Vít Ondruch wrote on 2022/01/26 21:59:
So Fedora mass rebuild has finished (although I am not sure how does it look 
with the signing of the packages), therefore we should be good to go. I have 
requested side tag:


$ fedpkg request-side-tag
Side tag 'f36-build-side-49941' (id 49941) created.
Use 'fedpkg build --target=f36-build-side-49941' to use it.
Use 'koji wait-repo f36-build-side-49941' to wait for the build repo to be 
generated.


and Ruby 3.1 is already built there as you can see at:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/builds?inherited=0&tagID=49941&order=-build_id&latest=1
or using:
~~~
$ koji list-tagged f36-build-side-49941
~~~

Now this is a list of packages, which very likely needs rebuild:
~~~
$ dnf repoquery --disablerepo=* --enablerepo=rawhide 
--enablerepo=rawhide-source --arch=src --whatrequires 'ruby-devel' | sort | uniq
~~~
You can take the package and just fire rebuild, but please ensure that you are 
using f36-build-side-49941 build target, i.e. the build command should look 
like:
~~~
$ fedpkg build --target f36-build-side-49941
~~~ Please be careful, because if you, by a chance, omit the f36-build-side-49941 target, you'll be building against Ruby 3.0 which is not what you want.

If you won't do it by yourself, I'll be rebuilding all packages after I am 
finished with my packages. I'll be using fermig [1] to help me with that. If 
you don't want me to touch your packages for whatever reason, please let me 
know.

As always, any help/testing/feedback is welcome.


Current status
$ dnf repoquery --quiet --repo=koji-f36-build-side-49941 --qf '%{sourcerpm}' 
--whatrequires "libruby.so.3.0()(64bit)" | cat -n
     1  libguestfs-1.47.2-2.fc36.src.rpm
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=81990276
On x86_64, %check fails with kernel oops. On ppc64le there is unsatisfied 
BuildRequires dependency.

     2  mlt-6.26.1-5.fc36.src.rpm
even $ fedpkg sources fails, for now I don't want to proceed further..

     3  nbdkit-1.29.14-1.fc36.src.rpm
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=81983055
Looked at x86_64 failure, %configure is failing with some questionable reason,
reported against gcc for now:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2046640


     4  openbabel-3.1.1-5.fc36.src.rpm
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=81981066
Even build for rawhide fails, but mass rebuild was successful.
During mass rebuild and now, cmake is updated and build failure seems related
to cmake update.

     5  pcs-0.10.11-2.fc36.src.rpm
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=81980259
BuildRequires rubygem-ffi

     6  qpid-proton-0.36.0-2.fc36.src.rpm
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=81978394
Maybe same issue as nbdkit

     7  rubygem-ffi-1.15.5-1.fc36.src.rpm
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=81980984
%check stage fails with SIGABRT. Even build for rawhide now fails.

I would apprecite it if someone looks at what is happening here. This affects 
lots of
packages - rubygem-cucumber indirectly depends on this, for example

     8  rubygem-hiredis-0.6.3-9.fc35.src.rpm
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=81994532
hiredis is updated from 0.13.3 to 1.0.2, and there seems some API change.

     9  rubygem-pg-1.2.3-6.fc35.src.rpm
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=81994559
Not looked at this in detail yet

    10  rubygem-websocket-driver-0.7.5-3.fc36.src.rpm
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=81945124
%check fails with something looking like some minor output change.

Regards,
Mamoru
_______________________________________________
ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-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/ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Reply via email to