On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 11:43:52 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
Yet one could have _discontinued_ the old fedora-release package and
moved its files into a _new_ and _non-conflicting_ *-common package. ;)
What would have been the advantage?
A matter of design -- it would lead to a different
On Sat, 2014-11-22 at 11:43 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
The definition of a Product is not, at present, 'has these and only
exactly these packages installed', it's more 'has at least these
packages installed'. It's all still being figured out, but it was
considered reasonable to let
On Wed, 2014-11-26 at 14:11 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On Sat, 2014-11-22 at 11:43 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
The definition of a Product is not, at present, 'has these and only
exactly these packages installed', it's more 'has at least these
packages installed'. It's all still
On Fri, 21 Nov 2014 10:07:32 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
Well, you're never supposed to be in a case where you're relying on yum
to solve it without any hints, it's not really 'random'.
Yum is known for pulling in odd packages for the case of a dependency
where any provider suffices.
On Sat, 2014-11-22 at 13:01 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2014 10:07:32 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
Well, you're never supposed to be in a case where you're relying on yum
to solve it without any hints, it's not really 'random'.
Yum is known for pulling in odd packages
On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 08:45:51 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
I wonder whether an upgrade path from Fedora 20
could have been from fedora-release 21 to a non-product release via a
single well-defined Obsoletes instead of an arbitrary one? Why not
discontinue
the old fedora-release
On Sat, 2014-11-22 at 20:19 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 08:45:51 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
I wonder whether an upgrade path from Fedora 20
could have been from fedora-release 21 to a non-product release via a
single well-defined Obsoletes instead of an
On 22.11.2014 20:43, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sat, 2014-11-22 at 20:19 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 08:45:51 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
I wonder whether an upgrade path from Fedora 20
could have been from fedora-release 21 to a non-product release via a
single
On Sat, 2014-11-22 at 21:35 +0100, poma wrote:
It seems to me that you are the only one who understands what is written
here. :)
It seems to me that you can't possibly know that.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin .
On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 14:01:07 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
system-release-product is needed by (installed)
fedora-release-21-0.16.noarch
As one can see, it's some virtual package or capability, but not a direct
or strict dependency on fedora-release-cloud.
Yes. That's not a
On Fri, 2014-11-21 at 11:29 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 14:01:07 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
system-release-product is needed by (installed)
fedora-release-21-0.16.noarch
As one can see, it's some virtual package or capability, but not a
direct
or
On Wed, 2014-11-12 at 19:29 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Wed, 12 Nov 2014 05:51:39 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
fedora-release-workstation-0:21-0.16.noarch
generic-release-cloud-0:21-7.noarch
Seems to me at some time a random generic dependency has been pulled in
and
Williamson adamw...@fedoraproject.org
To: For testing and quality assurance of Fedora releases
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 3:01:07 PM
Subject: Re: Error: fedora-release-cloud conflicts with
fedora-release-nonproduct-21-0.16.noarch
On Wed, 2014-11-12 at 19:29 +0100
On Thu, 2014-11-20 at 15:27 -0700, Bodhi Zazen wrote:
Thank you for the detailed explanation Adam.
Moving forward, perhaps consider either making it easier to swap out
the releases for put what is the best command on a wiki page to swap
between releases for those who wish to swap between
On Tue, 2014-11-11 at 13:00 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Error: fedora-release-cloud conflicts with
fedora-release-nonproduct-21-0.16.noarch
Worse than I thought.
# rpm -e fedora-release-cloud
error: Failed dependencies:
system-release-product is needed by (installed
On Wed, 12 Nov 2014 05:51:39 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
fedora-release-workstation-0:21-0.16.noarch
generic-release-cloud-0:21-7.noarch
Seems to me at some time a random generic dependency has been pulled in
and now causes problems.
Er, no? You have no generic package
-
From: Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com
To: test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 11:29:22 AM
Subject: Re: Error: fedora-release-cloud conflicts with
fedora-release-nonproduct-21-0.16.noarch
On Wed, 12 Nov 2014 05:51:39 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
fedora
Is there a particular url link available for the new yum with command
formats options available please ?
Adrian Fewster
On 13/11/14 08:57, Bodhi Zazen wrote:
You can fix this with
yum swap -- remove firewalld-config-standard fedora-release-cloud -- install
firewalld-config-workstation
-release-cloud conflicts with
fedora-release-nonproduct-21-0.16.noarch
Is there a particular url link available for the new yum with command
formats options available please ?
Adrian Fewster
On 13/11/14 08:57, Bodhi Zazen wrote:
You can fix this with
yum swap -- remove firewalld-config
# yum groupinstall 'Xfce Desktop'
[...]
-- Finished Dependency Resolution
Error: fedora-release-nonproduct conflicts with
fedora-release-cloud-21-0.16.noarch
Error: fedora-release-cloud conflicts with
fedora-release-nonproduct-21-0.16.noarch
For many years, we've been telling new packagers
Error: fedora-release-cloud conflicts with
fedora-release-nonproduct-21-0.16.noarch
Worse than I thought.
# rpm -e fedora-release-cloud
error: Failed dependencies:
system-release-product is needed by (installed)
fedora-release-21-0.16.noarch
# repoquery --whatprovides system-release
21 matches
Mail list logo
