On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 10:56:14AM +0000, Joe Orton wrote: > On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 12:37:53PM +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote: > > I don't think this calls for a mass rebuild or any kind of a rebuild > > actually, nor should it be rawhide only. AFAIU this doesn't affect > > runtime at all, only build time, and affected packages can be just > > fixed at the same time if they need an update in affected releases in > > the first place. > > The new rpmbuild cannot build an httpd which will satisfy dependencies > of current Fedora packages. The new rpmbuild will force us to break the > existing ABI dependency for httpd, breaking compatibility with existing > and third-party packages. And all that breakage is for zero gain, with > a bunch of engineering time wasted. > > This change is inappropriate for a F19/20 update IMO. Yes, we know the > deps are "wrong", but that was not hurting any Fedora users, and we've > fixed it properly for F21. > I think this depends on what rpm and yum are currently doing with the dependencies. As Panu says here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1065563#c1 if "-" is used in version or release then rpm and yum have to guess about what portion of hte string is the version and which is the release. If rpm/yum are doing the wrong thing in a large number of cases (there's several ways it could be "wrong" -- one portion of the stack is parsing it as Version: 20140215-x86 Release: 64 and another is parsing it as Version: 20140215 Release: x86-64; there's a manual version comparison somewhere that's looking for something like httpd-mmn >= 20140215 which always evaluates false because the Provides is evaluating to Version: 20140215-x86; etc) then it can be effectively argued that the provides themselves need to be fixed in the stable Fedora release. rpmbuild's refusal to build is simply a helpful tool for showing where these broken Provides are present. However, it could also be that over the course of time rpm and the software built on top of it has evolved to make the same guess about where to separate version-release in the ambiguous case. If that's the case then sure, rpm could continue to allow the broken behaviour in stable releases and only make the change in rawhide. I'd leave it to Panu and the rpm team to let us know which of those scenarios are true for the current code. -Toshio
Attachment:
pgpOOMWwtPSJ_.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
