Overview
Request 444771 superseded
- Created by rudi_m
- In state superseded
- Supersedes 443885
- Superseded by 448913
-
Open review for
opensuse-review-team
-
Open review for
factory-repo-checker
Request History
rudi_m created request
licensedigger accepted review
factory-auto added opensuse-review-team as a reviewer
Please review sources
factory-auto added factory-repo-checker as a reviewer
Please review build success
factory-auto accepted review
Check script succeeded
factory-repo-checker reopened review
Execution plan: Base:System/openSUSE_Tumbleweed
can't install python-libmount-2.29-365.1.x86_64:
nothing provides libmount.so.1()(64bit) needed by python-libmount-2.29-365.1.x86_64
nothing provides libmount.so.1(MOUNT_2.19)(64bit) needed by python-libmount-2.29-365.1.x86_64
nothing provides libmount.so.1(MOUNT_2.20)(64bit) needed by python-libmount-2.29-365.1.x86_64
nothing provides libmount.so.1(MOUNT_2.24)(64bit) needed by python-libmount-2.29-365.1.x86_64
nothing provides libmount.so.1(MOUNT_2.22)(64bit) needed by python-libmount-2.29-365.1.x86_64
nothing provides libmount.so.1(MOUNT_2.21)(64bit) needed by python-libmount-2.29-365.1.x86_64
nothing provides libmount.so.1(MOUNT_2.23)(64bit) needed by python-libmount-2.29-365.1.x86_64
Execution plan: Base:System/openSUSE_Factory
can't install python-libmount-2.29-365.2.x86_64:
nothing provides libmount.so.1()(64bit) needed by python-libmount-2.29-365.2.x86_64
nothing provides libmount.so.1(MOUNT_2.19)(64bit) needed by python-libmount-2.29-365.2.x86_64
nothing provides libmount.so.1(MOUNT_2.20)(64bit) needed by python-libmount-2.29-365.2.x86_64
nothing provides libmount.so.1(MOUNT_2.24)(64bit) needed by python-libmount-2.29-365.2.x86_64
nothing provides libmount.so.1(MOUNT_2.22)(64bit) needed by python-libmount-2.29-365.2.x86_64
nothing provides libmount.so.1(MOUNT_2.21)(64bit) needed by python-libmount-2.29-365.2.x86_64
nothing provides libmount.so.1(MOUNT_2.23)(64bit) needed by python-libmount-2.29-365.2.x86_64
maxlin_factory declined review
replaced by newer request 446340
maxlin_factory declined request
replaced by newer request 446340
superseded by 448913
New cycle detected:
New edges: [('util-linux', 'procps'), ('util-linux', 'systemd-mini')]Is it sufficient to have procps only in util-linux-systemd? There we anyhow already pull in systemd (and that's what for we have it)
The ps command is a basic POSIX command. Please remove unnecessary deps from ps rather than trying to avoid using ps.
Honestly, I don't understand why we are building a systemd based distro but don't allow using it. Look at the util-linux.spec how ridiculous and error-prone it looks already.
AFAIR procps is used in util-linux for testing only. We could remove it and run incomplete tests ... just another step to make the package more bad ... providing untested binaries to thousands of users.
It's time to fix the systemd-build-cycle issue and provide a build host which has at least a few basic things common to a normal minimal installation.
Moving the procps requirement makes no sense.