On 07/06/2013 10:55 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 06 Jul 2013 13:31:48 +0300
Panu Matilainen <pmatilai@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Something is broken wrt f19 updates and updates-testing repo
metadata, note the required glibc version between the rpm version in
main repo vs updates-testing:
[root@mursu ~]# repoquery --releasever=19
--enablerepo=updates-testing --requires
rpm-build-4.11.0.1-2.fc19.x86_64|grep ^libc.so
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.17)(64bit) [root@mursu ~]# repoquery
--releasever=19 --enablerepo=updates-testing --requires
rpm-build-4.11.1-1.fc19.x86_64|grep ^libc.so
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.8)(64bit) [root@mursu ~]#
rpm-build-4.11.1-1.fc19 from updates-testing does require much newer
glibc than 2.8 though, just like 4.11.0.1 does:
[root@mursu packages]# rpm -qp --requires
rpm-build-4.11.1-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm |grep ^libc.so
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.14)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.17)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.8)(64bit)
[root@mursu packages]#
This isn't specific to that rpm package either, NONE of the packages
in current updates or updates-testing require glibc version > 2.9,
which really cannot be true:
[root@mursu packages]# repoquery --releasever=19 --disablerepo="*"
--enablerepo=updates --requires -a|grep ^libc.so|sort -u
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.2)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.2)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.5)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.5)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.6)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.7)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.7)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.8)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.8)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.9)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.9)(64bit)
[root@mursu packages]# repoquery --releasever=19 --disablerepo="*"
--enablerepo=updates-testing --requires -a|grep ^libc.so|sort -u
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.2)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.2)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.7)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.7)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.8)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.8)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.9)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.9)(64bit)
[root@mursu packages]#
The main f19 repodata seems ok though, and I wasn't able to reproduce
this locally so perhaps it has something to do with the way the f19
update-repositories metadata is created/updated rather than
createrepo bug wrt glibc collapsing, but dunno. Also f18 update-repos
dont seem to be affected, the libc.so requires there seem sane to me.
repoquery --enablerepo updates-testing --requires
rpm-build-4.11.0.1-2.fc19.x86_64|grep libc.so
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.17)(64bit)
is what i get.
So do I, but that's the version from the main f19 repository which like
said, is not affected. This is the one from updates-testing (note
4.11.0.1 vs 4.11.1):
[root@mursu ~]# repoquery --releasever=19 --enablerepo=updates-testing
--requires rpm-4.11.1-1.fc19.x86_64|grep ^libc.so
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit)
- Panu -
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
