Re: PackageKit-gtk3-module i686 (x86_32) is missing in Fedora 33 repositories
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 10:47:07AM +0100, Kamil Paral wrote: > On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 7:06 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > > Adding normal packages are requirements for a devel package just to make > > it > > > multilib feels... unclean? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something. In > > order > > > to have the logic self-contained, why don't we add something like > > > "Provides: multilib(x86_64, i686)" into affected packages and make pungi > > > process that? > > > > Feel free to suggest it to rpm. ;) > > > > Why rpm? Isn't that entirely in our hands, what Provides we assign to > Fedora packages and what meaning we give it? Sure I suppose... although it would be nice to coordinate with other rpm using distros. > > I'd personally just like to drop i686 entirely, but I don't think > > everyone else is ready for that. > > > > No no no, I'm not willing to give up my games collection! :-) See! :) kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: PackageKit-gtk3-module i686 (x86_32) is missing in Fedora 33 repositories
On 26. 01. 21 13:24, Kamil Paral wrote: Adding normal packages are requirements for a devel package just to make it multilib feels... unclean? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something. In order to have the logic self-contained, why don't we add something like "Provides: multilib(x86_64, i686)" into affected packages and make pungi process that? I like that. We could later also query this and build the entire reverese-deps tree to see what not to build on i686 at all to save resources (obviously, that would be a tad tricky wen introducing new i686 packages, but still might be worth exploring). -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: PackageKit-gtk3-module i686 (x86_32) is missing in Fedora 33 repositories
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 7:06 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > Adding normal packages are requirements for a devel package just to make > it > > multilib feels... unclean? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something. In > order > > to have the logic self-contained, why don't we add something like > > "Provides: multilib(x86_64, i686)" into affected packages and make pungi > > process that? > > Feel free to suggest it to rpm. ;) > Why rpm? Isn't that entirely in our hands, what Provides we assign to Fedora packages and what meaning we give it? > > I'd personally just like to drop i686 entirely, but I don't think > everyone else is ready for that. > No no no, I'm not willing to give up my games collection! :-) ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: PackageKit-gtk3-module i686 (x86_32) is missing in Fedora 33 repositories
On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 01:24:28PM +0100, Kamil Paral wrote: > > Here's one: > https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/issue/849 > > Here's a second one, but yesterday I found out that there was a related PR > merged, so I updated it: > https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/issue/811 > > A third one: > https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/issue/501 ok, looked at all those, thanks. > > I expect it's valuable to have the logic for multilibs, "self > > > contained" in the package instead of to rely on any infra tweaks. > > > > > > (1) https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/PackageKit/pull-request/7 > > > > Yeah, I would definitely prefer that. > > Adding normal packages are requirements for a devel package just to make it > multilib feels... unclean? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something. In order > to have the logic self-contained, why don't we add something like > "Provides: multilib(x86_64, i686)" into affected packages and make pungi > process that? Feel free to suggest it to rpm. ;) I'd personally just like to drop i686 entirely, but I don't think everyone else is ready for that. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: PackageKit-gtk3-module i686 (x86_32) is missing in Fedora 33 repositories
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 11:10 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > For rawhide, and branched (prerelease) yes, changes likely would need to > be there. > For updates its the infrastructure ansible repo. > Sigh. So, IMHO, tickets for this should be filed as releng tickets > and folks should note which they are talking about above. > Thanks, I'll try to remember that. > > However, as you can see, the maintainers don't respond much to such > requests :-( > > > Perhaps Mohan, Kevin or others could shed a light here how to best > make sure those requests are noticed? Thanks. > > releng ticket I would think, but can you expand on which requests aren't > noticed ? > Here's one: https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/issue/849 Here's a second one, but yesterday I found out that there was a related PR merged, so I updated it: https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/issue/811 A third one: https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/issue/501 > I expect it's valuable to have the logic for multilibs, "self > > contained" in the package instead of to rely on any infra tweaks. > > > > (1) https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/PackageKit/pull-request/7 > > Yeah, I would definitely prefer that. > Adding normal packages are requirements for a devel package just to make it multilib feels... unclean? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something. In order to have the logic self-contained, why don't we add something like "Provides: multilib(x86_64, i686)" into affected packages and make pungi process that? ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: PackageKit-gtk3-module i686 (x86_32) is missing in Fedora 33 repositories
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 01:00:58PM +0100, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
> Le lun. 25 janv. 2021 à 12:29, Kamil Paral a écrit :
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 11:17 AM Graham White
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I'm trying to get to the bottom of bug #1901065 -
> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1901065
> >>
> >> Anyone know why PackageKit-gtk3-module.i686 has been removed from the
> >> Fedora 33 repositories? This package was there for Fedora 32 and checking
> >> Koji it looks like the 32-bit version is still being built. However, for
> >> some reason it's not appearing in the F33 repositories for the x86_64
> >> architecture. We have some packages that rely on the 32-bit version so it
> >> would be good to have it re-included in the repo.
> >
> >
> > Multilib detection (which i686 packages should end up in x86_64 repos) is
> > done in Pungi. There is some heuristics which I haven't found documented
> > anywhere (one would think it should be in the packaging docs). A
> > whitelisting of some package can be requested here:
> > https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/issues
For rawhide, and branched (prerelease) yes, changes likely would need to be
there.
For updates its the infrastructure ansible repo.
So, IMHO, tickets for this should be filed as releng tickets
and folks should note which they are talking about above.
> > However, as you can see, the maintainers don't respond much to such
> > requests :-(
> > Perhaps Mohan, Kevin or others could shed a light here how to best make
> > sure those requests are noticed? Thanks.
releng ticket I would think, but can you expand on which requests aren't
noticed ?
> The logical is about, any -devel sub-packages are copied for both
> multilibs arches, then only the additional "arched" dependencies (with
> %{?_isa}) are computed from the -devel.i686 one.
Note that pungi calls python-multilib
https://pagure.io/releng/python-multilib/
but yeah... from the pungi docs:
* ``runtime`` -- packages that install some shared object file
(``*.so.*``) will match.
* ``devel`` -- packages whose name ends with ``-devel`` or ``--static``
suffix will be matched. When ``dnf`` is used, this method automatically
enables ``runtime`` method as well. With ``yum`` backend this method
also uses a hardcoded blacklist and whitelist.
> I can suggest a fix that will add theses dependencies in the
> glib-devel sub-package (1), but maybe it will be more relevant to
> restore an empty PackageKit-devel and add these here.
Yes, either of those would work, or whitelisting it in pungi-fedora.
> I expect it's valuable to have the logic for multilibs, "self
> contained" in the package instead of to rely on any infra tweaks.
>
> (1) https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/PackageKit/pull-request/7
Yeah, I would definitely prefer that.
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: PackageKit-gtk3-module i686 (x86_32) is missing in Fedora 33 repositories
* Graham White: > I'm trying to get to the bottom of bug #1901065 - > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1901065 > > Anyone know why PackageKit-gtk3-module.i686 has been removed from the > Fedora 33 repositories? This package was there for Fedora 32 and > checking Koji it looks like the 32-bit version is still being built. > However, for some reason it's not appearing in the F33 repositories > for the x86_64 architecture. We have some packages that rely on the > 32-bit version so it would be good to have it re-included in the repo. In my exprience, i686 package inclusion is random at the fringe, which is why we actually had to change some glibc subpackages to noarch, and put the architecture into the package name. 8-( This caused issues elsewhere unfortunately, but the breakage during system upgrades was too frequent to ignore. I don't know if you are facing the same issue, or if it's something else. Thanks, Florian -- Red Hat GmbH, https://de.redhat.com/ , Registered seat: Grasbrunn, Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243, Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Brian Klemm, Laurie Krebs, Michael O'Neill ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: PackageKit-gtk3-module i686 (x86_32) is missing in Fedora 33 repositories
Le lun. 25 janv. 2021 à 12:29, Kamil Paral a écrit :
>
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 11:17 AM Graham White
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm trying to get to the bottom of bug #1901065 -
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1901065
>>
>> Anyone know why PackageKit-gtk3-module.i686 has been removed from the Fedora
>> 33 repositories? This package was there for Fedora 32 and checking Koji it
>> looks like the 32-bit version is still being built. However, for some
>> reason it's not appearing in the F33 repositories for the x86_64
>> architecture. We have some packages that rely on the 32-bit version so it
>> would be good to have it re-included in the repo.
>
>
> Multilib detection (which i686 packages should end up in x86_64 repos) is
> done in Pungi. There is some heuristics which I haven't found documented
> anywhere (one would think it should be in the packaging docs). A whitelisting
> of some package can be requested here:
> https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/issues
>
> However, as you can see, the maintainers don't respond much to such requests
> :-( Perhaps Mohan, Kevin or others could shed a light here how to best make
> sure those requests are noticed? Thanks.
The logical is about, any -devel sub-packages are copied for both
multilibs arches, then only the additional "arched" dependencies (with
%{?_isa}) are computed from the -devel.i686 one.
I can suggest a fix that will add theses dependencies in the
glib-devel sub-package (1), but maybe it will be more relevant to
restore an empty PackageKit-devel and add these here.
I expect it's valuable to have the logic for multilibs, "self
contained" in the package instead of to rely on any infra tweaks.
(1) https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/PackageKit/pull-request/7
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: PackageKit-gtk3-module i686 (x86_32) is missing in Fedora 33 repositories
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 11:17 AM Graham White wrote: > Hi, > > I'm trying to get to the bottom of bug #1901065 - > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1901065 > > Anyone know why PackageKit-gtk3-module.i686 has been removed from the > Fedora 33 repositories? This package was there for Fedora 32 and checking > Koji it looks like the 32-bit version is still being built. However, for > some reason it's not appearing in the F33 repositories for the x86_64 > architecture. We have some packages that rely on the 32-bit version so it > would be good to have it re-included in the repo. > Multilib detection (which i686 packages should end up in x86_64 repos) is done in Pungi. There is some heuristics which I haven't found documented anywhere (one would think it should be in the packaging docs). A whitelisting of some package can be requested here: https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/issues However, as you can see, the maintainers don't respond much to such requests :-( Perhaps Mohan, Kevin or others could shed a light here how to best make sure those requests are noticed? Thanks. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
PackageKit-gtk3-module i686 (x86_32) is missing in Fedora 33 repositories
Hi, I'm trying to get to the bottom of bug #1901065 - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1901065 Anyone know why PackageKit-gtk3-module.i686 has been removed from the Fedora 33 repositories? This package was there for Fedora 32 and checking Koji it looks like the 32-bit version is still being built. However, for some reason it's not appearing in the F33 repositories for the x86_64 architecture. We have some packages that rely on the 32-bit version so it would be good to have it re-included in the repo. Many thanks, Graham ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
