a bug in a package that's part of the Workstation env group but is stripped from the live image for space reasons, or whatever). -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: rpm database corrupted after fedeup from 20 to 21
Hi Adam; thanks for trying. It made no difference. The message was: [root@localhost ~]# rpm --rebuilddb error: rpmdb: BDB0641 __db_meta_setup: /var/lib/rpm/Packages: unexpected file type or format error: cannot open Packages index using db5 - Invalid argument (22) and looking at the file: [root@localhost ~]# ls -l /var/lib/rpm/Packages -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 452214784 Dec 20 14:49 /var/lib/rpm/Packages When I renamed Packages the rpmbuilddb error went away. However [root@localhost rpm]# yum update CRITICAL:yum.main: Error: rpmdb failed release provides. Try: rpm --rebuilddb From my Google-FU it seems that a full re-install (DVD) of F21 is the only cure. I am trying to avoid that. MickM On Tue, 12/23/14, Adam Williamson adamw...@fedoraproject.org wrote: Subject: Re: rpm database corrupted after fedeup from 20 to 21 To: For testing and quality assurance of Fedora releases test@lists.fedoraproject.org Date: Tuesday, December 23, 2014, 12:13 PM On Tue, 2014-12-23 at 08:06 -0800, Mick wrote: Hi; I was running FC20 fully updated. [root@localhost ~]# fedup --network 21 --product=nonproduct Which worked. Now when I try to 'yum update' [root@localhost ~]# yum update error: rpmdb: BDB0641 __db_meta_setup: /var/lib/rpm/Packages: unexpected file type or format error: cannot open Packages index using db5 - Invalid argument (22) error: cannot open Packages database in /var/lib/rpm CRITICAL:yum.main: Error: rpmdb open failed [root@localhost ~]# Or rpm--rebuilddb [root@localhost ~]# rpm --rebuilddb error: rpmdb: BDB0641 __db_meta_setup: /var/lib/rpm/Packages: unexpected file type or format error: cannot open Packages index using db5 - Invalid argument (22) [ root@localhost ~]# Any ideas? Apart from this the system is working fine. Try: mv /var/lib/rpm/__db* /tmp rpm --rebuilddb if it doesn't help, move the __db* files back, you may want to keep them in case some RPM guru can help you debug. Hope this helps! -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: rpm database corrupted after fedeup from 20 to 21
On Ter, 2014-12-23 at 19:46 -0800, Mick wrote: Hi Adam; thanks for trying. It made no difference. The message was: [root@localhost ~]# rpm --rebuilddb error: rpmdb: BDB0641 __db_meta_setup: /var/lib/rpm/Packages: unexpected file type or format error: cannot open Packages index using db5 - Invalid argument (22) and looking at the file: [root@localhost ~]# ls -l /var/lib/rpm/Packages -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 452214784 Dec 20 14:49 /var/lib/rpm/Packages what you got ? with command : file /var/lib/rpm/Packages I got : /var/lib/rpm/Packages: Berkeley DB (Hash, version 9, native byte-order) When I renamed Packages the rpmbuilddb error went away. However [root@localhost rpm]# yum update CRITICAL:yum.main: Error: rpmdb failed release provides. Try: rpm --rebuilddb From my Google-FU it seems that a full re-install (DVD) of F21 is the only cure. I am trying to avoid that. MickM On Tue, 12/23/14, Adam Williamson adamw...@fedoraproject.org wrote: Subject: Re: rpm database corrupted after fedeup from 20 to 21 To: For testing and quality assurance of Fedora releases test@lists.fedoraproject.org Date: Tuesday, December 23, 2014, 12:13 PM On Tue, 2014-12-23 at 08:06 -0800, Mick wrote: Hi; I was running FC20 fully updated. [root@localhost ~]# fedup --network 21 --product=nonproduct Which worked. Now when I try to 'yum update' [root@localhost ~]# yum update error: rpmdb: BDB0641 __db_meta_setup: /var/lib/rpm/Packages: unexpected file type or format error: cannot open Packages index using db5 - Invalid argument (22) error: cannot open Packages database in /var/lib/rpm CRITICAL:yum.main: Error: rpmdb open failed [root@localhost ~]# Or rpm--rebuilddb [root@localhost ~]# rpm --rebuilddb error: rpmdb: BDB0641 __db_meta_setup: /var/lib/rpm/Packages: unexpected file type or format error: cannot open Packages index using db5 - Invalid argument (22) [ root@localhost ~]# Any ideas? Apart from this the system is working fine. Try: mv /var/lib/rpm/__db* /tmp rpm --rebuilddb if it doesn't help, move the __db* files back, you may want to keep them in case some RPM guru can help you debug. Hope this helps! -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test -- Sérgio M. B. -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: rpm database corrupted after fedeup from 20 to 21
Hi Serge; [mick@localhost ~]$ file /var/lib/rpm/Packages /var/lib/rpm/Packages: data On Tue, 12/23/14, Sérgio Basto ser...@serjux.com wrote: Subject: Re: rpm database corrupted after fedeup from 20 to 21 To: test@lists.fedoraproject.org Date: Tuesday, December 23, 2014, 9:45 PM On Ter, 2014-12-23 at 19:46 -0800, Mick wrote: Hi Adam; thanks for trying. It made no difference. The message was: [root@localhost ~]# rpm --rebuilddb error: rpmdb: BDB0641 __db_meta_setup: /var/lib/rpm/Packages: unexpected file type or format error: cannot open Packages index using db5 - Invalid argument (22) and looking at the file: [root@localhost ~]# ls -l /var/lib/rpm/Packages -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 452214784 Dec 20 14:49 /var/lib/rpm/Packages what you got ? with command : file /var/lib/rpm/Packages I got : /var/lib/rpm/Packages: Berkeley DB (Hash, version 9, native byte-order) When I renamed Packages the rpmbuilddb error went away. However [root@localhost rpm]# yum update CRITICAL:yum.main: Error: rpmdb failed release provides. Try: rpm --rebuilddb From my Google-FU it seems that a full re-install (DVD) of F21 is the only cure. I am trying to avoid that. MickM On Tue, 12/23/14, Adam Williamson adamw...@fedoraproject.org wrote: Subject: Re: rpm database corrupted after fedeup from 20 to 21 To: For testing and quality assurance of Fedora releases test@lists.fedoraproject.org Date: Tuesday, December 23, 2014, 12:13 PM On Tue, 2014-12-23 at 08:06 -0800, Mick wrote: Hi; I was running FC20 fully updated. [root@localhost ~]# fedup --network 21 --product=nonproduct Which worked. Now when I try to 'yum update' [root@localhost ~]# yum update error: rpmdb: BDB0641 __db_meta_setup: /var/lib/rpm/Packages: unexpected file type or format error: cannot open Packages index using db5 - Invalid argument (22) error: cannot open Packages database in /var/lib/rpm CRITICAL:yum.main: Error: rpmdb open failed [root@localhost ~]# Or rpm--rebuilddb [root@localhost ~]# rpm --rebuilddb error: rpmdb: BDB0641 __db_meta_setup: /var/lib/rpm/Packages: unexpected file type or format error: cannot open Packages index using db5 - Invalid argument (22) [ root@localhost ~]# Any ideas? Apart from this the system is working fine. Try: mv /var/lib/rpm/__db* /tmp rpm --rebuilddb if it doesn't help, move the __db* files back, you may want to keep them in case some RPM guru can help you debug. Hope this helps! -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test -- Sérgio M. B. -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
