Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

repo_checker: resolve installcheck/fileconflict issues in Factory rings #1012

Closed
jberry-suse opened this issue Jul 18, 2017 · 14 comments
Closed

repo_checker: resolve installcheck/fileconflict issues in Factory rings #1012

jberry-suse opened this issue Jul 18, 2017 · 14 comments
Assignees

Comments

@jberry-suse
Copy link
Contributor

@jberry-suse jberry-suse commented Jul 18, 2017

Relevant issues

Meta issue to track bugs and submit requests.

@jberry-suse

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@jberry-suse jberry-suse commented Jul 18, 2017

@jberry-suse

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@jberry-suse jberry-suse commented Jul 18, 2017

dummy-release conflict with openSUSE-Kubic-release

@jberry-suse

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@jberry-suse jberry-suse commented Jul 18, 2017

installation-images all subpackages

@jberry-suse

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@jberry-suse jberry-suse commented Jul 18, 2017

Looks like primarily:

found conflict of libopenssl-1_0_0-devel-32bit-1.0.2l-2.2.x86_64 with libopenssl-1_1_0-devel-32bit-1.1.0f-1.3.x86_64:
  - /usr/lib/libcrypto.so
  - /usr/lib/libssl.so

and

found conflict of openSUSE-Kubic-release-20170704-2.1.x86_64 with openSUSE-release-20170704-3.1.x86_64:
  - /etc/motd
  - /etc/os-release

installation-images resolves most of them.

@DimStar77 What's the best way to solve the *-release ones? I already fix dummy-release, but they should all probably just provide a "release" virtual package and conflict with other providers. Do you have a preference?

@jberry-suse

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@jberry-suse jberry-suse commented Jul 18, 2017

@jberry-suse

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@jberry-suse jberry-suse commented Jul 18, 2017

@DimStar77 Also given that openssl-1_1_0 fails to build for i586 in Factory and devel I suppose this update will not translate to a fix since no new rpms will be produced. Given the number of problems indicated perhaps a special fix will be needed (binary wipe of -devel or ugly temporary whitelist for repo checker).

@DimStar77

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

@DimStar77 DimStar77 commented Jul 18, 2017

@DimStar77 What's the best way to solve the *-release ones? I already fix dummy-release, but they should all probably just provide a "release" virtual package and conflict with other providers. Do you have a preference?

They all provide /distribution-release' - adding a conflict sounds like a good idea

@DimStar77

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

@DimStar77 DimStar77 commented Jul 18, 2017

openssl-1_1_0 conflict with openssl-1_0_0

Old repo-checker did not inspect the -32bit packages, so there will probably be many more of such cases; thanks for the fix

@jberry-suse

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@jberry-suse jberry-suse commented Jul 18, 2017

Thanks @DimStar77 for adding the conflict to _product packages. I updated my dummy-release SR to follow the same format. Once all of these land I'll run the repo checker again and hopefully all will be ready for switching.

@jberry-suse

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@jberry-suse jberry-suse commented Jul 27, 2017

installation-images SR has stalled without a clear reason, but all others have been accepted.

@jberry-suse

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@jberry-suse jberry-suse commented Jul 28, 2017

I am considering adding a package whitelist so that we can deploy this and prevent additional issues from creeping in as this is delaying things quite a bit. The whitelisted packages can be removed as the issues are resolved.

@jberry-suse

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@jberry-suse jberry-suse commented Aug 2, 2017

Since #1033 was indeed hiding more issues :( :( I will go ahead and add a whitelist feature and file bug reports for the rest. Likely the whitelist can be used for Leap 15 and SLE 15 to ease them onto the checker as well.

@jberry-suse

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@jberry-suse jberry-suse commented Aug 3, 2017

No longer blocking deployment in favor of whitelist. Will leave open to track the clearing of the whitelist.

@jberry-suse

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@jberry-suse jberry-suse commented Aug 24, 2017

This appears to be a longer term goal since a lot of folks are not terribly responsive. The mechanisms are in place to do this in a controlled manor without causing interuption so I'll close this in favor of staging masters taking a look at whitelists once in a while.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
2 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.