Fwd: How to prevent uploads of broken packages

Wed Aug 30 14:13:10 UTC 2006

Axel Liljencrantz wrote:
> On 8/30/06, Paul Howarth <paul at city-fan.org> wrote:
>> Axel Liljencrantz wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > On 8/29/06, Paul Howarth <paul at city-fan.org> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 2006-08-29 at 20:43 +0200, Axel Liljencrantz wrote:
>> >> > Hi,
>> >> >
>> >> > The evolution and gnome-panel packages for Fedora have had broken
>> >> > dependencies causing them to be impossible to update for almost 3
>> >> > months.
>> >>
>> >> Which Fedora release are you using, which versions of these 
>> packages do
>> >> you have installed, and what happens when you do "yum update"?
>> >
>> > I neglected to include that information because before writing my
>> > original email, I did a search and found that this exact problem
>> > reported to this list on June 5 of this year (see
>> > http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2006-June/msg00548.html).
>> > Sorry if I jumped to the wrong conclusions in assuming this was the
>> > same problem, still unfixed. Anyway, this was confirmed as a package
>> > bug in that thread. I just tried an update now, with the same results
>> > as in that message but with different version numbers:
>> >
>> > root at hellboy /h/axel> yum update
>> > Setting up Update Process
>> > Setting up repositories
>> > core                                                                 
>> [1/4]
>> > 
>> ftp://redhat.taygeta.com/pub/RedHat/fedora/core/5/i386/os/repodata/repomd.xml: 
>>
>> >
>> > [Errno 4] IOError: [Errno ftp error] timed out
>> > Trying other mirror.
>> > core                      100% |=========================| 1.1 kB    
>> 00:00
>> > updates                                                              
>> [2/4]
>> > updates                   100% |=========================| 1.2 kB    
>> 00:00
>> > freshrpms                                                            
>> [3/4]
>> > freshrpms                 100% |=========================|  951 B    
>> 00:00
>> > extras                                                               
>> [4/4]
>> > extras                    100% |=========================| 1.1 kB    
>> 00:00
>> > Reading repository metadata in from local files
>> > Resolving Dependencies
>> > --> Populating transaction set with selected packages. Please wait.
>> > ---> Package evolution-sharp.i386 0:0.10.2-9.5 set to be updated
>> > ---> Package gnome-panel.i386 0:2.14.3-1.fc5 set to be updated
>> > ---> Package gnome-panel-devel.i386 0:2.14.3-1.fc5 set to be updated
>> > ---> Package evolution.i386 0:2.6.3-1.fc5.5 set to be updated
>> > --> Running transaction check
>> > --> Processing Dependency: libecal-1.2.so.6 for package: 
>> evolution-sharp
>> > --> Processing Dependency: libecal-1.2.so.6 for package: evolution
>> > --> Processing Dependency: libecal-1.2.so.6 for package: gnome-panel
>> > --> Processing Dependency: libegroupwise-1.2.so.10 for package: 
>> evolution
>> > --> Finished Dependency Resolution
>> > Error: Missing Dependency: libecal-1.2.so.6 is needed by package
>> > evolution-sharp
>> > Error: Missing Dependency: libecal-1.2.so.6 is needed by package 
>> evolution
>> > Error: Missing Dependency: libecal-1.2.so.6 is needed by package
>> > gnome-panel
>> > Error: Missing Dependency: libegroupwise-1.2.so.10 is needed by
>> > package evolution
>> >
>> > I assumed that since at that time it was confirmed as a bug in the
>> > package, and since the error message looks identical, that this was
>> > the same bugl. If this is a new bug, then I am sorry about the
>> > confusion and wish to report this as a brand new bug. I am using an
>> > (otherwise) fully patched FC5, just like the original reporter.
>>
>> libecal-1.2.so.6 and libegroupwise-1.2.so.10 should be provided by
>> evolution-data-server-1.6.3-1.fc5.2, which is available in the updates
>> repository.
>>
>> What version of evolution-data-server do you have installed?
> 
> root at hellboy /h/axel> rpm -qi evolution-data-server
> Name        : evolution-data-server        Relocations: (not relocatable)
> Version     : 1.7.2                             Vendor: Red Hat, Inc.
> Release     : 1                             Build Date: Wed 17 May
> 2006 06:26:09 PM CEST
> Install Date: Thu 08 Jun 2006 12:57:45 AM CEST      Build Host:
> hs20-bc1-5.build.redhat.com
> Group       : System Environment/Libraries   Source RPM:
> evolution-data-server-1.7.2-1.src.rpm
> Size        : 12198405                         License: LGPL
> [...]
> 
> So I have a newer relese of e-d-s than what is in the repositories,
> and it was released by RH. My guess would be that a newer e-d-s
> version was released, and then pulled because it contained bugs, but
> no-one remebered to increase the epoch number in the replacement
> package to make sure those poor users (like me) who installed the
> b0rked version would get the update. Or something like that.
> 
> If that is the case, then this particular problem could actually be
> fixed by yum if it was smart enough to notice that by downgrading one
> package to the most recent version in the repo, then all upgrades
> could be performed.

I believe smart package manager will do that.

I wonder how that version of e-d-s got installed. The package you have 
appears to be one that was in the development repo from 18th May or so.

Can you post the output of:

$ rpm -q --qf '%{SIGGPG}\n' evolution-data-server | awk '{print 
substr($0,27,8)}'

$ rpm -qi gpg-pubkey-$(rpm -q --qf '%{SIGGPG}\n' evolution-data-server | 
awk '{print substr($0,27,8)}')

$ fgrep 'Jun 08' /var/log/yum.log

>> > Since at least the original bug was caused by the upload of a package
>> > that had incorrect dependencies, I resubmit that the package building
>> > process could be improved to better check that a new batch of packages
>> > only depend on themselves and packages already in fedora.
>>
>> That would be good, yes, and it's quite possible. It would prevent
>> things like the libparted-1.6.so.14 dependency issue that happened
>> earlier today.
> 
> Is there something non-redhat people like me could do to make this
> happen sooner rather than later?

You could try raising it in bugzilla or fedora-devel-list perhaps.

Paul.