#11460 find_unblocked_orphans.py generates false positive orphaned packages (due to 'or java-1.8.0-headless')
Opened a year ago by dwrobel. Modified 11 months ago

  • Describe the issue

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.

  • If we cannot complete your request, what is the impact?
$ 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

a year ago

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

11 months ago

Login to comment on this ticket.

Metadata
Boards 2
Dev Status: Backlog
Ops Status: Backlog