> 1. I didn't ask for/want a module.
> 2. They aren't actually needed. After disabling them and reinstalling the
> programs I care about (or could have used distro-sync) they weren't
> actually needed.
This is where I'll drop a plug for the Stewardship SIG. Thanks in large
part to Fabio's great
Richard Shaw wrote:
> I guess I should say that part of my problem is that:
>
> 1. I didn't ask for/want a module.
This is exactly the problem with default module streams and why we (Miro
Hrončok and several other people including me) want to ban them.
Modules should not be forced onto users.
On Saturday, December 7, 2019, Adam Williamson
wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-12-06 at 18:51 -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
> > After reading this thread I think this is a more serious problem than
> just
> > this package. I had "assumed" modules were just normal, so I didn't
> > question them being
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 7:26 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-12-06 at 18:51 -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
> > After reading this thread I think this is a more serious problem than
> just
> > this package. I had "assumed" modules were just normal, so I didn't
> > question them being
On Fri, 2019-12-06 at 18:51 -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
> After reading this thread I think this is a more serious problem than just
> this package. I had "assumed" modules were just normal, so I didn't
> question them being installed.
They are normal. You're not wrong. The problem is well
Problem solved...
It is possible to resolve the problem without rolling back updates.
$ rpm -qa | grep module_ | xargs sudo dnf -y erase
$ sudo dnf module disable \*
$ sudo install
I'm guessing you could skip the first and last and just disable the modules
and do a distro-sync?
Thanks,
Charalampos Stratakis wrote:
>> From: "Miro Hrončok"
>> On 06. 12. 19 18:10, Charalampos Stratakis wrote:
>> >> > Or do we need to rollback the update?
>>
>> Rollback or disable explicitly.
>
> That is more than unfortunate.
IMHO, we should disable all default module streams in F31 immediately
Ok, even worse than I thought, if I try to remove all the modules it wants
to take these packages with it...
Removing dependent packages:
OpenImageIO-utils x86_64
2.0.11-1.fc31 @updates
2.1 M
clementine
After reading this thread I think this is a more serious problem than just
this package. I had "assumed" modules were just normal, so I didn't
question them being installed.
I have not intentionally enabled/installed any modules but through regular
updates I now have the following installed:
$
Am 06.12.19 um 23:45 schrieb Charalampos Stratakis:
I get there might be some quirks here and there, but having that done on a
stable fedora due to eclipse moving into a module so late in the release cycle
is just unacceptable. I don't know what a good solution would be here, maybe
have
- Original Message -
> From: "Stephen Gallagher"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Friday, December 6, 2019 6:12:32 PM
> Subject: Re: Fedora 31: dnf upgrade suddenly enables modular streams for
> protobuf
>
>
- Original Message -
> From: "Miro Hrončok"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Friday, December 6, 2019 6:13:08 PM
> Subject: Re: Fedora 31: dnf upgrade suddenly enables modular streams for
> protobuf
>
> On 06. 12. 19 18:10, Charalampos St
On Fri, 2019-12-06 at 14:05 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 1:52 PM Alexander Ploumistos
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 6:14 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > > Rollback or disable explicitly.
> >
> > I had been busy testing a bunch of other packages from koji and
> >
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 8:06 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 1:52 PM Alexander Ploumistos
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 6:14 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > >
> > > Rollback or disable explicitly.
> >
> > I had been busy testing a bunch of other packages from koji and
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 1:52 PM Alexander Ploumistos
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 6:14 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >
> > Rollback or disable explicitly.
>
> I had been busy testing a bunch of other packages from koji and
> rollback is going to break a lot of things at this point.
> Could you
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 6:14 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> Rollback or disable explicitly.
I had been busy testing a bunch of other packages from koji and
rollback is going to break a lot of things at this point.
Could you please explain how to install the new protobuf build and get
rid of the
On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 05:40:23PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 06. 12. 19 17:36, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > Today I've attempted to run "dnf upgrade".
> >
> > It has the following in it:
> >
> > Upgrading:
> > protobuf x86_64 3.6.1-6.module_f31+6793+1c93c38e updates-modular
> >
> > However,
On 06. 12. 19 18:10, Charalampos Stratakis wrote:>> For the record, I've just
pushed a temporary removal of the eclipse
default stream, so the next compose will not have it. For those of you
who are affected, your best bet would be to use `yum history rollback`
and wait to update again until
mainatin...@fedoraproject.org
> > Sent: Friday, December 6, 2019 5:59:50 PM
> > Subject: Re: Fedora 31: dnf upgrade suddenly enables modular streams for
> > protobuf
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 11:51 AM Igor Gnatenko
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > T
- Original Message -
> From: "Stephen Gallagher"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Cc: "Mat Booth" ,
> protobuf-mainatin...@fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Friday, December 6, 2019 5:59:50 PM
> Subject: Re: Fedo
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 11:51 AM Igor Gnatenko
wrote:
>
> Thanks for CCing me (maintainer of protobuf here), I am particularly
> not happy that some module (which is not even called protobuf, but
> some random Java #$%! with ripped out python support overrides my
> builds).
>
> I have put a
On Fri, 2019-12-06 at 08:58 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-12-06 at 17:40 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > On 06. 12. 19 17:36, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > > Today I've attempted to run "dnf upgrade".
> > >
> > > It has the following in it:
> > >
> > > Upgrading:
> > > protobuf x86_64
On Fri, 2019-12-06 at 08:58 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-12-06 at 17:40 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > On 06. 12. 19 17:36, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > > Today I've attempted to run "dnf upgrade".
> > >
> > > It has the following in it:
> > >
> > > Upgrading:
> > > protobuf x86_64
On Fri, 2019-12-06 at 17:40 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 06. 12. 19 17:36, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > Today I've attempted to run "dnf upgrade".
> >
> > It has the following in it:
> >
> > Upgrading:
> > protobuf x86_64 3.6.1-6.module_f31+6793+1c93c38e updates-modular
> >
> > Enabling module
Thanks for CCing me (maintainer of protobuf here), I am particularly
not happy that some module (which is not even called protobuf, but
some random Java #$%! with ripped out python support overrides my
builds).
I have put a proposal into a FESCo ticket.
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 5:44 PM Miro
On Fri, 2019-12-06 at 17:36 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> Today I've attempted to run "dnf upgrade".
>
> It has the following in it:
>
> Upgrading:
> protobuf x86_64 3.6.1-6.module_f31+6793+1c93c38e updates-modular
>
> Enabling module streams:
> ant
> eclipse
> maven
I've noticed this
On 06. 12. 19 17:36, Miro Hrončok wrote:
Today I've attempted to run "dnf upgrade".
It has the following in it:
Upgrading:
protobuf x86_64 3.6.1-6.module_f31+6793+1c93c38e updates-modular
Enabling module streams:
ant
eclipse
maven
I don't consider this behavior adequate for a
27 matches
Mail list logo
