Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459540 --- Comment #19 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-10-24 08:00:35 EDT --- Well, about today's F-8 broken dependency for mediawiki-imagemap I tried to mail to Ismael but it is rejected (mail returned). Would you know why? So for now I write here about how to fix it. Hello, Ismael: As you know today Michael Schwendt reported that the dependency of mediawiki-imagemap is broken on F-8 ppc64 [1] as: ------------------------------------------------- mediawiki-imagemap-0-0.1.r37906.fc8.noarch requires mediawiki >= 0:1.13 ------------------------------------------------- This is because on F-8 mediawiki does not support ppc64 at all [2] (while on F-9+ mediawiki also supports ppc64). So your last change to make dependency on mediawiki unversioned like: ------------------------------------------------- -Requires: mediawiki >= 1.13 +Requires: mediawiki ------------------------------------------------- does not work. In this case you should use "ExcludeArch" like ------------------------------------------------- BuildArch: noarch %if 0%{?fedora} == 8 ExcludeArch: ppc64 %endif Requires: mediawiki >= 1.13 ------------------------------------------------- This may seem strange because mediawiki-imagemap itself is noarch, however Fedora package server treats this correctly, so this method is valid [3] Also, please make it sure that F-8 package has EVR (Epoch-Version-Release) not larger than F-9, F-10. Currently F-9 mediawiki-imagemap has $ koji latest-pkg dist-f9-updates mediawiki-imagemap Build Tag Built by ---------------------------------------- -------------------- ---------------- mediawiki-imagemap-0-0.1.r37906.fc9 dist-f9-updates olea so F-8 mediawiki-imagemap must not have "0-0.2.xxxxx" as EVR (0-0.2.rXXXX.fc8 > 0-0.1.rXXXX.fc9). In this case you can use "0.1.r37906%{?dist}.1" for release number (see [4] ). By the way as F-8 support is near end, while it is preferable that you fix the spec file and build a new srpm for dist-f8-updates-candidate, I don't think that pushing this (submitting push request on bodhi) for F-8 branch only to fix dependency problem for ppc64 is needed. (see: [5] ) [1] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-October/msg02277.html [2] http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=65333 [3] http://www.redhat.com/archives/rhl-devel-list/2007-October/msg00265.html [4] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Minor_release_bumps_for_old_branches [5] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-October/msg02280.html -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review