On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 04:47:19PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 14:40:20 +0200, Till wrote: > > > > It's fairly easy to verify other broken deps, too: > > > http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/compat-db-4.7.25-3.fc13 > > > > For me it is not that easy, because the information is confusion (or not > > clearly arranged) or not directly accessible, e.g. to understand the > > compat-db problems one needs to look at the koji page for the list of > > built rpms. > > Hmmm ... most of the broken deps are of the form > > something requires something-unavailable > > where "something-unavailable" either has never existed before or is gone > because of an update. > > One could attempt at writing code to automate checks that help with > interpreting other results in the broken deps report. > > 1) Is "something" the newest (EVR)? If not, it would be an old multiarch > package that is no longer multiarch. (Else, the repositories are broken > and a later build of "something" is missing.) [1] > > 2) If "something-unavailable" is of the form "key = value", does anything > still provide "key"? If so, show latest EVR, and "something" will need an > update, or is a missing obsolete, or is an old multiarch build that is > missing a multiarch update. > > 3) If "something-unavailable" is a SONAME, try to find a similar SONAME > and inform the library packager. This is not 100%, but is done already > as in the Rawhide broken deps report. For the non F13 repos: 4) something is retired, if it is renamed or merged into something else, obsoletes are missing, else it is not a problem afaik. In case something is retired, the script could e.g. show the contents of the respective dead.package. 5) if something is not retired, there is a upgrade path problem that should be fixed before it's called broken deps. Additionally the script could also tell if an affected package has been orphaned to show that nobody is taking care of it and maybe whether there is a newer version in CVS and whether it is built. This and maybe even more needs to be done manually anyhow. > | Broken packages in fedora-updates-13-i386: > | > | compat-db-4.7.25-3.fc13.i686 requires compat-db46(x86-32) = 0:4.6.21-3.fc13 > | compat-db-4.7.25-3.fc13.i686 requires compat-db45(x86-32) = 0:4.5.20-3.fc13 > > > So here the release of compat-db needs to be increased to > > 11 in F13? > > -12.fc13, because compat-db45 and compat-db46 for F12 updates are -11.fc12 > and newer than -3.fc13 Unless I am not spotting something special here, but 11.fc13 is newer than 11.fc12 and therefore 11 seems to be good enough. I opened a bug report about it: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=611267 Regards Till
Attachment:
pgpaRtHmEW7iP.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
