Developments
In this section the people, personalities and debates on the @fedora-devel mailing list are summarized.
Contributing Writer: Oisin Feeley
Auto Upgrading YUM Not Worth It
A discussion over the possible ways to upgrade from Fedora 10 to Fedora 11 was started[1] by Gerry Reno when he asked why preupgrade
[2] from Fedora 10
only presented Rawhide
as an option and not Fedora 11 Alpha
.
A quick answer posted[3] by GianlucaSforna mentioned the technical difficulties of tracking the versions of packages included in the alpha release. Paul W. Frields was[4] concerned that anyone trying such an upgrade made sure to update rpm
before upgrading. This latter point spawned[5] a longish thread in which the possibility of making YUM
take care of checking to see whether a newer version of itself or rpm
is available.
Will Woods suggested[6] that running preupgrade
isntead of doing a `yum upgrade'
avoided all that confusion.
- ↑ http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-March/msg01145.html
- ↑ http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PreUpgrade
- ↑ http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-March/msg01147.html
- ↑ http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-March/msg01168.html
- ↑ http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-March/msg01185.html
- ↑ http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-March/msg01254.html
How to Update from Fedora 10 to Rawhide
When "nodata" reported[1] that an attempt to update rpm
resulted in errors and preupgrade
also failed he concluded[2] that the instructions[3] on the wiki were flawed.
Seth Vidal and Jesse Keating were[4] sure that "nodata" was not using the correct procedure which they stated as a two stage process with the first step being a:
yum update rpm
with the Fedora 10
repository enabled and then to enable the Rawhide
repository and do a general:
yum update
Unfortunately this seemed[5] to not work for "nodata" and Michael A. Young's suggestion[6] that a "[...] temporary issue with F10 having a more recent version of audit-libs than rawhide [...]" seemed like a promising lead. "Nodata" resolved[7] problem by using the rescue CD to do a "rpm -e --nodeps
" and then "rpm --rebuilddb
".
- ↑ http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-March/msg01227.html
- ↑ http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-March/msg01245.html
- ↑ http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_11_Beta_release_notes#RPM_issues
- ↑ http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-March/msg01250.html
- ↑ http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-March/msg01253.html
- ↑ http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-March/msg01266.html
- ↑ http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-March/msg01231.html
Fedora 11 Beta Slips by One Week
Jesse Keating announced[1] that Release Engineering, QA and maintainers had agreed that the beta release of Fedora 11
would slip by seven days due to several issues mostly related to the rewrite of anaconda
storage.
Finding the Source
A request was posted[1] for help in finding the Fedora
kernel sources by Joe Ovanesian. A quick pointer was given[2] by Tom Diehl:
# yum install yum-utils # yumdownloader --source package_name
Eric Sandeen wondered[3] if it might be better to use the upstream repositories and Joe explained[4] that his objective was to build a new kernel from source and use KGDB[5] to gain familiarity with the source. Todd Zullinger pointed[6] to a goldmine of information on the topic on the wiki[7].
- ↑ http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-March/msg01100.html
- ↑ http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-March/msg01101.html
- ↑ http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-March/msg01130.html
- ↑ http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-March/msg01151.html
- ↑ http://kgdb.linsyssoft.com/
- ↑ http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-March/msg01154.html
- ↑ http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Building_a_custom_kernel
Fedorahosted Releases
Jon Stanley posted[1] a quick note to say that he had made it easier to specify the upstream source URL in specfiles due to a change in fedorahosted.org
How to Open ACLs and Find Non-responsive Maintainers
A couple of related threads dealt with the need to deal with a package which lay dormant apparently due to maintainer inactivity.
Manuel Wolfshant had inquired[1] earlier in the week about the allowing the provenpackagers to fix the gdal
package. Jon Stanley promised[2] to re-add a ticket dealing with the issue to an upcoming FESCo meeting.
In a separate thread the latest Rawhide Report[3] led Kevin Kofler to ask[4] for an opening of the ACLs on gdal
[5] so that it could be fixed for multiple dependent packages. When Jesse Keating asked[6] Alex Lancaster if he started the non-responsive maintainer process the answer appeared[7] to be that it was Jesse himself. In an aside MilosJakubicek provided[8] links to the current process. Alex seemed[9] to demonstrate clearly that the maintainer was inactive.
- ↑ https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-March/msg00962.html
- ↑ https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-March/msg01035.html
- ↑ http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-March/msg01234.html
- ↑ http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-March/msg01268.html
- ↑ GDAL is a library to handle Geographic Information Systems data
- ↑ http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-March/msg01296.html
- ↑ http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-March/msg01301.html
- ↑ http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-March/msg01298.html
- ↑ http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-March/msg01303.html