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

Possible error in spec file when managing RHEL9->10 upgrade #1291

Closed
ikerexxe opened this issue Aug 30, 2024 · 4 comments
Closed

Possible error in spec file when managing RHEL9->10 upgrade #1291

ikerexxe opened this issue Aug 30, 2024 · 4 comments
Labels
bug Something isn't working

Comments

@ikerexxe
Copy link
Contributor

ikerexxe commented Aug 30, 2024

Description

When defining the package requirements there's a condition that takes into account RHEL7 (if condition) and RHEL8 (else condition), but since we have started working on the RHEL9->10 upgrade this might be wrong. I recommend that you review it and decide the best way forward.

At the moment, and in my PR, I am adding an additional condition to check if the system is RHEL9.

@ikerexxe ikerexxe added the bug Something isn't working label Aug 30, 2024
@pirat89
Copy link
Member

pirat89 commented Sep 2, 2024

Hi @ikerexxe , can you elaborate more on the possible error? I am not sure whether I understand your concerns. Do you know about some dependencies that are broken or incorrect regarding the existing code? If it is just because definitions in the beginning of the file are split into 3 branches (el7, 8, 9) and dependencies just in 7 and 8+, it's because I haven't discovered that time any difference between el8 & el9, so there is no sense to have empty (or just duplicated) block for el9 dependencies. If you have any specific concern about any deps, I will check it. It's possible I missed something. But so far I do not see anything specific when looking at it.

@ikerexxe
Copy link
Contributor Author

ikerexxe commented Sep 2, 2024

I added the following lines to my PR, but I don't know if that's the best way forward, or we should do it in another way.

@pirat89
Copy link
Member

pirat89 commented Sep 2, 2024

I would do it in the same way.

@ikerexxe
Copy link
Contributor Author

ikerexxe commented Sep 2, 2024

Ok, in that case I'll close this issue as I only wanted to raise awareness of this topic.

@ikerexxe ikerexxe closed this as completed Sep 2, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants