preupgrade attempt from f11 box to rawhide?

[Adam Williamson]

On Mon, 2009-11-09 at 23:02 +1100, David Timms wrote:
> On 11/09/2009 08:28 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > upgrading via yum is not really supported - preupgrade is preferred -
> I am seeing the same issue with preupgrade (tigervnc-f12 !> tingervnc-f11):
> =====
> ...
> treeinfo timestamp: Sun Nov  8 00:10:34 2009
> 
> akmod-VirtualBox-OSE-3.0.8-1.fc12.i686 from 
> preupgrade-rpmfusion-free-rawhide has depsolving problems
>    --> Missing Dependency: VirtualBox-OSE-kmodsrc = 3.0.8 is needed by 
> package akmod-VirtualBox-OSE-3.0.8-1.fc12.i686 
> (preupgrade-rpmfusion-free-rawhide)
> tigervnc-server-1.0.0-2.fc11.i586 from installed has depsolving problems
>    --> Missing Dependency: libssl.so.8 is needed by package 
> tigervnc-server-1.0.0-2.fc11.i586 (installed)
> tigervnc-server-1.0.0-2.fc11.i586 from installed has depsolving problems
>    --> Missing Dependency: libcrypto.so.8 is needed by package 
> tigervnc-server-1.0.0-2.fc11.i586 (installed)
> 
> Downloading 954.6MB
> Available disk space for /var/cache/yum/preupgrade: 2.5GB
> Setting up and reading Presto delta metadata
> unknown metadata being downloaded: 7bc38af3d93975224acb85cd842
> ...
> =====
> # yum --enablerepo=rawhide update tiger\*
> Loaded plugins: allowdowngrade, downloadonly, presto, refresh-packagekit
> Setting up Update Process
> No Packages marked for Update
> =====
> yum --enablerepo=rawhide list tiger\*
> Loaded plugins: allowdowngrade, downloadonly, presto, refresh-packagekit
> Installed Packages
> tigervnc.i586                1.0.0-2.fc11  @updates
> tigervnc-server.i586         1.0.0-2.fc11  @updates
> Available Packages
> tiger.i586                   3.2.1-10.fc11 fedora
> tiger.i686                   3.2.1-11.fc12 rawhide
> tigervnc.i686                1.0.0-1.fc12  rawhide
> tigervnc-server.i686         1.0.0-1.fc12  rawhide
> tigervnc-server-module.i686  1.0.0-1.fc12  rawhide
> tigervnc-server-module.i586  1.0.0-2.fc11  updates
> =====
> $ rpmdev-vercmp 1.0.0-2.fc11 1.0.0-1.fc12
> 0:1.0.0-2.fc11 is newer
> 
> So, it appears that either the release must get a bumped to at least -2 
> version, or we are going to need a release note to try to explain our 
> way out of this one ?

File a bug against tigervnc, we'll need them to push a 0-day update.

-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net