Learn more about these different git repos.
Other Git URLs
https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/orphans-2023-06-07.txt contains false positive information that jssc is orphaned because it requires java-1.8.0:
jssc (maintained by: dwrobel) jssc-2.8.0-26.fc39.x86_64 requires java-1.8.0-headless = 1:1.8.0.362.b09-2.fc38
The jssc was successfully re-compiled for rawhide (f39 against java-17:
$ curl -s https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/jssc/2.8.0/26.fc39/data/logs/x86_64/root.log | grep openjdk DEBUG util.py:445: java-17-openjdk-devel x86_64 1:17.0.7.0.7-5.fc39 build 4.7 M DEBUG util.py:445: java-17-openjdk x86_64 1:17.0.7.0.7-5.fc39 build 440 k DEBUG util.py:445: java-17-openjdk-headless x86_64 1:17.0.7.0.7-5.fc39 build 45 M DEBUG util.py:445: java-17-openjdk-1:17.0.7.0.7-5.fc39.x86_64 DEBUG util.py:445: java-17-openjdk-devel-1:17.0.7.0.7-5.fc39.x86_64 DEBUG util.py:445: java-17-openjdk-headless-1:17.0.7.0.7-5.fc39.x86_64
See the Requires:
$ curl -s https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/jssc/2.8.0/26.fc39/data/logs/x86_64/build.log | grep -e '^Requires:' Requires: (java-headless or java-17-headless or java-11-headless or java-1.8.0-headless) javapackages-filesystem libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.15)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.9)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Based on above 'Requires' the script https://pagure.io/releng/blob/main/f/scripts/find_unblocked_orphans.py should filter it out.
$ curl -s https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/orphans-2023-06-07.txt | grep 'requires java-1.8.0-headless' | wc -l 604
Pessimistically (assuming that all packages falls into the same category as jssc) 604 will be innocently orphaned. If above assumption is wrong (I checked it only for jssc), then at least jssc will be orphaned while it shouldn't.
Note that no listed package will actually be orphaned just because it is included in this output. Only packages that actually fail to install will get a bugzilla once that happens and will be orphaned weeks later if the bugzilla is ignored.
@churchyard , thanks for the clarification.
We could, at least, spare the log analysis for the people who are curious why their package is included in this list.
Metadata Update from @phsmoura: - Issue tagged with: low-gain, low-trouble, ops
Yes. However, the script is very old and I am unsure if it is possible to simply fix this without rewriting it from scratch.
Definitively not a low-trouble task.
Metadata Update from @humaton: - Issue untagged with: low-gain, low-trouble - Issue tagged with: dev, high-trouble, medium-gain
Log in to comment on this ticket.