https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1302131
--- Comment #13 from Dennis W. Tokarski <dwt(a)poltec.com> ---
(In reply to Roland Grunberg from comment #11)
Sorry for the delay, but this is quite strange to see.
The thing that stood out even more than the arduino.core failure are the
org.eclipse.platform.ide failures :
!MESSAGE Unable to satisfy dependency from org.eclipse.platform.ide
4.5.1.v20160106-1000 to a.jre.javase [1.6.0].
As far as I know this happens with a corrupted Eclipse but if 'rpm -qV
eclipse-platform' is quiet then this can't be the case. Is your
'/etc/eclipse.ini' the same for both your host and VM ? Could you also try
the following : 'find /usr/lib*/eclipse/ | xargs rpm -qf | sort -u'. This
might take some time but I'm interested to see if the result contains
anything of the form 'file $FILEPATH is not owned by any package'.
I'm able to reproduce the error by doing some things that Fedora Eclipse has
explicitly prevented for a while.
/etc/eclipse.ini is the same on the VM and the host.
The search for orphaned files on the VM turns up nothing:
[root@raid-lvm-scratch Desktop]# find /usr/lib*/eclipse/ | xargs rpm -qf |
sort -u
eclipse-cdt-8.8.0-6.fc23.x86_64
eclipse-cdt-arduino-8.8.0-6.fc23.x86_64
eclipse-ecf-core-3.12.0-1.fc23.x86_64
eclipse-emf-core-2.11.1-1.fc23.x86_64
eclipse-equinox-osgi-4.5.1-7.fc23.x86_64
eclipse-filesystem-1.0-5.fc23.x86_64
eclipse-platform-4.5.1-7.fc23.x86_64
eclipse-swt-4.5.1-7.fc23.x86_64
On the host I get this:
eclipse-cdt-8.8.0-6.fc23.x86_64
eclipse-cdt-arduino-8.8.0-6.fc23.x86_64
eclipse-ecf-core-3.12.0-1.fc23.x86_64
eclipse-emf-core-2.11.1-1.fc23.x86_64
eclipse-equinox-osgi-4.5.1-7.fc23.x86_64
eclipse-filesystem-1.0-5.fc23.x86_64
eclipse-platform-4.5.1-7.fc23.x86_64
eclipse-swt-4.5.1-7.fc23.x86_64
file /usr/lib64/eclipse/dropins/cdt-arduino/features is not owned by any
package
file
/usr/lib64/eclipse/dropins/cdt-arduino/features/org.eclipse.cdt.arduino_8.8.0.201510090737/epl-v10.html
is not owned by any package
file
/usr/lib64/eclipse/dropins/cdt-arduino/features/org.eclipse.cdt.arduino_8.8.0.201510090737/feature.properties
is not owned by any package
file
/usr/lib64/eclipse/dropins/cdt-arduino/features/org.eclipse.cdt.arduino_8.8.0.201510090737/feature.xml
is not owned by any package
file
/usr/lib64/eclipse/dropins/cdt-arduino/features/org.eclipse.cdt.arduino_8.8.0.201510090737
is not owned by any package
file
/usr/lib64/eclipse/dropins/cdt-arduino/features/org.eclipse.cdt.arduino_8.8.0.201510090737/license.html
is not owned by any package
file
/usr/lib64/eclipse/dropins/cdt-arduino/features/org.eclipse.cdt.arduino_8.8.0.201510090737/META-INF
is not owned by any package
file
/usr/lib64/eclipse/dropins/cdt-arduino/features/org.eclipse.cdt.arduino_8.8.0.201510090737/META-INF/MANIFEST.MF
is not owned by any package
file /usr/lib64/eclipse/dropins/cdt-arduino/plugins is not owned by any package
file
/usr/lib64/eclipse/dropins/cdt-arduino/plugins/org.eclipse.cdt.arduino.core_1.0.0.201510090737.jar
is not owned by any package
file
/usr/lib64/eclipse/dropins/cdt-arduino/plugins/org.eclipse.cdt.arduino.ui_1.0.0.201510090737.jar
is not owned by any package
Interesting. Those orphaned features and plugins directories are from
the earlier and older eclipse-cdt-arduino which was installed from the repos
way back when.
Here's what I think must have happened...recall I earlier mentioned moving some
of those directories around to see if the original package had just dropped
them
in the wrong place. No joy, so later I moved them back where they belonged and
removed eclipse-cdt-arduino. But I must have moved those directories back to
the
wrong place--they should have been under the cdt-arduino/eclipse directory. yum
and
rpm will both complain if files they need to remove are already missing, but I
must have missed that. Afterward, of course, rpm will confirm the package is
not
installed so I was happy. But those subdirectories got incorrectly left in
place.
And that, it seems, was all it took to create the problem once the original
package was fixed.
I think this definitively solves my original problem.
However, you noted some log messages you said appeared wrong in comment #11.
That same example you gave plus numerous others still occur on both my host
and VM. I will attach both logs.
If this is really a separate issue and you want to pursue it, I'm happy to
experiment for you. Possibly one of us should open a separate bug report?
Thanks, Roland!
--Dennis
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.