Summary - Broken dependencies in Fedora Everything 7 - 2007-06-02

Jesse Keating jkeating at
Sun Jun 3 13:32:41 UTC 2007

On Sunday 03 June 2007 09:09:43 Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> BTW, why wasn't this PPC64 problem found earlier? Wasn't repoclosure run
> for ppc64? Do we expect that to be a problem that only happens due to
> the new ppc64 tree or is there anything we should do to prevent similar
> stuff in the future?

This happened because Extras never built for ppc64, while Core did.  Merge and 
you get fun.  We noticed it once before, but it slipped our collective minds 
until after the merge happened and we started doing builds.  The only 
reasonable recourse then was to try and bootstrap as much of Extras on ppc64 
as possible and fix the remainders as we go forward.  It's not like the ppc64 
repos really get that much use, in fact until this release we never did a 
full ppc64 release tree.  There was rawhide but that was it.

> > Why wouldn't you just exclude for now instead of dropping the package all
> > together?  Work on the 242323 bug as best you can and once it's done
> > re-enable ppc64?
> Well, I could do that for devel, then the ppc64 version would vanish.
> But rebuilding something just to get rid of something never should have
> been build sounds crazy when those with access to the repo can do a
> simple "rm foo".
> It's devel in any case; waiting some days might be the best for now.

Since rawhide is composed automatically nightly, physically removing the ppc64 
package today would only result in it coming back tomorrow.  The proper 
solution is to add the ExcludeArch so that it won't get picked up in future 
composes until the problem is fixed.

Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list