On Fri, 2012-02-17 at 13:18 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Fri, 2012-02-17 at 22:14 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:07:44 -0800, AW (Adam) wrote: > > > > > > As mentioned before, "Show Plymouth boot screen" mentioned "FAILED". > > > > It asked me to check > > > > > > I've seen that fail in all my test installs, but it hasn't actually > > > prevented boot. > > > > Package "plymouth" was not installed here. Huh? > > > > That also breaks plymouth-scripts: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/794894 > > > > After installing "plymouth", I got the boot animation _and_ the LUKS > > passphrase prompt! > > Heh. Well, that would explain it. > > It does seem like nothing compels the installation of plymouth. plymouth > itself is not listed in comps, only: > > comps-f17.xml.in: <packagereq type="default">plymouth-system-theme</packagereq> > > but plymouth-system-theme doesn't require plymouth, directly or > indirectly. The only things that *do* require plymouth are > plymouth-devel and sugar-logos. > > I'll have to look at F16 and see what changed there... Ah. So the difference appears to be that dracut in F16 requires plymouth, while dracut in F17 does not. This appears to be the change in dracut: http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=dracut.git;a=commitdiff;h=6adbc8b2385f395f211937b707b0c0c321179e3f which changes it from requiring a particular plymouth version to conflicting with any older plymouth version. I'm not sure if we need to re-add an explicit dependency on plymouth in dracut, or add a dependency elsewhere, or add plymouth to comps. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
