Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Circular and missing dependecies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=689709
Summary: Circular and missing dependecies Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: NEW Severity: unspecified Priority: unspecified Component: perl-Perl-MinimumVersion AssignedTo: rc040203@freenet.de ReportedBy: mmaslano@redhat.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: redhatbugs@provocation.se, rc040203@freenet.de, fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com, ppisar@redhat.com, psabata@redhat.com Depends on: 688782 Classification: Fedora Clone Of: 688782
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=689709
--- Comment #1 from Marcela Mašláňová mmaslano@redhat.com 2011-03-22 07:17:58 EDT --- To sum it up, some Perl packages like Perl::Test::MinimumVersion couldn't be (re)built in new environment because of circular dependency. The question is, what to do with that (or if any action is necessary).
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=689709
--- Comment #2 from Zenon Panoussis redhatbugs@provocation.se 2011-03-22 07:24:46 EDT --- With regard to perl-Perl-MinimumVersion I would suggest that you just remove 'BuildRequires: perl(Test::MinimumVersion)' from the specfile.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=689709
--- Comment #3 from Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de 2011-03-22 07:38:39 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1)
To sum it up, some Perl packages like Perl::Test::MinimumVersion couldn't be (re)built in new environment because of circular dependency.
Correct - Fedora's perl is being built incrementally. Bootstrapping has never been a requirement.
The question is, what to do with that (or if any action is necessary).
Nothing, because such circular dependencies can stretch accross very long dependency chains and are a moving target (Perl deps vanish and popup all of the time).
If you want to do something systematically, we could add a %bcond_without boottrap conditional which would be supposed to switch-off known circular dependencies by if the person who is bootstrapping from scratch explictly demands.
Also note that this warning: t/99_pmv.t ........ skipped: Test::MinimumVersion 0.008
a) is a just a warning b) stems from a maintainer test (Ignorable).
Openly said, I am inclined to close this BZ as "WONTFIX".
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=689709
--- Comment #4 from Zenon Panoussis redhatbugs@provocation.se 2011-03-22 07:47:39 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3)
Also note that this warning: t/99_pmv.t ........ skipped: Test::MinimumVersion 0.008
a) is a just a warning b) stems from a maintainer test (Ignorable).
There is a hard BuildRequires in the specfile. You get the ignorable warning if you comment out the BuildRequires. If you try to build the SRPM as-is, you get a hard failure.
That's why I'm suggesting the removat of that BuildRequires, so as to allow the RPM to build with just the ignorable warning.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=689709
--- Comment #5 from Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de 2011-03-22 08:01:32 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4)
(In reply to comment #3)
Also note that this warning: t/99_pmv.t ........ skipped: Test::MinimumVersion 0.008
a) is a just a warning b) stems from a maintainer test (Ignorable).
There is a hard BuildRequires in the specfile. You get the ignorable warning if you comment out the BuildRequires. If you try to build the SRPM as-is, you get a hard failure.
That's why I'm suggesting the removat of that BuildRequires, so as to allow the RPM to build with just the ignorable warning.
Then let me ask differently: What are you trying to do?
Why are you rebuilding Fedora from scratch instead incrementally? Building from scratch is not supported - period.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=689709
--- Comment #6 from Zenon Panoussis redhatbugs@provocation.se 2011-03-22 08:34:09 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5)
Why are you rebuilding Fedora from scratch instead incrementally?
I am not; this is an EL6 bug, cloned to Fedora for the obvious reasons. In any case, I'm not sure what you mean by "incrementally". The interdependency is circular, so you'll run into it no matter which way you build.
Building from scratch is not supported - period.
Then please let me rephrase the bug:
1. perl-Perl-MinimumVersion contains a BuildRequires to perl-Test-MinimumVersion. 2. perl-Test-MinimumVersion is not necessary in order to build perl-Perl-MinimumVersion. 3. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRequires says "In package development and testing, please verify that your package is not missing any *necessary* build dependencies" (my emphasis).
Therefore the explicit "'BuildRequires: perl(Test::MinimumVersion)'" in perl-Perl-MinimumVersion.spec is wrong.
The same can be said about more of these packages.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=689709
--- Comment #7 from Marcela Mašláňová mmaslano@redhat.com 2011-03-22 08:44:09 EDT --- Imho if this should be fixed, then it should be fixed in Fedora first. I'm asking for opinion main owner of this package if there is need to work on it.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=689709
Paul Howarth paul@city-fan.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |paul@city-fan.org
--- Comment #8 from Paul Howarth paul@city-fan.org 2011-03-22 08:48:32 EDT --- FWIW, I like the bcond_without bootstrap idea, which should help out downstream rebuilders of EL releases in future (i.e. those that need to bootstrap).
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=689709
Iain Arnell iarnell@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |iarnell@gmail.com
--- Comment #9 from Iain Arnell iarnell@gmail.com 2011-03-22 08:57:58 EDT --- If we're voting, then +1 for bcond, but surely we'd want "bcond_with bootstrap", not bcond_without.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=689709
--- Comment #10 from Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de 2011-03-23 08:43:07 EDT --- (In reply to comment #7)
Imho if this should be fixed, then it should be fixed in Fedora first.
Wasn't I clear enough?
It's impossible to fix it, because perl is full of dynamic circular dependency chains.
In this particular case you can remove a dependency which is introduced by a more or less unimportant test, but in generality, it's naive to believe this was possible.
(In reply to comment #9)
If we're voting, then +1 for bcond, but surely we'd want "bcond_with bootstrap", not bcond_without.
I am insisting on bcond_without, because
our interest is Fedora, a distro which is incrementally built and want to test our packages "to the max" as part of our regular works whenever we build our packages.
i.e. people who are trying to bootstrap from scratch for whatever reasons, are not of any importance and need to be taught that Fedora is incrementally built. Apart of perl, they will be facing similar issue all over the place, e.g. when building gcc/glibc/kernel (also an incrementally built system).
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=689709
--- Comment #11 from Iain Arnell iarnell@gmail.com 2011-03-23 08:52:32 EDT --- (In reply to comment #10)
I am insisting on bcond_without, because
our interest is Fedora, a distro which is incrementally built and want to test our packages "to the max" as part of our regular works whenever we build our packages.
i.e. people who are trying to bootstrap from scratch for whatever reasons, are not of any importance and need to be taught that Fedora is incrementally built. Apart of perl, they will be facing similar issue all over the place, e.g. when building gcc/glibc/kernel (also an incrementally built system).
I agree entirely with the argument. Rebuilders who need this should be forced to add --with bootstrap. But the bcond magic to do that is bcond_with, not bcond_without:
# Handle conditional builds. %bcond_with is for case when feature is # default off and needs to be activated with --with ... command line # switch. %bcond_without is for the dual case. # # %bcond_with foo defines symbol with_foo if --with foo was specified on # command line. # %bcond_without foo defines symbol with_foo if --without foo was *not* # specified on command line.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=689709
--- Comment #12 from Zenon Panoussis redhatbugs@provocation.se 2011-03-23 12:42:32 EDT --- (In reply to comment #10)
our interest is Fedora, a distro which is incrementally built and want to test our packages "to the max" as part of our regular works whenever we build our packages.
Even so, RHEL depends to a great extent on Fedora for its packages, so it is a consideration to weigh in.
i.e. people who are trying to bootstrap from scratch for whatever reasons, are not of any importance and need to be taught that Fedora is incrementally built.
Leaving the arrogant insolence of that statement aside, your task here is not to teach people, but to improve Fedora (and indirectly RHEL). Hence, you need to look at the issue from a technical point of view, not a political one.
Apart of perl, they will be facing similar issue all over the place, e.g. when building gcc/glibc/kernel (also an incrementally built system).
Apples and oranges. Obviously you can't build a compiler unless you have a compiler, but many BuildRequires in this bug are *literally unnecessary*. That is, when package A builds correctly without package B, there should not be a 'BuildRequires: B' in the specfile of A.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=689709
--- Comment #13 from Paul Howarth paul@city-fan.org 2011-06-17 04:38:28 EDT --- Ralf, is there some reason why you're holding off updating Perl::MinimumVersion to 1.28?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=689709
--- Comment #14 from Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de 2011-06-17 05:20:19 EDT --- (In reply to comment #13)
Ralf, is there some reason why you're holding off updating Perl::MinimumVersion to 1.28?
No, it's dropped off the radar, after it had quite some amount of troubles when I had tried to upgrade it back in March.
I'll try to upgrade, ASAP (probably later today).
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=689709
--- Comment #15 from Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de 2011-06-17 07:20:46 EDT --- Done for rawhide.
f15 is stuck in QA's delay queue. f14 can't be built, before Fedora's QA's delay queue doesn't give freedom to another package this perl-Perl-MinimumVersion depends upon. .
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=689709
--- Comment #16 from Paul Howarth paul@city-fan.org 2011-06-17 07:28:14 EDT --- (In reply to comment #15)
f14 can't be built, before Fedora's QA's delay queue doesn't give freedom to another package this perl-Perl-MinimumVersion depends upon.
Perhaps you could try out the new Buildroot Overrides facility in Bodhi to overcome that?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=689709
--- Comment #17 from Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de 2011-06-17 07:33:03 EDT --- No idea what you are talking about - I feel sufficiently pissed off by Fedora QA's inventions, I am having an increasing desire to see them fired.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=689709
--- Comment #18 from Petr Sabata psabata@redhat.com 2011-06-17 07:39:07 EDT --- (In reply to comment #17)
No idea what you are talking about
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-June/152347.html
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=689709
--- Comment #19 from Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de 2011-06-17 07:46:42 EDT --- Will not do so, in protest against this infantile idiocy:
* Make update notes mandatory (fesco#457)
Shall Fedora user be exposed to the risks Fedora QA's is resonsible for - They want it, they get it.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=689709
Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED CC| |tcallawa@redhat.com Resolution| |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2011-10-02 05:57:21
--- Comment #20 from Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com 2011-10-02 05:57:21 EDT --- This issue is resolved in rawhide.
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla