On 9/1/20 12:29 PM, Tony Asleson wrote: > On 9/1/20 12:10 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote: >> On 01. 09. 20 15:39, Tony Asleson wrote: >>> A few weeks ago the package pywbem was updated to latest upstream >>> release and exists in rawhide repo. >>> >>> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-1f878bb809 >>> >>> The package fails to install because of newly added dependencies that >>> were introduced upstream. >>> >>> So previous working package was >>> >>> python3-pywbem-0.14.6-4.fc34.noarch >>> >>> >>> failing to install and wouldn't work if it did >>> >>> python3-pywbem-1.0.1-1.fc34.noarch.rpm >>> >>> >>> From looking at docs it would appear that utilizing epoch is the answer >>> and I have that ready to go, ref. >>> >>> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pywbem/pull-request/5 . >>> >>> My question is would it be acceptable to remove the broken package from >>> koji and bump and rebuild the previous working version as no one was >>> able to install it anyway? >> >> We cannot remove the package from Koji, but yes -- when you do a new >> build with higher release than the latest installbale package, you don't >> need to bump (introduce) the epoch. > > OK, I'll strip the epoch and give it a try. I tried this and it's not looking good at the moment. The automated tests are reporting some failures which I believe indicate versioning is a problem. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-afae078032 Maybe I'm not understanding your response correctly, but I'm still thinking I need to introduce epoch into the spec file to get dnf and other tools to figure the versioning out. -Tony _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
