On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 at 13:00, Troy Dawson <tdawson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Here are the list of packages with bad dependencies, their bug URL, > and current status. > For those that still have "No Comment" tomorrow, I will start going > through and fixing. > For those that want to be removed, I'll be doing that tomorrow as well. > Thanks. We 'approved' this at the meeting today so go ahead. Thank you very much for the work. And I agree with your assessments on package that might need removal if needed. > airinv https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647583 > - Rebuilt - On QA > anjuta https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1648003 > - Rebuilt - On QA > banshee https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647999 > - No Comment > beets https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647995 > - Wants Removed > bionetgen https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647989 > - Rebuilt - On QA > cinnamon https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647181 > - Want Removed > cjdns-graph https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647987 > - Rebuilt - On QA > jabber-roster https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647977 > - No Comment > libpeas-loader-python3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647973 > - No Comment > notify-sharp3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647623 > - No Comment > opensips https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647622 > - No Comment > perl-GTop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647620 > - Rebuilt - On QA > python-atomic-reactor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647613 > - Wants Removed > python-django16 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647611 > - Rebuilt - On QA > python-proliantutils https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647614 > - No Comment > python-adal https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647605 > - Assigned > python-pyfakefs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647603 > - No Comment > python-pygithub https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647602 > - No Comment > python-yamlordereddictloader https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647597 > - No Comment > ruby-qpid https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647592 > - No Comment (I recommend removal) > rubygem-apipie-bindings https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647585 > - Wants Removed > simcrs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647584 > - Rebuilt - On QA > slim https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647581 > - No Comment > xfce4-vala https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647569 > - Rebuilt - On QA > On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 1:35 PM Troy Dawson <tdawson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 12:56 PM Troy Dawson <tdawson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > I'm going through the lists of EPEL7 packages that are not able to be > > > installed on RHEL 7.6, and opening bugzilla's for them. I am keeping > > > track of all those bugs with a tracker bug.[1] > > > My apologies to the epel-release maintainers for using their package > > > for the tracker. > > > > > > I've only created 6 bugs thus far, and only 1 of those bugs is because > > > of RHEL 7.6. > > > Because I'm verifying each failed install, and tracking down the basic > > > problem, it's taking me a little longer. It might take a couple of > > > days. > > > I'll send an email when I'm done. > > > > > > Troy > > > > > > [1] - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647564 > > > > I'm pretty much done for now. > > I didn't do any nodejs or golang bugs because all of their failing > > dependencies are in EPEL, not RHEL. Or perhaps I should say they > > *aren't* in EPEL :) > > > > A few numbers > > > > bugs created for uninstallable EPEL7 packages - 24 > > nodejs uninstallable packages - 11 > > golang uninstallable packages - 18 > > > > Total EPEL7 binary packages[2] - 12,547 > > ^^ Above installable on RHEL 7.6 - 12,043 > > ^^ Above not installable on RHEL 7.6 - 504 > > > > Why such a big difference between 504 uninstallable binary packages, > > but only 53 potential bugs? > > 1 - bugs are against source packages. The bottom checks are against > > binary packages. My guess is that the 50 bugs cover about 150 binary > > packages because each source can have more than one package. And when > > I was looking at the packages, it looked like about an average of > > three binaries per source. > > 2 - repoquery (used to generate the bug list) went to the heart of the > > problems. So if package A is uninstallable, and package B depends on > > A. We don't file a bug for package B, only A. For some of those > > nodejs packages, I've seen one package A with a bad dependency, cause > > 25 to 50 package B's, who aren't installable due to A not being > > installable. > > 3 - It's possible that we might have missed a few packages. > > > > Troy > > > > [2] - "binary packages" are the packages that you get build an rpm. > > It doesn't mean the package contain *only* binaries, because it might > > be an rpm full of scripts, or just documentation. > _______________________________________________ > epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > 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/epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Stephen J Smoogen. _______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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/epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
