Repo update for 5.2.18? (#17950)
Repo update for 5.2.18? (#17950)
ModEdit; related ticket: #17950: 5.2.18 still not in fedora 28 repository
The dnf (yum) repository is still announcing 5.2.16, although 5.2.18 was released a couple of days ago.
My host is newly updated to fedora 28, so this is the first time in a long time that I haven't had to build from source!
Is the repository usually updated at the time of announcement? If not, what's the expected latency?
Last edited by socratis on 22. Aug 2018, 21:03, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Added ticket related information.
Reason: Added ticket related information.
-
- Volunteer
- Posts: 2561
- Joined: 30. May 2007, 18:05
- Primary OS: Fedora other
- VBox Version: PUEL
- Guest OSses: XP, Win7, Win10, Linux, OS/2
Re: Repo update for 5.2.18?
The version 5.2.18 still isn't announced/listed in the redirected repository for F28 even when the files are there for F26.
http://download.virtualbox.org/virtualbox/rpm/fedora/[color=#0000FF][b]28[/b][/color]/x86_64/ wrote:Index of /virtualbox/rpm/fedora/26/x86_64 Name Last modified Size Parent Directory repodata/ 14-Aug-2018 18:14 - VirtualBox-5.1-5.1.28_117968_fedora26-1.x86_64.rpm 14-Sep-2017 14:23 69M VirtualBox-5.1-5.1.30_118389_fedora26-1.x86_64.rpm 16-Oct-2017 14:12 69M VirtualBox-5.1-5.1.32_120294_fedora26-1.x86_64.rpm 16-Jan-2018 10:28 69M VirtualBox-5.1-5.1.34_121010_fedora26-1.x86_64.rpm 26-Feb-2018 21:06 69M VirtualBox-5.1-5.1.36_122089_fedora26-1.x86_64.rpm 16-Apr-2018 9:49 69M VirtualBox-5.1-5.1.38_122592_fedora26-1.x86_64.rpm 09-May-2018 18:33 69M VirtualBox-5.2-5.2.0_118431_fedora26-1.x86_64.rpm 18-Oct-2017 11:28 71M VirtualBox-5.2-5.2.10_122088_fedora26-1.x86_64.rpm 16-Apr-2018 9:48 69M VirtualBox-5.2-5.2.12_122591_fedora26-1.x86_64.rpm 09-May-2018 18:32 69M VirtualBox-5.2-5.2.14_123301_fedora26-1.x86_64.rpm 29-Jun-2018 20:15 69M VirtualBox-5.2-5.2.16_123759_fedora26-1.x86_64.rpm 17-Jul-2018 9:37 69M VirtualBox-5.2-5.2.2_119230_fedora26-1.x86_64.rpm 23-Nov-2017 12:06 71M VirtualBox-5.2-5.2.4_119785_fedora26-1.x86_64.rpm 19-Dec-2017 13:38 70M VirtualBox-5.2-5.2.6_120293_fedora26-1.x86_64.rpm 16-Jan-2018 10:26 69M VirtualBox-5.2-5.2.8_121009_fedora26-1.x86_64.rpm 26-Feb-2018 21:05 69M
Can someone from Oracle please check what is happening here?http://download.virtualbox.org/virtualbox/rpm/fedora/[color=#0040FF][b]26[/b][/color]/x86_64/ wrote:Index of /virtualbox/rpm/fedora/26/x86_64 Name Last modified Size Parent Directory repodata/ 14-Aug-2018 18:14 - VirtualBox-5.1-5.1.28_117968_fedora26-1.x86_64.rpm 14-Sep-2017 14:23 69M VirtualBox-5.1-5.1.30_118389_fedora26-1.x86_64.rpm 16-Oct-2017 14:12 69M VirtualBox-5.1-5.1.32_120294_fedora26-1.x86_64.rpm 16-Jan-2018 10:28 69M VirtualBox-5.1-5.1.34_121010_fedora26-1.x86_64.rpm 26-Feb-2018 21:06 69M VirtualBox-5.1-5.1.36_122089_fedora26-1.x86_64.rpm 16-Apr-2018 9:49 69M VirtualBox-5.1-5.1.38_122592_fedora26-1.x86_64.rpm 09-May-2018 18:33 69M VirtualBox-5.2-5.2.0_118431_fedora26-1.x86_64.rpm 18-Oct-2017 11:28 71M VirtualBox-5.2-5.2.10_122088_fedora26-1.x86_64.rpm 16-Apr-2018 9:48 69M VirtualBox-5.2-5.2.12_122591_fedora26-1.x86_64.rpm 09-May-2018 18:32 69M VirtualBox-5.2-5.2.14_123301_fedora26-1.x86_64.rpm 29-Jun-2018 20:15 69M VirtualBox-5.2-5.2.16_123759_fedora26-1.x86_64.rpm 17-Jul-2018 9:37 69M VirtualBox-5.2-5.2.18_124319_fedora26-1.x86_64.rpm 14-Aug-2018 18:07 69M VirtualBox-5.2-5.2.2_119230_fedora26-1.x86_64.rpm 23-Nov-2017 12:06 71M VirtualBox-5.2-5.2.4_119785_fedora26-1.x86_64.rpm 19-Dec-2017 13:38 70M VirtualBox-5.2-5.2.6_120293_fedora26-1.x86_64.rpm 16-Jan-2018 10:26 69M VirtualBox-5.2-5.2.8_121009_fedora26-1.x86_64.rpm 26-Feb-2018 21:05 69M
Last edited by socratis on 20. Aug 2018, 14:27, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Enclosed the information in [pre] tag for better readability
Reason: Enclosed the information in [pre] tag for better readability
-
- Posts: 4
- Joined: 21. Aug 2018, 02:44
- Primary OS: Fedora other
- VBox Version: OSE Fedora
- Guest OSses: Fedora, Ubuntu, Arch, CentOS
Re: Repo update for 5.2.18?
5.2.18 is still not available today. I checked the repodata files and 5.2.18 seems to be announced correctly in repodata/3c2d03747408fb4deb9ace92906c291f156a0ca68711440baf64a6366f61d38a-primary.xml.gz -- but I wonder if some checksums are incorrect
Re: Repo update for 5.2.18? - created a bugtracker ticket
Good to know I"m not the only one who noticed
I created a bugtracker ticket for this, referencing this topic. https://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/17950
Hopefully that's monitored more frequently than this forum.
I created a bugtracker ticket for this, referencing this topic. https://www.virtualbox.org/ticket/17950
Hopefully that's monitored more frequently than this forum.
-
- Site Moderator
- Posts: 27329
- Joined: 22. Oct 2010, 11:03
- Primary OS: Mac OS X other
- VBox Version: PUEL
- Guest OSses: Win(*>98), Linux*, OSX>10.5
- Location: Greece
Re: Repo update for 5.2.18?
The opposite actually. There are a lot more eyes in the forums, a lot more people/volunteers that are willing to test your claim/issue. If it's confirmed, then you go to the bug tracker. For example, just the past week there were 5 similar tickets like yours that were closed as Fixed/Invalid. What they've accomplished (without first getting a confirmation/2nd opinion) was to waste a developer's time.tlhackque wrote:Hopefully that's monitored more frequently than this forum.
Always come to the forums first. And then IRC. The bug tracker should be the last resort...
I updated your first post with the ticket information.
Do NOT send me Personal Messages (PMs) for troubleshooting, they are simply deleted.
Do NOT reply with the "QUOTE" button, please use the "POST REPLY", at the bottom of the form.
If you obfuscate any information requested, I will obfuscate my response. These are virtual UUIDs, not real ones.
Do NOT reply with the "QUOTE" button, please use the "POST REPLY", at the bottom of the form.
If you obfuscate any information requested, I will obfuscate my response. These are virtual UUIDs, not real ones.
Re: Repo update for 5.2.18?
In this case, I disagree. You might want to read the whole thread carefully.The opposite actually. There are a lot more eyes in the forums, a lot more people/volunteers that are willing to test your claim/issue. If it's confirmed, then you go to the bug tracker. For example, just the past week there were 5 similar tickets like yours that were closed as Fixed/Invalid. What they've accomplished (without first getting a confirmation/2nd opinion) was to waste a developer's time.
Always come to the forums first. And then IRC. The bug tracker should be the last resort...
You will find that indeed, I came here first. 5 days ago. After waiting several days for the repo to be updated. In the meantime, two other people confirmed that it's still an issue. One pleaded for "someone from Oracle to investigate" a day and a half before I decided it was time to put the issue in a forum that might be monitored more frequently.
I don't think it's unreasonable to create a formal ticket for an incomplete release 8 days after a release announcement. I probably should have done it sooner - this is not something that a volunteer can fix.
Nor is it a waste of developers' time to finish making their work accessible to their users.
If in fact there were 5 other tickets on this issue that were closed as "invalid", something is very broken. The directory listings posted by OTHERS in this thread confirm my report (and match the listings that I [still] get here).
If your comment is an automatic response to another ticket - that issue can be discussed there. But again, I would urge you to read carefully before replying. Your comment was that under light load, you have not experienced that problem -- but I explicitly stated that those were the conditions of my experience.
For your information: I have spent many years as a developer of complex software, and I don't consider my time wasted when additional data - or even duplicate data - is presented. It may help- me to identify a problem. Or at least to prioritize it.
-
- Site Moderator
- Posts: 27329
- Joined: 22. Oct 2010, 11:03
- Primary OS: Mac OS X other
- VBox Version: PUEL
- Guest OSses: Win(*>98), Linux*, OSX>10.5
- Location: Greece
Re: Repo update for 5.2.18? (#17950)
My comment was indeed a paraphrased copy/paste comment that I usually post on the bug tracker. Original:
Do you know how many tickets have been opened because the OP didn't:
That comment alone, has resolved hundreds of tickets. And with a success rate of 90-95%.It's usually better and faster, if issues get first addressed in the VirtualBox forums, a lot more eyes. More than 95% of the issues are resolved over there, which keeps the developers focusing on the bug fixes and enhancements, and there is no need for another ticket to keep track of. For example, yours is most probably not a bug and someone from the developers has to deal with it and close it as "Invalid".
So, if you can, please open a new thread in the <appropriate_link> section of the forums. Please be sure to mention that you came from the bug tracker and include the ticket number.
Do you know how many tickets have been opened because the OP didn't:
- enable VT-x in their BIOS?
- enable the USB controller and couldn't get USB passthrough?
- enable 3D acceleration and complained about slow performance?
- update their ExtPack and there was a version mismatch?
- update the guest additions that came with their default Linux distro?
- ...
- do a gazillion of things, that, if they had opened a thread here instead of the bug tracker, the forum users would have directed them accordingly?
Not at all. Absolutely, 100% with you...tlhackque wrote:I don't think it's unreasonable to create a formal ticket for an incomplete release 8 days after a release announcement.
Having 6 tickets open, instead of 1 centralized (where other people would confirm the behavior), is a kind of lazy behavior from the users' part, you got to give me that. If there was one ticket, I wouldn't have anything to say. But... 6? On the same subject? In two days? Ain't that a little bit excessive? Plus, you can always re-open a ticket that's been closed, no questions asked.tlhackque wrote:Nor is it a waste of developers' time to finish making their work accessible to their users. If in fact there were 5 other tickets on this issue that were closed as "invalid", something is very broken.
I did in fact installed a F28 VM and I tried it. And that's why I said, download it manually until it gets resolved. That's a workaround until a permanent fix is established. That does not mean that a ticket shouldn't have been opened, just that there is a workaround.tlhackque wrote:Your comment was that under light load, you have not experienced that problem
Do NOT send me Personal Messages (PMs) for troubleshooting, they are simply deleted.
Do NOT reply with the "QUOTE" button, please use the "POST REPLY", at the bottom of the form.
If you obfuscate any information requested, I will obfuscate my response. These are virtual UUIDs, not real ones.
Do NOT reply with the "QUOTE" button, please use the "POST REPLY", at the bottom of the form.
If you obfuscate any information requested, I will obfuscate my response. These are virtual UUIDs, not real ones.
-
- Posts: 4
- Joined: 21. Aug 2018, 02:44
- Primary OS: Fedora other
- VBox Version: OSE Fedora
- Guest OSses: Fedora, Ubuntu, Arch, CentOS
Re: Repo update for 5.2.18?
TIL there's an IRC channel!socratis wrote:The opposite actually. There are a lot more eyes in the forums, a lot more people/volunteers that are willing to test your claim/issue. If it's confirmed, then you go to the bug tracker. For example, just the past week there were 5 similar tickets like yours that were closed as Fixed/Invalid. What they've accomplished (without first getting a confirmation/2nd opinion) was to waste a developer's time.tlhackque wrote:Hopefully that's monitored more frequently than this forum.
Always come to the forums first. And then IRC. The bug tracker should be the last resort...
I updated your first post with the ticket information.
For what it's worth, I think the reason this might have slipped through the developers' attention is the subject does not clearly state which repo is affected (in this case, yum). Could someone edit?
-
- Site Moderator
- Posts: 27329
- Joined: 22. Oct 2010, 11:03
- Primary OS: Mac OS X other
- VBox Version: PUEL
- Guest OSses: Win(*>98), Linux*, OSX>10.5
- Location: Greece
Re: Repo update for 5.2.18? (#17950)
"TIL" = Today I Learned (???)
If that's the case, have you taken a look at the Community section? It's one of the few perma-links on the left side of the site.
Add the summer vacation downtime, and you're in for a perfect storm..
If that's the case, have you taken a look at the Community section? It's one of the few perma-links on the left side of the site.
It hasn't. Have you taken a look at the "Discuss the 5.2.18 release" (2nd post)? Yeah, I'd say that something slipped from someone's attention...michel-slm wrote:I think the reason this might have slipped through the developers' attention
It affects more than one repo. And it's not as easy as it may sound, when a symlink is there, a symlink shows up, but when you're trying to download it, it's not. And there's so much you can do with a web/download server that's not in your control.michel-slm wrote:Could someone edit?
Add the summer vacation downtime, and you're in for a perfect storm..
Do NOT send me Personal Messages (PMs) for troubleshooting, they are simply deleted.
Do NOT reply with the "QUOTE" button, please use the "POST REPLY", at the bottom of the form.
If you obfuscate any information requested, I will obfuscate my response. These are virtual UUIDs, not real ones.
Do NOT reply with the "QUOTE" button, please use the "POST REPLY", at the bottom of the form.
If you obfuscate any information requested, I will obfuscate my response. These are virtual UUIDs, not real ones.
-
- Posts: 4
- Joined: 21. Aug 2018, 02:44
- Primary OS: Fedora other
- VBox Version: OSE Fedora
- Guest OSses: Fedora, Ubuntu, Arch, CentOS
Re: Repo update for 5.2.18? (#17950)
Missed that thread, thanks!socratis wrote:Have you taken a look at the "Discuss the 5.2.18 release" (2nd post)? Yeah, I'd say that something slipped from someone's attention...
-
- Posts: 10
- Joined: 4. Mar 2010, 22:42
- Primary OS: Fedora other
- VBox Version: PUEL
- Guest OSses: Windows
Re: Repo update for 5.2.18? (#17950)
I ran into the same issue, and resolved it with a special invocation of dnf to directly access the release 26 repository instead of going through the release 28 symlink to the release 26 repository:
dnf --releasever=26 -y update VirtualBox-5.2
Edit -- disabling the modular repositories may also be necessary:
dnf --releasever=26 --disablerepo=fedora-modular --disablerepo=updates-modular -y update VirtualBox-5.2
dnf --releasever=26 -y update VirtualBox-5.2
Edit -- disabling the modular repositories may also be necessary:
dnf --releasever=26 --disablerepo=fedora-modular --disablerepo=updates-modular -y update VirtualBox-5.2