Re: Is the rawhide repo broken?

[Adam Williamson]

On Fri, 2018-10-05 at 21:24 +, George R Goffe wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm starting to see these messages from dnf on my fc30 x86_64 system. Is the 
> repo broken or are these bugs?

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1616118
-- 
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 send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org

Is the rawhide repo broken?

[George R Goffe]

Hi,

I'm starting to see these messages from dnf on my fc30 x86_64 system. Is the 
repo broken or are these bugs?

Thanks,

George...


/usr/bin/dnf --best --refresh --skip-broken upgrade
Fedora - Modular Rawhide - Developmental packages for the next Fedora release   
   7.0 kB/s |  12 kB 00:01
Fedora - Modular Rawhide - Developmental packages for the next Fedora release   
   373 kB/s | 1.6 MB 00:04
Fedora - Rawhide - Developmental packages for the next Fedora release   
   7.5 kB/s |  12 kB 00:01
Fedora - Rawhide - Developmental packages for the next Fedora release   
   1.4 MB/s |  62 MB 00:45
Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:01 ago on Fri 05 Oct 2018 01:56:09 PM PDT.
Error: 
 Problem 1: cannot install the best update candidate for package 
kubernetes-client-1.10.3-1.fc29.x86_64
  - package kubernetes-client-1.10.3-1.module_2132+bd83c928.x86_64 is excluded
 Problem 2: cannot install the best update candidate for package 
libnghttp2-1.33.0-1.fc30.x86_64
  - package libnghttp2-1.33.0-1.module_2177+076c917f.x86_64 is excluded
 Problem 3: cannot install the best update candidate for package 
libuv-1:1.23.0-1.fc30.x86_64
  - package libuv-1:1.23.0-1.module_2177+076c917f.x86_64 is excluded
 Problem 4: cannot install the best update candidate for package 
ruby-2.5.1-100.fc30.x86_64
  - package ruby-2.5.1-100.module_2208+c4843ca5.x86_64 is excluded
 Problem 5: cannot install the best update candidate for package 
ruby-devel-2.5.1-100.fc30.x86_64
  - package ruby-devel-2.5.1-100.module_2208+c4843ca5.x86_64 is excluded
 Problem 6: cannot install the best update candidate for package 
ruby-doc-2.5.1-100.fc30.noarch
  - package ruby-doc-2.5.1-100.module_2208+c4843ca5.noarch is excluded
 Problem 7: cannot install the best update candidate for package 
ruby-irb-2.5.1-100.fc30.noarch
  - package ruby-irb-2.5.1-100.module_2208+c4843ca5.noarch is excluded
 Problem 8: cannot install the best update candidate for package 
ruby-libs-2.5.1-100.fc30.x86_64
  - package ruby-libs-2.5.1-100.module_2208+c4843ca5.x86_64 is excluded
 Problem 9: cannot install the best update candidate for package 
rubygem-bigdecimal-1.3.4-100.fc30.x86_64
  - package rubygem-bigdecimal-1.3.4-100.module_2208+c4843ca5.x86_64 is excluded
 Problem 10: cannot install the best update candidate for package 
rubygem-did_you_mean-1.2.0-100.fc30.noarch
  - package rubygem-did_you_mean-1.2.0-100.module_2208+c4843ca5.noarch is 
excluded
 Problem 11: cannot install the best update candidate for package 
rubygem-io-console-0.4.6-100.fc30.x86_64
  - package rubygem-io-console-0.4.6-100.module_2208+c4843ca5.x86_64 is excluded
 Problem 12: cannot install the best update candidate for package 
rubygem-openssl-2.1.0-100.fc30.x86_64
  - package rubygem-openssl-2.1.0-100.module_2208+c4843ca5.x86_64 is excluded
 Problem 13: cannot install the best update candidate for package 
rubygem-psych-3.0.2-100.fc30.x86_64
  - package rubygem-psych-3.0.2-100.module_2208+c4843ca5.x86_64 is excluded
 Problem 14: cannot install the best update candidate for package 
rubygems-2.7.6-100.fc30.noarch
  - package rubygems-2.7.6-100.module_2208+c4843ca5.noarch is excluded
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Is the 28 rawhide repo broken?

[Adam Williamson]

On Thu, 2018-02-15 at 12:58 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 18:54:43 +,
>   George R Goffe  wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I haven't seen updates from the rawhide repo in over a week. Is it that the 
> > "freeipa" situation clogging things up?
> > Thanks,
> > George...
> 
> There hasn't been a fully successful compose since the 4th.

This is the problem, yes. We've got into a classic situation where a
whole pile of different issues has backed up while composes have been
failing; we fixed the *initial* bug days ago, we're now onto something
like the sixth or seventh.

The initial big change that broke stuff was a new major version of
pykickstart showed up; several other components involved in image
builds turned out to need to be updated against it.

By the time we had that mess unpicked, the mass rebuild had happened
and caused a bunch more fun, and now the inadvertent libevent soname
bump is causing trouble too.

The latest problem we've hit is that qt5-qtwebengine needs rebuilding
for the libevent soname bump, but is failing to build with a pretty
cryptic chromium build problem that also affects the build of the
chromium package (qt5-qtwebengine has its own embedded chromium). I'm
currently trying to debug that, but not getting anywhere terribly fast.
See the failures:

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25045527
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1023240

We may well wind up needing spot to sort this out, but I'm trying...
-- 
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 send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Is the 28 rawhide repo broken?

[stan]

On Thu, 15 Feb 2018 18:54:43 + (UTC)
George R Goffe  wrote:

> Hi,
> I haven't seen updates from the rawhide repo in over a week. Is it
> that the "freeipa" situation clogging things up? Thanks,
> George...

I think this is due to the mass rebuild, and some changes to
infrastructure.  Someone else here can probably answer more
authoritatively.
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Is the 28 rawhide repo broken?

[Bruno Wolff III]

On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 18:54:43 +,
 George R Goffe  wrote:

Hi,
I haven't seen updates from the rawhide repo in over a week. Is it that the 
"freeipa" situation clogging things up?
Thanks,
George...


There hasn't been a fully successful compose since the 4th. The tentative 
ones almost always produce a repo suitable for updates. Right now there 
are some conflicts from what looks like a poppler upgrade. There were 
also more failures than usual for the gcc 8 mass rebuild.


The rawhide composes are accessible at:
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/compose/rawhide/

I'm using the following for using the one from this morning:
(You might not want to disable gpgcheck or sslverify though.)
[compose]
name=Compose - Specific compose repo
failovermethod=priority
#baseurl=http://download.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/development/$basearch/os/
#mirrorlist=https://mirrors.fedoraproject.org/metalink?repo=rawhide=$basearch
baseurl=https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/compose/rawhide/Fedora-Rawhide-20180215.n.0/compose/Everything/x86_64/os/
enabled=1
gpgcheck=0
gpgkey=file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-$basearch
sslverify=False
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Is the 28 rawhide repo broken?

[George R Goffe]

Hi,
I haven't seen updates from the rawhide repo in over a week. Is it that the 
"freeipa" situation clogging things up?
Thanks,
George...

This is what I see pending for my system:
Available Upgrades
emacs-auctex.noarch    12.1-1.fc28   rawhide
emacs-auctex-doc.noarch    12.1-1.fc28   rawhide
emacs-gettext.noarch   0.19.8.1-13.fc28  rawhide
freeipa-client.x86_64  4.6.3-1.fc28  rawhide
freeipa-client-common.noarch   4.6.3-1.fc28  rawhide
freeipa-common.noarch  4.6.3-1.fc28  rawhide
freeipa-server.x86_64  4.6.3-1.fc28  rawhide
freeipa-server-common.noarch   4.6.3-1.fc28  rawhide
freeipa-server-trust-ad.x86_64 4.6.3-1.fc28  rawhide
python2.x86_64 2.7.14-9.fc28 rawhide
python2-brotli.x86_64  1.0.1-2.fc28  rawhide
python2-devel.x86_64   2.7.14-9.fc28 rawhide
python2-fedora.noarch  0.10.0-1.fc28 rawhide
python2-ipaclient.noarch   4.6.3-1.fc28  rawhide
python2-ipalib.noarch  4.6.3-1.fc28  rawhide
python2-ipaserver.noarch   4.6.3-1.fc28  rawhide
python2-kobo.noarch    0.7.0-6.fc28  rawhide
python2-kobo-rpmlib.noarch 0.7.0-6.fc28  rawhide
python2-libs.x86_64    2.7.14-9.fc28 rawhide
python2-mutagen.noarch 1.40.0-1.fc28 rawhide
python2-scipy.x86_64   1.0.0-6.fc28  rawhide
python2-tkinter.x86_64 2.7.14-9.fc28 rawhide
python2-tools.x86_64   2.7.14-9.fc28 rawhide
python2-xlrd.noarch    1.0.0-7.fc28  rawhide
python3.x86_64 3.6.4-11.fc28 rawhide
python3-brotli.x86_64  1.0.1-2.fc28  rawhide
python3-devel.x86_64   3.6.4-11.fc28 rawhide
python3-ipalib.noarch  4.6.3-1.fc28  rawhide
python3-isort.noarch   4.3.1-1.fc28  rawhide
python3-kobo.noarch    0.7.0-6.fc28  rawhide
python3-kobo-rpmlib.noarch 0.7.0-6.fc28  rawhide
python3-libs.x86_64    3.6.4-11.fc28 rawhide
python3-mutagen.noarch 1.40.0-1.fc28 rawhide
python3-scipy.x86_64   1.0.0-6.fc28  rawhide
python3-tkinter.x86_64 3.6.4-11.fc28 rawhide
python3-tools.x86_64   3.6.4-11.fc28 rawhide
python3-xlrd.noarch    1.0.0-7.fc28  rawhide
tex-preview.noarch 12.1-1.fc28   rawhide

___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Is the Rawhide repo broken?

[George R Goffe]

Hi,
I haven't gotten any updates for several days from the Rawhide Repo... Is it 
broken?
Thanks,
George...

___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Is the rawhide repo broken?

[Peter Robinson]

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 6:44 PM, Adam Williamson
 wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-07-31 at 09:16 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Matthew Miller
>>  wrote:
>> > On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 05:00:02AM +, George R Goffe wrote:
>> > > Any other ideas? Just wait for whomever to fix the packaging
>> > > problems? I could write a bug if you think that might be a good thing
>> > > to do.
>> >
>> > We're in the middle of doing a mass rebuild, and it's not surprising
>> > that rawhide is temporarily broken.
>>
>> Actually the mass rebuild happens on a side tag, but the rawhide being
>> broken is likely due to the ppc64le binutils/glibc mess
>
> Well, one specific problem mentioned was actually due to the Boost
> version bump. A lot of things depend on Boost, including LibreOffice,
> and rebuilding LibreOffice is never much fun (it takes something like
> 20 hours to build, I believe).
>
> It looks like both the first attempt to rebuild LO for the Boost bump,
> and the mass rebuild attempt to build it, failed:
>
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=921574
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=928814
>
> so LO will certainly still have broken deps in current Rawhide, and
> that will remain the case until a successful rebuild is done. Other
> things may also not yet have been successfully rebuilt against the new
> Boost.
>
> The first LO build failed on ppc64le (which may have been due to the
> known issue in ppc64le builds that was recently fixed), and s390x
> (which failure I can't immediately tell the cause of - it failed
> because some file 'does not exist'). The mass rebuild build looks to
> have failed on the same arches in much the same way.

Yes, there's other problems too, like the bump of a graphics library
to fix CVEs, but the accidental miss of the soname bump, there's a
bunch of issues converging unfortunately.
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Is the rawhide repo broken?

[Adam Williamson]

On Mon, 2017-07-31 at 09:16 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Matthew Miller
>  wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 05:00:02AM +, George R Goffe wrote:
> > > Any other ideas? Just wait for whomever to fix the packaging
> > > problems? I could write a bug if you think that might be a good thing
> > > to do.
> > 
> > We're in the middle of doing a mass rebuild, and it's not surprising
> > that rawhide is temporarily broken.
> 
> Actually the mass rebuild happens on a side tag, but the rawhide being
> broken is likely due to the ppc64le binutils/glibc mess

Well, one specific problem mentioned was actually due to the Boost
version bump. A lot of things depend on Boost, including LibreOffice,
and rebuilding LibreOffice is never much fun (it takes something like
20 hours to build, I believe).

It looks like both the first attempt to rebuild LO for the Boost bump,
and the mass rebuild attempt to build it, failed:

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=921574
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=928814

so LO will certainly still have broken deps in current Rawhide, and
that will remain the case until a successful rebuild is done. Other
things may also not yet have been successfully rebuilt against the new
Boost.

The first LO build failed on ppc64le (which may have been due to the
known issue in ppc64le builds that was recently fixed), and s390x
(which failure I can't immediately tell the cause of - it failed
because some file 'does not exist'). The mass rebuild build looks to
have failed on the same arches in much the same way.
-- 
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 send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Is the rawhide repo broken?

[Peter Robinson]

On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Matthew Miller
 wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 05:00:02AM +, George R Goffe wrote:
>> Any other ideas? Just wait for whomever to fix the packaging
>> problems? I could write a bug if you think that might be a good thing
>> to do.
>
> We're in the middle of doing a mass rebuild, and it's not surprising
> that rawhide is temporarily broken.

Actually the mass rebuild happens on a side tag, but the rawhide being
broken is likely due to the ppc64le binutils/glibc mess
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Is the rawhide repo broken?

[Kevin Fenzi]

On 07/29/2017 06:44 AM, George R Goffe wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I am trying to keep my Fedora 27 (Rawhide) system up to date by running "dnf 
> upgrade" at least daily. For the past week I have seen a list of packages 
> with broken dependencies. 165 in number. dnf --best reports 118 or so 
> "problems".
> 
> I'm not sure what to do about this. Could someone give me a hint please?

There is a fair bit of volitility right now due to mass rebuild, tooling
changes, etc.

Just wait and most of it should get cleaned up soon.

The good news is that dnf is doing right here and not applying updates
that break anything for you, so you just have to wait until they are
fixed and then they will be applied.

kevin





signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Is the rawhide repo broken?

[Matthew Miller]

On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 05:00:02AM +, George R Goffe wrote:
> Any other ideas? Just wait for whomever to fix the packaging
> problems? I could write a bug if you think that might be a good thing
> to do.

We're in the middle of doing a mass rebuild, and it's not surprising
that rawhide is temporarily broken. 

-- 
Matthew Miller

Fedora Project Leader
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Is the rawhide repo broken?

[Russel Winder]

On Sun, 2017-07-30 at 05:00 +, George R Goffe wrote:
> Russel,
> 
> Thanks for your response.
> 
> Removing python3-docs did not appear to change the problem.

I am surprised you didn't get some change since a number of Fedora
system packages depend on the python3 version.

> Any other ideas? Just wait for whomever to fix the packaging
> problems? I could write a bug if you think that might be a good thing
> to do.

History indicates there are two scenarios and all too often both apply:

1. You have one or two deprecated and/or removed packages that are
causing a version conflict and stopping upgrade.

2. There is a version conflict because of lack of update by packagers.

The python3-doc thing is an instance of 2. As is my current
Boost/LibreOffice situation. I am suffering without python3-doc in the
short term, and waiting on the packagers to sort out the
Boost/LiberOffice thing as I need both.

Whenever I have instances of 1, I use "dnf upgrade --best" and "dnf
upgrade --best --allowerasing" (always saying no to actioning the
upgrade) to investigate where the package conflict is. In many cases
the package is redundant and removing it (or them) clears the blockage.
Sometimes the problem is the dnf system itself, it gets the graph of
dependencies over specifying things and thus causing blockages. In this
case I allow removal of packages to clear the blockage and then
reinstall. Occasionally you have to live without a package or two for a
while to get everything else up to date. cf. python3-doc.

It is a tad difficult to explain things in general. Might it be worth
submitting the result of:

dnf check-update --refresh

dnf upgrade --best

here (as attachments if the output is very lengthy) so as to get more
focused ideas bubbling?

-- 
Russel.
=
Dr Russel Winder  t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net
41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Is the rawhide repo broken?

[George R Goffe]

Russel,

Thanks for your response.

Removing python3-docs did not appear to change the problem.

Any other ideas? Just wait for whomever to fix the packaging problems? I could 
write a bug if you think that might be a good thing to do.

Regards,

George...



Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2017 13:44:23 + (UTC)

From: George R Goffe <grgo...@yahoo.com>

Subject: Is the rawhide repo broken?

To: "test@lists.fedoraproject.org" <test@lists.fedoraproject.org>

Message-ID: <1117066636.2047108.1501335863...@mail.yahoo.com>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8


Hi,


I am trying to keep my Fedora 27 (Rawhide) system up to date by running "dnf 
upgrade" at least daily. For the past week I have seen a list of packages with 
broken dependencies. 165 in number. dnf --best reports 118 or so "problems".


I'm not sure what to do about this. Could someone give me a hint please?


Regards,


George...



Transaction Summary

==

Skip  165 Packages


Nothing to do.


--


Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2017 17:52:47 +0100

From: Russel Winder <rus...@winder.org.uk>

Subject: Re: Is the rawhide repo broken?

To: test@lists.fedoraproject.org

Message-ID: <1501347167.3833.18.ca...@winder.org.uk>

Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha512";

protocol="application/pgp-signature";

boundary="=-A3eF6XdO7hD3qicTS/OP"



--=-A3eF6XdO7hD3qicTS/OP

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Hi,


I believe there is currently a problem between Boost and LibreOffice

staopping quite a few upgrades but not 165/118, far fewer than that.


I found though I had to remove python3-docs as that package has not

been updated where all the other python3-* packages appear to have

been.



On Sat, 2017-07-29 at 13:44 +, George R Goffe wrote:

> Hi,

>=20

> I am trying to keep my Fedora 27 (Rawhide) system up to date by

> running "dnf upgrade" at least daily. For the past week I have seen a

> list of packages with broken dependencies. 165 in number. dnf --best

> reports 118 or so "problems".

>=20

> I'm not sure what to do about this. Could someone give me a hint

> please?

>=20

> Regards,

>=20

> George...

>=20

>=20

> Transaction Summary

> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=

=3D

> Skip  165 Packages

>=20

> Nothing to do.

> ___

> test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org

> To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

--=20

Russel.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=

=3D=3D

Dr Russel Winder  t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder@ekiga.n=

et

41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk

London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

--=-A3eF6XdO7hD3qicTS/OP

Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-


iQIzBAABCgAdFiEETwDs1X+Beyaiaer41L3V0s7Np7gFAll8vV8ACgkQ1L3V0s7N

p7hpVA//bPS3KireZ5K8a6J19obd1caUxWjefoA6xlD+qwxgBjkr0pted4oeEONY

/bfXu18AcqCnnePAZVt+bJhnH3Ac/8A/bYBL+HEMJUoctspqliZyxuVVkpA8maHR

ClNg0M8rBN/eKZdCYIrZPhRkQccR0B5A00e9iqUR6q1JkbpUng5sZtmVPKyZTpeZ

qK9cgQNpGBpTbBUHAklCzCCBcRko3L8LIw00k8w0bRK8GFj0w2341rKm/jvXRWKC

xC4phIBYD1PWuWKgygWFKsXRq7lpMPcXohAZMmCjf7zG2HmyOkq4+PiBr8qaAe+P

ZcG8NFzs+2EN3HY7XqqQizSTWStT9Wgi7+mWv1y1KxLfpDafbotNfJe9cUD1EpeF

+s0cFmlMTQZQdXgsIED0ZM7IK6s6QYDeU/OlvngVsglJo3rV02El1dPkfXjev8G8

Fh3b4bv9/9362/jgPqX3KSj39fJZZTDLGXvrWmlXiwsO7NQcWrI5c5rmbPi4CZvT

hRjWwxoMyC426SAziHW5CxF0gXUqaupxMi9WJiRSwKAbrHTxwGRFDYf0xC0AXYRN

GfNWx0Q8KE7LIATlb0hAUZRfxdXHIF78C1rO70LEewNxFIyRKn/+b5elYX5w6cbk

jj0PXQWSguFVmPHEsircZCe3wb2atQ6Gpq1IbBmA9PiVivd6tPI=

=VS8R

-END PGP SIGNATURE-


--=-A3eF6XdO7hD3qicTS/OP--


--


Subject: Digest Footer


___

test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org

To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org



--


End of test Digest, Vol 161, Issue 99

*
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Is the rawhide repo broken?

[Russel Winder]

Hi,

I believe there is currently a problem between Boost and LibreOffice
staopping quite a few upgrades but not 165/118, far fewer than that.

I found though I had to remove python3-docs as that package has not
been updated where all the other python3-* packages appear to have
been.


On Sat, 2017-07-29 at 13:44 +, George R Goffe wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I am trying to keep my Fedora 27 (Rawhide) system up to date by
> running "dnf upgrade" at least daily. For the past week I have seen a
> list of packages with broken dependencies. 165 in number. dnf --best
> reports 118 or so "problems".
> 
> I'm not sure what to do about this. Could someone give me a hint
> please?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> George...
> 
> 
> Transaction Summary
> ==
> Skip  165 Packages
> 
> Nothing to do.
> ___
> test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
-- 
Russel.
=
Dr Russel Winder  t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net
41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Is the rawhide repo broken?

[George R Goffe]

Hi,

I am trying to keep my Fedora 27 (Rawhide) system up to date by running "dnf 
upgrade" at least daily. For the past week I have seen a list of packages with 
broken dependencies. 165 in number. dnf --best reports 118 or so "problems".

I'm not sure what to do about this. Could someone give me a hint please?

Regards,

George...


Transaction Summary
==
Skip  165 Packages

Nothing to do.
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org