[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: fedora-devel-list
Subject: Re: Fedora 31: dnf upgrade suddenly enables modular streams for protobuf
From: Richard Shaw <hobbes1069 () gmail ! com>
Date: 2019-12-07 4:08:49
Message-ID: CAN3TeO2_GmB9Rn6FLrcCRfANpgUvrkrdBdk+uJDHfxrng3V-yA () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
[Attachment #2 (multipart/alternative)]
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 7:26 PM Adam Williamson <adamwill@fedoraproject.org>
wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-12-06 at 18:51 -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
> > After reading this thread I think this is a more serious problem than
> just
> > this package. I had "assumed" modules were just normal, so I didn't
> > question them being installed.
>
> They are normal. You're not wrong. The problem is well understood at
> this point: a module was given a stream default - meaning it becomes
> the default source of packages it contains. That module includes
> protobuf, meaning it takes over from the non-modular repo as the
> default source of protobuf. The build of protobuf it contains was
> missing some bits that other packages depend on, which broke those
> packages.
>
I guess I should say that part of my problem is that:
1. I didn't ask for/want a module.
2. They aren't actually needed. After disabling them and reinstalling the
programs I care about (or could have used distro-sync) they weren't
actually needed.
> I have not intentionally enabled/installed any modules but through regular
> > updates I now have the following installed:
>
> Well, yes. That's what happens. If this didn't actually break anything
> for you, you don't really need to panic, but if you want to sync with
> the current state (where the module stream default has been removed at
> least temporarily), just disable the modules that were enabled and then
> run 'dnf distro-sync'. That should return you to the non-modular
> builds.
>
I guess I understand some programs needed a specific/older version of
something as a "good" reason to put something in a module, but I'm finding
myself more a purest and I don't think we should have more than one source
of "truth", or in this case, multiple ways to fulfill a dependency.
Thanks,
Richard
[Attachment #5 (text/html)]
<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 7:26 PM Adam Williamson <<a \
href="mailto:adamwill@fedoraproject.org">adamwill@fedoraproject.org</a>> \
wrote:<br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" \
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid \
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On Fri, 2019-12-06 at 18:51 -0600, Richard Shaw \
wrote:<br> > After reading this thread I think this is a more serious problem than \
just<br> > this package. I had "assumed" modules were just normal, so I \
didn't<br> > question them being installed.<br>
<br>
They are normal. You're not wrong. The problem is well understood at<br>
this point: a module was given a stream default - meaning it becomes<br>
the default source of packages it contains. That module includes<br>
protobuf, meaning it takes over from the non-modular repo as the<br>
default source of protobuf. The build of protobuf it contains was<br>
missing some bits that other packages depend on, which broke those<br>
packages.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I guess I should say that part of my \
problem is that:</div><div><br></div><div>1. I didn't ask for/want a \
module.</div><div>2. They aren't actually needed. After disabling them and \
reinstalling the programs I care about (or could have used distro-sync) they \
weren't actually needed.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote \
class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid \
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">> I have not intentionally enabled/installed \
any modules but through regular<br> > updates I now have the following \
installed:<br> <br>
Well, yes. That's what happens. If this didn't actually break anything<br>
for you, you don't really need to panic, but if you want to sync with<br>
the current state (where the module stream default has been removed at<br>
least temporarily), just disable the modules that were enabled and then<br>
run 'dnf distro-sync'. That should return you to the non-modular<br>
builds.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I guess I understand some programs needed \
a specific/older version of something as a "good" reason to put something \
in a module, but I'm finding myself more a purest and I don't think we should \
have more than one source of "truth", or in this case, multiple ways to \
fulfill a dependency. \
</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>Richard</div></div></div>
[Attachment #6 (text/plain)]
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic