February 2023 - openSUSE Bugs - openSUSE Mailing Lists

[Bug 1208052] New: Duplicate binaries: crash / crash-trace
by bugzilla_noreply＠suse.com 08 Feb '23

08 Feb '23

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1208052 Bug ID: 1208052 Summary: Duplicate binaries: crash / crash-trace Classification: openSUSE Product: openSUSE Tumbleweed Version: Current Hardware: Other OS: Other Status: NEW Severity: Normal Priority: P5 - None Component: Other Assignee: screening-team-bugs(a)suse.de Reporter: dimstar(a)opensuse.org QA Contact: qa-bugs(a)suse.de Found By: --- Blocker: --- Duplicate binaries have been detected in openSUSE:Factory x86_64: crash-trace: - crash - crash-trace Translates to: both source packages, crash and crash-trace produce a binary called crash-trace > osc ls -b openSUSE:Factory -r standard -a x86_64 crash �� crash-trace-7.3.1-4.4.x86_64.rpm > osc ls -b openSUSE:Factory -r standard -a x86_64 crash-trace �� crash-trace-3.0-2.1.x86_64.rpm Only one of the two binaries will make it into the repository, and it is undefined which one will win. Currently, it is | crash-trace | package | 3.0-2.1 | x86_64 | Main Repository (OSS) | crash-trace | package | 3.0-2.1 | i586 | Main Repository (OSS) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 1

[Bug 1207961] New: nvidia G05 rpm fails to install kernel drivers ("popd not found" and invalid /lib/modules)
by bugzilla_noreply＠suse.com 08 Feb '23

08 Feb '23

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1207961 Bug ID: 1207961 Summary: nvidia G05 rpm fails to install kernel drivers ("popd not found" and invalid /lib/modules) Classification: openSUSE Product: openSUSE Distribution Version: Leap 15.4 Hardware: x86-64 OS: openSUSE Leap 15.4 Status: NEW Severity: Normal Priority: P5 - None Component: X11 3rd Party Driver Assignee: gfx-bugs(a)suse.de Reporter: bugs(a)elhoy.co.uk QA Contact: sndirsch(a)suse.com Found By: --- Blocker: --- User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/109.0 Build Identifier: Two faults in the rpm supplied via nvidia repo, which result in failing to complete proprietary driver installs for Nvidia G05. Zypper and graphical yast software both state successful install, yet /var/log/zypper.log shows errors. At next boot, user is presented with text-based login rather than graphical gdm login, yet no error seen during boot. Fault identified after upgrade from Leap 15.3 to 15.4 (zypper --releasever=15.4 dup; all next ver repos correctly included). FAULTS: * makefile for kmp is expecting to use bash (looking for popd), but /bin/sh is a link to /usr/bin/sh. * dracut script for x11-video-nvidiaG05 fails due to looking for specific (and thus incorrect) kernel modules. (log output libkmod: kmod_module_parse_depline: ctx=0x564e80b929d0 path=/lib/modules/4.12.14-lp151.27-default//updates/nvidia-modeset.ko error=No such file or directory). Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1.Request install of nvidia G05 packages via zypper or graphical interface (currently version 470.161.03_k5.14.21_150400.22-lp154.58.1 ) 2. Package installation looks to complete, but errors occur in background. Actual Results: Log output shows various errors as above and following: * rpm error example: /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.S5s3dj: line 10: pushd: not found * dracut error output: libkmod: kmod_module_parse_depline: ctx=0x564e80b929d0 path=/lib/modules/4.12.14-lp151.27-default//updates/nvidia-modeset.ko error=No such file or directory. Expected Results: nvidia proprietary drivers should install successfully. WORKAROUND FOR KMP BUILD: create temporary simlink to /usr/bin/bash WORKAROUND FOR DRACUT: awkward! Tested hardware is GeForce GTX 1650ti, and x86_64 main processor. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 15

[Bug 1208003] 32-bit installation images do not support 32-bit EFI.
by bugzilla_noreply＠suse.com 08 Feb '23

08 Feb '23

https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208003 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208003#c9 --- Comment #9 from Stefan Hundhammer <shundhammer(a)suse.com> --- (In reply to Stefan Hundhammer from comment #7) > One of the technical contacts mentioned that they's need a 32 bit OVMF as a > development environment (which is certainly correct), and that they's need > to check the mixed mode support in EFI-stub and in the kernel. s/they's/they'd/g I really wish that ancient Bugzilla that we use (forked off the Bugzilla main line around 2004) would come out of the stone age and would support mundane stuff such as EDITING one's own posts. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1208003] 32-bit installation images do not support 32-bit EFI.
by bugzilla_noreply＠suse.com 08 Feb '23

08 Feb '23

https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208003 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208003#c8 Stefan Hundhammer <shundhammer(a)suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(lubos.kocman@suse | |.com) --- Comment #8 from Stefan Hundhammer <shundhammer(a)suse.com> --- Lubos, please check. I also added this bug to the JIRA feature (PED-2569). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1208003] 32-bit installation images do not support 32-bit EFI.
by bugzilla_noreply＠suse.com 08 Feb '23

08 Feb '23

https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208003 Stefan Hundhammer <shundhammer(a)suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Severity|Normal |Enhancement -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1208003] 32-bit installation images do not support 32-bit EFI.
by bugzilla_noreply＠suse.com 08 Feb '23

08 Feb '23

https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208003 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208003#c7 Stefan Hundhammer <shundhammer(a)suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |lubos.kocman(a)suse.com --- Comment #7 from Stefan Hundhammer <shundhammer(a)suse.com> --- I just looked into that JIRA feature mentioned in the other bug: https://jira.suse.com/browse/PED-2569 (Jan-Aug 2021) (not public, sorry) This was mostly a discussion between different SUSE project managers about the feasibility and the practicality, and if it is desirable for SUSE to have. It appears that none of the involved people warmed up to the idea; nobody saw a compelling business case. The priority was rated as "could have", and the outcome was "unresolved". It never got to a development stage. One of the technical contacts mentioned that they's need a 32 bit OVMF as a development environment (which is certainly correct), and that they's need to check the mixed mode support in EFI-stub and in the kernel. So the result of that all was not that the feature would be implemented, so it's not a regression. I know this is disappointing for you. I'll try to restart that discussion in JIRA because it just petered out; nobody seemed to want to drive this, and I don't see a clear decision that we don't want to do it. I can't make any promises, of course. But if there is a community behind it, maybe this will change some minds. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1208003] 32-bit installation images do not support 32-bit EFI.
by bugzilla_noreply＠suse.com 08 Feb '23

08 Feb '23

https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208003 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208003#c6 --- Comment #6 from Stefan Hundhammer <shundhammer(a)suse.com> --- Roke, Neil, thank you for the additional explanations. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1208003] 32-bit installation images do not support 32-bit EFI.
by bugzilla_noreply＠suse.com 08 Feb '23

08 Feb '23

https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208003 Stefan Hundhammer <shundhammer(a)suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(snwint(a)suse.com) | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1207374] Cannot set up iscsi targets during installation
by bugzilla_noreply＠suse.com 08 Feb '23

08 Feb '23

https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1207374 Stefan Hundhammer <shundhammer(a)suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(m.szczepaniak.000 | |(a)gmail.com) | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1208020] [Build 395.1] openQA test fails in yast2_nfs_server
by bugzilla_noreply＠suse.com 08 Feb '23

08 Feb '23

https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208020 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208020#c1 Stefan Hundhammer <shundhammer(a)suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE --- Comment #1 from Stefan Hundhammer <shundhammer(a)suse.com> --- /var/log/YaST2/y2log-1.gz:2023-02-06 04:20:12 <3> install(3283) [Ruby] bootloader/bootloader_factory.rb(bootloader_by_name):84 Factory receive nil name Same error as here (yesterday): https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1207968#c1 *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1207968 *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0