Am Mi., 6. Aug. 2025 um 12:32 Uhr schrieb Jitka Plesnikova <jples...@redhat.com>: > > > > On 8/5/25 21:00, Michael J Gruber wrote: > > Hi there, > > > > this is half a question and half a remark. python-PyMuPDF started to > > FTBFS recently with a weird error message: > > > > https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/build/21026539 > > > > python-PyMuPDF uses swig generated python bindings from the package > > mupdf. After staring at the error and koschei's list of changes for a > > while, knowing that my regular rebuilds in copr showed no such issue, > > I did the following in mock locally: > > > > rebuild and install mupdf (unchanged) > > rebuild python-PyMuPDF > > > > This worked. My current assumption is that that the patch in > > swig-4.3.1-4.fc43 introduced a change which made a rebuild necessary - > > i.e. the mupdf bindings built with swig-4.3.1-3 do not work when I use > > them to build python-PyMuPDF with swig-4.3.1-4. The rebuilt bindings > > do work. > > > > Since my mock changeroot does not want to downgrade swig I cannot test > > for sure, just wanted to throw it out there in case someone > > experiences strange effects with call signatures of overloaded > > functions using swig. > > > > Michael > Hi, > > I applied patch for removing DeprecationWarning > -https://github.com/swig/swig/issues/2881 > > The issue is mention in commit: > https://github.com/pymupdf/PyMuPDF/commit/9115023eb7844fe3e1ca7ca2842f6f88c427c60b > > The fix will be part of future SWIG 4.4.0.
Sure. That's what I mentioned as "introduced a change". What I didn't expect was that this necessitates rebuilds of packages which use swig - it made unchanged packages FTBFS (which built fine during mass rebuild). And as this cause and solution was difficult to spot for me I wanted to warn others. Those warnings have been around for a while already (as mentioned in PyMuPDF), and the swig fix removes them. Neither is a problem, but apparently the backported swig patch changes something else, too, or necessitates a rebuild for other reasons. After all, I had to change *neither* package, but I had to rebuild the first one (against new swig) in order to build the second one (against new swig), and - other than glibc - the only relevant change in chroot seems to be that swig change. To put it more bluntly: if a swig change requires rebuilds of packages BR'ing swig I'd expect a notice. Same if it wasn't swig but something else. Michael -- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
