I keep getting these warnings:
On Sun, 2016-09-04 at 08:19 +0000, buildsys(a)fedoraproject.org wrote:
> gnome-nibbles has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree:
> On x86_64:
> gnome-nibbles-3.21.90-1.fc26.x86_64 requires libgnome-games-
> On i386:
> gnome-nibbles-3.21.90-1.fc26.i686 requires libgnome-games-
> On armhfp:
> gnome-nibbles-3.21.90-1.fc26.armv7hl requires libgnome-games-
> Please resolve this as soon as possible.
But gnome-nibbles-3.21.91-1.fc26, which fixes this issue, was built
successfully in koji on Friday.
I have a small VPS running fedora server and postfix. Most of the time,
when I restart the server, postfix doesn't start because it is
disabled. So each time I have to start and re-enable it. I suspected a
problem with updates. There was a postfix update this week and this
time I thought to check right away with systemctl status postfix. As I
expected, postfix was running but was disabled.
I had a quite look at the SPEC file and I saw nothing that would
explain this. What I find particularly strange about this is that I've
already updated many services managed by systemd (postgresql, mysql, …)
and they don't get disabled after an update.
Does anyone also has this issue or an idea on how I can solve it? I'd
like to receive may mail right away after I restart my server.
On 09/02/2016 12:54 PM, Robbie Harwood wrote:
> Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com> writes:
>> On 09/02/2016 07:14 AM, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
>>> * Weird obsoletes (broken)
>>> "krb5-server" has "Obsoletes: krb5-server-1.14.3-8.fc26.i686".
>>> Basically it will not obsolete anything because it's threated as
>>> package name (and we definitely don't have such package name).
>> This definitely looks odd... Robbie?
> This is part of something I was requested to add (from the RHEL
> packaging where we have lines like `Obsoletes:
> krb5-server-1.11.3-49.el7.i686`, added by a previous maintainer) wherein
> the 64-bit versions of packages need to obsolete the 32-bit versions
> because we run into problems if both are installed.
> If what's in the spec file is not the correct way to accomplish that,
> what is? I am unable to find documentation for any of this.
Is that because some machines at one point did have both installed? That's kind
of a mess. I'd recommend taking that discussion to
packaging(a)lists.fedoraproject.org and see what they recommend.