Re: Moan about dnf on Rawhide

2017-02-20 Thread Viorel Tabara 
On Mon Feb 20 2017 10:16:42 GMT-0700 (MST) Adam Williamson 
 wrote: 
> On Mon, 2017-02-20 at 17:46 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: 
>> The person, who added this  prerequisite, should leave Fedora, 
>> IMNSHO. 
>  
> This kind of tone is unacceptable and a clear violation of the Code of 
> Conduct: 
>  
> https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct 
>  
> "Be respectful. Not all of us will agree all the time, but 
> disagreement is no excuse for poor behavior and poor manners. We might 
> all experience some frustration now and then, but we cannot allow that 
> frustration to turn into a personal attack." 
>  
> I'm placing you on moderation for this list. 
>  
 
+1 and thanks.

On a related note, Rawhide documentation is clear about the risks of 
running an non-stable version [1].

-- 
Viorel

[1]:https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/Rawhide 
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Moan about dnf on Rawhide

2017-02-20 Thread Adam Williamson 
On Mon, 2017-02-20 at 17:46 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> The person, who added this 
> prerequisite, should leave Fedora, IMNSHO.

This kind of tone is unacceptable and a clear violation of the Code of
Conduct:

https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct

"Be respectful. Not all of us will agree all the time, but disagreement
is no excuse for poor behavior and poor manners. We might all
experience some frustration now and then, but we cannot allow that
frustration to turn into a personal attack."

I'm placing you on moderation for this list.
-- 
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: Moan about dnf on Rawhide

2017-02-20 Thread Ralf Corsepius 

On 02/20/2017 05:16 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:

On Mon, 2017-02-20 at 16:38 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:

On 02/20/2017 03:20 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:

On Sun, 2017-02-19 at 09:07 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:

So as there was a successful Rawhide compose today,
what's there now (allowing for mirror sync) has changed since yesterday
and the updated dnf is there.


Sorry, I was wrong about this, I misread my emails a bit. There's still
not been a successful compose since 20170215. Hopefully we get one
soon.


In other words, since Feb 15, due to rawhide not having been updated you
have strangled any local package building and testing rawhide.

To me this qualifies as your "That's how things work" being
fundamentally flawed and broken for no-good, absurd reasons.


I don't know why you're talking about 'me', since I've not got anything
to do with release engineering.


Then extend my sentences to releng. Fact is YOU (who ever feels 
addressed) are strangling Fedora and render testing and development into 
a joke.



Since I don't work for release engineering I don't know all the details
about why the process works this way, I clearly can't have passed those
reasons on to you, so your assertion that the reasons are 'no-good
[and] absurd' is itself absurd.


Quite simple: Making "a consistent release" a prerequisite to rawhide is 
utter non-sense. Rawhide is not a release. The person, who added this 
prerequisite, should leave Fedora, IMNSHO. Rawhide serves testing 
purposes and by-definition is permanently broken.



Or more pragmatically put: in current (Feb 15) release:
- The kernel is broken for me (doesn't boot)
- glibc is broken for me (It segfaults).
- dnf is a corrupt and inconsistent train-wreck.
...

Since then, probably several 100s of supposed to-be-bugfixes where 
built, but YOU are keeping them behind closed doors.


Ralf

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

Re: Moan about dnf on Rawhide

2017-02-20 Thread Adam Williamson 
On Mon, 2017-02-20 at 16:38 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 02/20/2017 03:20 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Sun, 2017-02-19 at 09:07 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > So as there was a successful Rawhide compose today,
> > > what's there now (allowing for mirror sync) has changed since yesterday
> > > and the updated dnf is there.
> > 
> > Sorry, I was wrong about this, I misread my emails a bit. There's still
> > not been a successful compose since 20170215. Hopefully we get one
> > soon.
> 
> In other words, since Feb 15, due to rawhide not having been updated you 
> have strangled any local package building and testing rawhide.
> 
> To me this qualifies as your "That's how things work" being 
> fundamentally flawed and broken for no-good, absurd reasons.

I don't know why you're talking about 'me', since I've not got anything
to do with release engineering.

Since I don't work for release engineering I don't know all the details
about why the process works this way, I clearly can't have passed those
reasons on to you, so your assertion that the reasons are 'no-good
[and] absurd' is itself absurd.
-- 
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: Moan about dnf on Rawhide

2017-02-20 Thread Ralf Corsepius 

On 02/20/2017 03:20 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:

On Sun, 2017-02-19 at 09:07 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:

So as there was a successful Rawhide compose today,
what's there now (allowing for mirror sync) has changed since yesterday
and the updated dnf is there.


Sorry, I was wrong about this, I misread my emails a bit. There's still
not been a successful compose since 20170215. Hopefully we get one
soon.


In other words, since Feb 15, due to rawhide not having been updated you 
have strangled any local package building and testing rawhide.


To me this qualifies as your "That's how things work" being 
fundamentally flawed and broken for no-good, absurd reasons.


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

Re: Moan about dnf on Rawhide

2017-02-19 Thread Adam Williamson 
On Sun, 2017-02-19 at 09:07 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> So as there was a successful Rawhide compose today,
> what's there now (allowing for mirror sync) has changed since yesterday
> and the updated dnf is there.

Sorry, I was wrong about this, I misread my emails a bit. There's still
not been a successful compose since 20170215. Hopefully we get one
soon.
-- 
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: Moan about dnf on Rawhide

2017-02-19 Thread stan 
On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 16:43:39 -0800
Adam Williamson  wrote:

> It's nothing new, this is how Python has always worked, all the way
> back to 2.x (not sure about 1.x). Minor release versions always bump
> the ABI.

I've never noticed it before.  It seems counter intuitive to me, like
bumping a library so number without raising the version number. I
suppose there must be a reason.

> I'd just do a --best --allowerasing and see what it's actually blocked
> on. There aren't actually many things left that aren't rebuilt for
> Python 3.6 at this point, and most of the ones that are left are
> pretty obscure. You can see the list in every 'rawhide compose
> report' mail, as it lists all packages whose dependencies cannot be
> resolved. Most of the issues in the current Rawhide compose are
> actually with boost.

Thanks, this should be helpful.  If I can delete just a few packages,
and get the update to succeed, then I can re-install them when they get
updated.

Yeah, I think I noticed boost in the list of problems dnf produced.
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Moan about dnf on Rawhide

2017-02-19 Thread stan 
On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 14:14:26 -0700
Viorel Tabara  wrote:

> Or use the rpmdb from a backup as a reference to bring the system to  
> that state. 

It's back in the original state, I just had to force install a dnf
version that was compatible with python3 3.5 ABI.  The problem is that
it won't update to python3 3.6 ABI from there.  I'll have to do some
manual manipulations to get there.

> On a related note, I recall a discussion somewhere on the Fedora
> mailing lists, about doing an LVM snapshot of rootfs prior to
> upgrading as an easy way to roll back.

I think I remember reading that.  And, I think I've seen dnf taking a
snapshot before updating if the snapshot plugin is installed and
enabled.
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Moan about dnf on Rawhide

2017-02-19 Thread stan 
On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 14:07:28 -0700
Viorel Tabara  wrote:

> I prefer to keep the Koji URL as a visual clue in dnf history:

[snip]

That was interesting.  I learned something new.  Thanks.

> I try to stay away from  "allowerasing" -- once I had to go through a 
> massive rpm-fu work. It was fun but time consuming.

Yeah, that's why I'm holding off too.
 
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Moan about dnf on Rawhide

2017-02-19 Thread Adam Williamson 
On Sun, 2017-02-19 at 11:23 -0700, stan wrote:
> 
> I downgraded to the last version of dnf that uses the python 3.5 ABI,
> and dnf works again, with occasional segfaults.  But it won't update
> anything because there are too many conflicts with going to python
> 3.6.  How is this not python 4?  If the ABI changes so much between 3.5
> and 3.6 that they are backward incompatible, then it isn't python3
> any more.  What are the python developers thinking?

It's nothing new, this is how Python has always worked, all the way
back to 2.x (not sure about 1.x). Minor release versions always bump
the ABI.

> I ran a dnf --best update and there are 317 errors, and dnf skips
> everything.  :-)  
> 
> Most of the errors are related to the 3.6 ABI update, and packages that
> aren't upgraded yet.  They propagate back up the libsolv chain, and
> prevent everything else from updating.
> 
> I suppose I'll be forced to --allowerasing if I want to do a dnf
> update.  Or force install the dnf dependencies of the new 3.6 ABI so I
> can then run dnf update and have it update everything else.

I'd just do a --best --allowerasing and see what it's actually blocked
on. There aren't actually many things left that aren't rebuilt for
Python 3.6 at this point, and most of the ones that are left are pretty
obscure. You can see the list in every 'rawhide compose report' mail,
as it lists all packages whose dependencies cannot be resolved. Most of
the issues in the current Rawhide compose are actually with boost.
-- 
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: Moan about dnf on Rawhide

2017-02-19 Thread stan 
On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 11:23:24 -0700
stan  wrote:

> I ran a dnf --best update and there are 317 errors, and dnf skips
> everything.  :-)  

The python3-hawkey package is part of the libdnf src rpm, so it exists,
but is being blocked from install because it requires python3 3.6, and
that is being blocked.

I started to unravel the dependencies, but got disillusioned because
there were so many of them and they were like spaghetti, so I put it on
hold for a while.  When I get my enthusiasm back, I'll revisit the
problems.
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Moan about dnf on Rawhide

2017-02-19 Thread Viorel Tabara 
On Sun Feb 19 2017 11:23:24 GMT-0700 (MST) stan 
 wrote: 
> I ran a dnf --best update and there are 317 errors, and dnf skips 
> everything.  :-)   
[...] 
> I suppose I'll be forced to --allowerasing if I want to do a dnf 
> update.  Or force install the dnf dependencies of the new 3.6 ABI so I 
> can then run dnf update and have it update everything else. 
>  
> What a mess.  Maybe a new install of rawhide would be easier. 
 
Or use the rpmdb from a backup as a reference to bring the system to  
that state. 
 
On a related note, I recall a discussion somewhere on the Fedora mailing  
lists, about doing an LVM snapshot of rootfs prior to upgrading as an  
easy way to roll back. 
 
--  
Viorel 
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Moan about dnf on Rawhide

2017-02-19 Thread Viorel Tabara 
On Sun Feb 19 2017 09:50:24 GMT-0700 (MST) stan 
 wrote: 
> Not here.  I tried all kinds of variations of the above, and I keep 
> getting errors.

I prefer to keep the Koji URL as a visual clue in dnf history:

   [root@omiday ~]# dnf history dnf
   Last metadata expiration check: 2:11:01 ago on Sun Feb 19 11:40:53 2017 MST.
   ID | Command line | Date and time| Action(s)  | 
Altered
   
---
  323 | install https://kojipkgs | 2017-02-17 22:55 | Update |7 
 <
  322 | upgrade dnf  | 2017-02-17 22:50 | Update |9 
> 
  275 | -y upgrade   | 2017-01-01 20:31 | I, O, U|  708 
EE
  265 | upgrade  | 2016-12-19 13:38 | E, I, O, U |  615 
EE
  227 | --releasever=rawhide sys | 2016-11-24 17:55 | D, E, I, O, U  | 1358 
EE
  200 | -y upgrade   | 2016-10-20 10:59 | E, I, U|  146 
  
  145 | upgrade  | 2016-09-15 20:22 | E, I, O, U |  209 
EE
  117 | --nogpgcheck upgrade | 2016-08-20 16:33 | E, I, U|   91 
  
  100 | --releasever=25 system-u | 2016-08-11 13:56 | D, E, I, O, U  | 1492 
EE
  1 |  | 2016-06-14 10:31 | Install| 1364 EE

It does take me a bit longer to build the dependency list but it's not 
something that bothers me that much, I rarely rely on Koji RPMs:

   [root@omiday ~]# dnf history info 323
   Last metadata expiration check: 2:11:12 ago on Sun Feb 19 11:40:53 2017 MST.
   Transaction ID : 323
   Begin time : Fri Feb 17 22:55:16 2017
   Begin rpmdb: 2651:a559e374360c3500f0c5d574f47f2d81aab6a6ab
   End time   :22:55:23 2017 (7 seconds)
   End rpmdb  : 2652:70ab883f3c3b46c029d1650e7d60b5571e6df359
   User   :  
   Return-Code: Success
   Command Line   : install 
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/dnf/2.1.0/1.fc26/noarch/dnf-2.1.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm
 
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/dnf/2.1.0/1.fc26/noarch/python2-dnf-2.1.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm
 
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/dnf/2.1.0/1.fc26/noarch/dnf-conf-2.1.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm
 
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/dnf/2.1.0/1.fc26/noarch/python3-dnf-2.1.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm
 
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/yum/3.4.3/512.fc26/noarch/yum-3.4.3-512.fc26.noarch.rpm
 
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/dnf/2.1.0/1.fc26/noarch/dnf-automatic-2.1.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm
 
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/dnf/2.1.0/1.fc26/noarch/dnf-yum-2.1.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm
   Transaction performed with:
  Upgraded  dnf-2.0.1-2.fc26.noarch   @rawhide
  Installed rpm-4.13.0-11.fc26.x86_64 @rawhide
   Packages Altered:
  Upgraded dnf-2.0.1-2.fc26.noarch   @rawhide
  Upgrade  2.1.0-1.fc26.noarch   @@commandline
  Upgraded dnf-automatic-2.0.1-2.fc26.noarch @rawhide
  Upgrade2.1.0-1.fc26.noarch @@commandline
  Upgraded dnf-conf-2.0.1-2.fc26.noarch  @rawhide
  Upgrade   2.1.0-1.fc26.noarch  @@commandline
  Upgraded dnf-yum-2.0.1-2.fc26.noarch   @rawhide
  Upgrade  2.1.0-1.fc26.noarch   @@commandline
  Upgraded python2-dnf-2.0.1-2.fc26.noarch   @rawhide
  Upgrade  2.1.0-1.fc26.noarch   @@commandline
  Upgraded python3-dnf-2.0.1-2.fc26.noarch   @rawhide
  Upgrade  2.1.0-1.fc26.noarch   @@commandline
  Upgraded yum-3.4.3-511.fc26.noarch @@commandline/rawhide
  Upgrade  3.4.3-512.fc26.noarch @@commandline

> # dnf install ./dnf-2.1.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm 
> ./python3-dnf-2.1.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm --allowerasing

I try to stay away from  "allowerasing" -- once I had to go through a 
massive rpm-fu work. It was fun but time consuming.

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

Re: Moan about dnf on Rawhide

2017-02-19 Thread GERHARD GOETZHABER 
First, I had the same problems as Stan, and the whole secret is calling 
DNF for both RPMs strictly together in one single command:


So said you've stored the files in the directory /temp your command will 
be "dnf install /temp/dnf-2.1.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm 
/temp/python3-dnf-2.1.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm --allowerasing", but best of 
all will be first going to /temp (or wherever your RPMs are staying) by 
cd and from therein just executing "dnf install 
{,python3-}dnf-2.1.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm --allowerasing"!



On 2/19/17 5:50 PM, stan wrote:

On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 14:03:45 +0100
GERHARD GOETZHABER  wrote:


To make it clear:

1. Just download dnf-2.1.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm and
python3-dnf-2.1.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm from
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/packages/dnf/2.1.0/1.fc26/noarch/
(these two files only)

2. # dnf install dnf-2.1.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm
python3-dnf-2.1.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm --allowerasing
  (According dnf-automatic, dnf-conf and dnf-yum will get
installed within!)

All done - happy days are here again!  : )

Not here.  I tried all kinds of variations of the above, and I keep
getting errors.  Command 2 above gives these errors:

# dnf
install ./dnf-2.1.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm ./python3-dnf-2.1.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm
--allowerasing Last metadata expiration check: 0:46:45 ago on Sun Feb
19 08:23:34 2017 MST. Error: Problem 1: conflicting requests
   - nothing provides dnf-conf = 2.1.0-1.fc26 needed by
python3-dnf-2.1.0-1.fc26.noarch Problem 2: package
dnf-2.1.0-1.fc26.noarch requires python3-dnf = 2.1.0-1.fc26, but none
of the providers can be installed
   - conflicting requests
   - nothing provides dnf-conf = 2.1.0-1.fc26 needed by
 python3-dnf-2.1.0-1.fc26.noarch

When I fix that by putting in dnf-conf, it wants to remove 166
packages.  That doesn't seem reasonable; shouldn't those packages be
updated to allow them to update also?  I'd post the output, but dnf is
seg faulting every time now.

When I try to use rpm to Update dnf and python3-dnf, it errors out
with the following:

# rpm -U ./dnf-2.1.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm ./python3-dnf-2.1.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm 
./dnf-conf-2.1.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm
error: Failed dependencies:
 dnf = 2.0.0-0.rc2.5.fc26 is needed by (installed) 
dnf-yum-2.0.0-0.rc2.5.fc26.noarch
 python3-hawkey >= 0.7.1 is needed by python3-dnf-2.1.0-1.fc26.noarch
 system-python(abi) = 3.6 is needed by python3-dnf-2.1.0-1.fc26.noarch
 dnf-conf = 2.0.0-0.rc2.5.fc26 is needed by (installed) 
python2-dnf-2.0.0-0.rc2.5.fc26.noarch

When I search in koji, the latest version of python3-hawkey is
python3-hawkey-0.6.3-6.2.fc25.x86_64.rpm.  I can't find a
python3-hawkey for fc26 in koji.  How can this update ever succeed if
its dependencies can't be met?  And how did this update get built?

So, I forced the install of the new dnf using rpm.  And now I get the
following error when I try to run dnf:

# dnf
Traceback (most recent call last):
   File "/usr/bin/dnf", line 57, in 
 from dnf.cli import main
ImportError: No module named 'dnf'

Is BFO working for rawhide again?  The last time I tried to use it to
install rawhide, it just ignored the command and returned to the menu.
But that was around the time that f25 was splitting from rawhide.

As the other poster said, dnf is a very special component of fedora, so
it should be handled very carefully.
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

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

Re: Moan about dnf on Rawhide

2017-02-19 Thread stan 
On Sun, 19 Feb 2017 09:50:24 -0700
stan  wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 14:03:45 +0100
> GERHARD GOETZHABER  wrote:
> 
> > To make it clear:
> > 
> > 1. Just download dnf-2.1.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm and 
> > python3-dnf-2.1.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm from 
> > https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/packages/dnf/2.1.0/1.fc26/noarch/ 
> > (these two files only)
> > 
> > 2. # dnf install dnf-2.1.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm 
> > python3-dnf-2.1.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm --allowerasing
> >  (According dnf-automatic, dnf-conf and dnf-yum will get
> > installed within!)
> > 
> > All done - happy days are here again!  : )  
> 
> Not here.  I tried all kinds of variations of the above, and I keep
> getting errors.  Command 2 above gives these errors:

[snip]

> So, I forced the install of the new dnf using rpm.  And now I get the
> following error when I try to run dnf:
> 
> # dnf
> Traceback (most recent call last):
>   File "/usr/bin/dnf", line 57, in 
> from dnf.cli import main
> ImportError: No module named 'dnf'

I downgraded to the last version of dnf that uses the python 3.5 ABI,
and dnf works again, with occasional segfaults.  But it won't update
anything because there are too many conflicts with going to python
3.6.  How is this not python 4?  If the ABI changes so much between 3.5
and 3.6 that they are backward incompatible, then it isn't python3
any more.  What are the python developers thinking?

I ran a dnf --best update and there are 317 errors, and dnf skips
everything.  :-)  

Most of the errors are related to the 3.6 ABI update, and packages that
aren't upgraded yet.  They propagate back up the libsolv chain, and
prevent everything else from updating.

I suppose I'll be forced to --allowerasing if I want to do a dnf
update.  Or force install the dnf dependencies of the new 3.6 ABI so I
can then run dnf update and have it update everything else.

What a mess.  Maybe a new install of rawhide would be easier.
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Moan about dnf on Rawhide

2017-02-19 Thread Adam Williamson 
On Sun, 2017-02-19 at 07:05 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 02/19/2017 02:13 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Sat, 2017-02-18 at 05:43 +, Russel Winder wrote:
> > > This has been happening for a while now. Given that dnf is so critical
> > > to updating Rawhide I would not have expected this to be the case.
> > 
> > It was in fact fixed a while ago (as Viorel explained). But Rawhide
> > packages only appear in the repository after a successful Rawhide
> > compose,
> 
> Why?

Because that's how the process works. Basically, because signing and
mashing happen as part of the compose; the way Fedora repos work you
can't simply take the output of Koji and stuff it straight into the
repository. Apply to releng for more details.
-- 
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: Moan about dnf on Rawhide

2017-02-19 Thread stan 
On Sat, 18 Feb 2017 14:03:45 +0100
GERHARD GOETZHABER  wrote:

> To make it clear:
> 
> 1. Just download dnf-2.1.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm and 
> python3-dnf-2.1.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm from 
> https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/packages/dnf/2.1.0/1.fc26/noarch/ 
> (these two files only)
> 
> 2. # dnf install dnf-2.1.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm 
> python3-dnf-2.1.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm --allowerasing
>  (According dnf-automatic, dnf-conf and dnf-yum will get
> installed within!)
> 
> All done - happy days are here again!  : )

Not here.  I tried all kinds of variations of the above, and I keep
getting errors.  Command 2 above gives these errors:

# dnf
install ./dnf-2.1.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm ./python3-dnf-2.1.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm
--allowerasing Last metadata expiration check: 0:46:45 ago on Sun Feb
19 08:23:34 2017 MST. Error: Problem 1: conflicting requests
  - nothing provides dnf-conf = 2.1.0-1.fc26 needed by
python3-dnf-2.1.0-1.fc26.noarch Problem 2: package
dnf-2.1.0-1.fc26.noarch requires python3-dnf = 2.1.0-1.fc26, but none
of the providers can be installed
  - conflicting requests
  - nothing provides dnf-conf = 2.1.0-1.fc26 needed by
python3-dnf-2.1.0-1.fc26.noarch

When I fix that by putting in dnf-conf, it wants to remove 166
packages.  That doesn't seem reasonable; shouldn't those packages be
updated to allow them to update also?  I'd post the output, but dnf is
seg faulting every time now.

When I try to use rpm to Update dnf and python3-dnf, it errors out
with the following:

# rpm -U ./dnf-2.1.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm ./python3-dnf-2.1.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm 
./dnf-conf-2.1.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm
error: Failed dependencies:
dnf = 2.0.0-0.rc2.5.fc26 is needed by (installed) 
dnf-yum-2.0.0-0.rc2.5.fc26.noarch
python3-hawkey >= 0.7.1 is needed by python3-dnf-2.1.0-1.fc26.noarch
system-python(abi) = 3.6 is needed by python3-dnf-2.1.0-1.fc26.noarch
dnf-conf = 2.0.0-0.rc2.5.fc26 is needed by (installed) 
python2-dnf-2.0.0-0.rc2.5.fc26.noarch

When I search in koji, the latest version of python3-hawkey is
python3-hawkey-0.6.3-6.2.fc25.x86_64.rpm.  I can't find a
python3-hawkey for fc26 in koji.  How can this update ever succeed if
its dependencies can't be met?  And how did this update get built?

So, I forced the install of the new dnf using rpm.  And now I get the
following error when I try to run dnf:

# dnf
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/bin/dnf", line 57, in 
from dnf.cli import main
ImportError: No module named 'dnf'

Is BFO working for rawhide again?  The last time I tried to use it to
install rawhide, it just ignored the command and returned to the menu.
But that was around the time that f25 was splitting from rawhide.

As the other poster said, dnf is a very special component of fedora, so
it should be handled very carefully.
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Moan about dnf on Rawhide

2017-02-18 Thread Ralf Corsepius 

On 02/19/2017 02:13 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:

On Sat, 2017-02-18 at 05:43 +, Russel Winder wrote:

This has been happening for a while now. Given that dnf is so critical
to updating Rawhide I would not have expected this to be the case.


It was in fact fixed a while ago (as Viorel explained). But Rawhide
packages only appear in the repository after a successful Rawhide
compose,

Why?


and Rawhide compose has failed every day since 20170215, so no
packages built since then are in the repo; you have to get them from
kojipkgs until compose works again.


This is not helpful. It disables people/testers from testing, building 
and upgrading packages.


Ralf


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

Re: Moan about dnf on Rawhide

2017-02-18 Thread Adam Williamson 
On Sat, 2017-02-18 at 05:43 +, Russel Winder wrote:
> 2. The Rawhide integration tests should not have allowed this obviously
> breaking application into the distribution.

There are no Rawhide integration tests. This is something that a lot of
people are working on at present.
-- 
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: Moan about dnf on Rawhide

2017-02-18 Thread GERHARD GOETZHABER 

To make it clear:

1. Just download dnf-2.1.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm and 
python3-dnf-2.1.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm from 
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/packages/dnf/2.1.0/1.fc26/noarch/ 
(these two files only)


2. # dnf install dnf-2.1.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm 
python3-dnf-2.1.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm --allowerasing
(According dnf-automatic, dnf-conf and dnf-yum will get installed 
within!)


All done - happy days are here again!  : )


On 2/18/17 6:57 AM, Viorel Tabara wrote:

On Fri Feb 17 2017 22:43:55 GMT-0700 (MST) Russel Winder
 wrote:

[root@anglides ~]# dnf list kernel ArgumentError: argument
--obsoletes: conflicting option string: -- obsoletes [root@anglides
~]#
  
This has been happening for a while now. Given that dnf is so critical

to updating Rawhide I would not have expected this to be the case.

Upgrading to latest from Koji fixed it for me:

[root@omiday ~]# dnf list kernel
Last metadata expiration check: 1:34:19 ago on Fri Feb 17 21:21:08 2017 MST.
Installed Packages
kernel.x86_64  4.10.0-0.rc4.git2.1.fc26  @rawhide
kernel.x86_64  4.10.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc26  @rawhide
kernel.x86_64  4.10.0-0.rc7.git1.1.fc26  @rawhide
Available  Packages
kernel.x86_64  4.10.0-0.rc8.git0.1.fc26  rawhide

[root@omiday ~]# rpm -q dnf
dnf-2.1.0-1.fc26.noarch


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

Re: Moan about dnf on Rawhide

2017-02-17 Thread Viorel Tabara 
On Fri Feb 17 2017 22:43:55 GMT-0700 (MST) Russel Winder 
 wrote: 
> [root@anglides ~]# dnf list kernel ArgumentError: argument 
> --obsoletes: conflicting option string: -- obsoletes [root@anglides 
> ~]#  
>  
> This has been happening for a while now. Given that dnf is so critical 
> to updating Rawhide I would not have expected this to be the case. 

Upgrading to latest from Koji fixed it for me:

   [root@omiday ~]# dnf list kernel
   Last metadata expiration check: 1:34:19 ago on Fri Feb 17 21:21:08 2017 MST.
   Installed Packages
   kernel.x86_64  4.10.0-0.rc4.git2.1.fc26  @rawhide
   kernel.x86_64  4.10.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc26  @rawhide
   kernel.x86_64  4.10.0-0.rc7.git1.1.fc26  @rawhide
   Available  Packages
   kernel.x86_64  4.10.0-0.rc8.git0.1.fc26  rawhide

   [root@omiday ~]# rpm -q dnf
   dnf-2.1.0-1.fc26.noarch

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

Moan about dnf on Rawhide

2017-02-17 Thread Russel Winder 
[root@anglides ~]# dnf list kernel
ArgumentError: argument --obsoletes: conflicting option string: --
obsoletes
[root@anglides ~]# 

This has been happening for a while now. Given that dnf is so critical
to updating Rawhide I would not have expected this to be the case.

1. The dnf tests are clearly not catching enough cases, this should not
have been released by the dnf development team in the first place.

2. The Rawhide integration tests should not have allowed this obviously
breaking application into the distribution.

3. It should have been fixed as the single most urgent thing because of
the status of dnf as a unique program in Fedora.

Yes I know Rawhide is a dangerous place to be, but there is danger and
there is danger. My feeling is that dnf should be treated more
specially than it appears to be.

Cathartic rant done.

-- 
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