Re: Possibly unexpcted soname change: liblept.so.5 -> libleptonica.so.5.4.0
On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 01:16:15PM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > Michael J Gruber wrote: > > and I have to live with that non-descriptive changelog entry (due to > > %autochangelog). > > That's why %autochangelog is such a bad idea. A manually maintained > %changelog can easily be edited in a followup commit. $ rpmautospec generate-changelog >changelog $ $EDITOR changelog (Here you want to remove the first entry for "Uncommitted changes", and adjust the entries for the rebuild, and remove the spurious empty line at the end.) $ git commit -a -m 'Clarify changelog entries' Since this commit touches 'changelog' file, rpmautospec will only start generating %autochangelog entries for commit after this one. %autochangelog has it's warts, but it certainly can be edited. Best, Zbyszek ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Possibly unexpcted soname change: liblept.so.5 -> libleptonica.so.5.4.0
On 03.03.22 17:23, Michael J Gruber wrote: On 2022-03-03 15:47, Sandro Mani wrote: On 03.03.22 15:30, Michael J Gruber wrote: > So, I explicitely asked what your plan was and got no response. > > I suggested to fix the problem at the root package and you went ahead rebuilding depending packages. > > I asked you to use proper commit messages/changelog if you do and got a series of "Rebuild (leptonica)", "Bump as F36 needs another rebuild" and what not. > > I asked you to at least reference the bz entries and you did not. > > While I'm typing this a buildroot override comes along. > > We do have an "unresponsive maintainer" process. Do we have an "unresponsive irreponsible proven packager" process, too? To be honest I'm saddened by such hostility. I maintain a pretty large number of packages mostly in my free time, and I think it's fair to say that I maintain most of the mingw and stack alone. I undertook a pretty large effort to merge some mingw specs into the native specs reduce my workload in the future, often working late into the night. At one point I did 197 commits in one day, and for as much effort and concentration I put into it, mistakes do happen - I am only human. But I think I've always been responsive and taken care to address any issues in a timely matter. So honestly, rather than attacking people for commit messages and attacking me for "the problems I caused last time", you might might consider using a more friendly tone. Sandro Hi Michael I completely agree with you that communication is key. That is actually my point, and that's why the guidelines require or strongly suggest communication when a library change affects dependent packages or when a proven packager commits into "someone else's" packages (I know nobody "owns" a package). And I'm not insisting on any points literally here - I'm completely fine with a push from which I can tell what's going on, even without prior communication or coordination. We have pull requests, we have bugzilla entries, we have commit messages to support communication in many ways, it does not have to be by e-mail. What offends me is complete "non-communication": if, as a proven packager, you push "Rebuild (tesseract)" to mupdf.git I have to find out myself why you can even push to that repo, why you are doing that, and I have to live with that non-descriptive changelog entry (due to %autochangelog). Plus I have to close the non-referenced bugs. That's what happened "last time" (december), and even though it bothered me quite a bit I didn't complain. Uhm, I wouldn't classify [1] as non-communication. As I believe is pretty standard procedure, the change was announced to fedora-devel, indicating the steps which will be taken and if any action by others is required - in this case, I wrote that I'd take care of rebuilding all affected packages. A commit message of the form "Rebuild (xxx)" is actually pretty common as far as my experience over the past 10+ years packaging goes, if you prefer to see "Rebuild for XXX soname bump", well I suppose why not. But classifying this as "complete non-communication" is I believe pretty unfair. Another point: to a certain degree, as a packager, you are always trusting upstream to ship a working product. What happened later is that it turned out that the cmake build scripts of tesseract were pretty much broken. The issue was pointed out and, as documented in [1], I promptly reacted to fix up the package (delayed a bit while trying to figure out an armv7hl build failure due to incorrect cflags ordering, hurray debugging build scripts). Now, since we're having the same with leptonica, I *asked* you to do it differently. What I got in response was no response but the same kind of pushes. I consider that inappropriate, and the tone of my last posting was a desperate attempt to get some form of communication going. This one was a combination is things: When working on merging native and mingw packages (change which I announced), I opted for cmake whenever support is available, since it leads to cleaner packaging. So also for leptonica, I opted to switch to cmake, with the intention of providing compat symlinks to avoid any effect for other packages. As I wrote, I forgot the symlink for the versioned library. I judged that most robust way forward was to just rebuild the small number of affected packages. In the space of a couple of hours all was done, except, blame running to fix the problem, I didn't notice that in the meantime bodhi was activated for F36 and some packages were build against the old leptonica package. So I needed a second rebuild to ensure that NVR in F37 was >= NVR in F36. Pehaps a general request here: it would be useful if fedpkg could give you a note when bodhi is active for the build target. I
Re: Possibly unexpcted soname change: liblept.so.5 -> libleptonica.so.5.4.0
Michael J Gruber wrote: > and I have to live with that non-descriptive changelog entry (due to > %autochangelog). That's why %autochangelog is such a bad idea. A manually maintained %changelog can easily be edited in a followup commit. Kevin Kofler ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Possibly unexpcted soname change: liblept.so.5 -> libleptonica.so.5.4.0
On 2022-03-03 15:47, Sandro Mani wrote: > > On 03.03.22 15:30, Michael J Gruber wrote: > > So, I explicitely asked what your plan was and got no response. > > > > I suggested to fix the problem at the root package and you went ahead > rebuilding depending packages. > > > > I asked you to use proper commit messages/changelog if you do and got a > series of "Rebuild (leptonica)", "Bump as F36 needs another rebuild" and > what not. > > > > I asked you to at least reference the bz entries and you did not. > > > > While I'm typing this a buildroot override comes along. > > > > We do have an "unresponsive maintainer" process. Do we have an > "unresponsive irreponsible proven packager" process, too? > > To be honest I'm saddened by such hostility. I maintain a pretty large > number of packages mostly in my free time, and I think it's fair to say > that I maintain most of the mingw and stack alone. I undertook a pretty > large effort to merge some mingw specs into the native specs reduce my > workload in the future, often working late into the night. At one point > I did 197 commits in one day, and for as much effort and concentration I > put into it, mistakes do happen - I am only human. But I think I've > always been responsive and taken care to address any issues in a timely > matter. So honestly, rather than attacking people for commit messages > and attacking me for "the problems I caused last time", you might might > consider using a more friendly tone. > > Sandro > > Ciao Sandro First of all, I appreciate your taking the time to clarify this (and also the time you invest into Fedora). I completely agree with you that communication is key. That is actually my point, and that's why the guidelines require or strongly suggest communication when a library change affects dependent packages or when a proven packager commits into "someone else's" packages (I know nobody "owns" a package). And I'm not insisting on any points literally here - I'm completely fine with a push from which I can tell what's going on, even without prior communication or coordination. We have pull requests, we have bugzilla entries, we have commit messages to support communication in many ways, it does not have to be by e-mail. What offends me is complete "non-communication": if, as a proven packager, you push "Rebuild (tesseract)" to mupdf.git I have to find out myself why you can even push to that repo, why you are doing that, and I have to live with that non-descriptive changelog entry (due to %autochangelog). Plus I have to close the non-referenced bugs. That's what happened "last time" (december), and even though it bothered me quite a bit I didn't complain. Now, since we're having the same with leptonica, I *asked* you to do it differently. What I got in response was no response but the same kind of pushes. I consider that inappropriate, and the tone of my last posting was a desperate attempt to get some form of communication going. Let me point out that I don't blame you for packaging mistakes. Everybody makes mistakes. Communication can help avoid some of them, though, and sometimes even the time it takes to communicate helps avoiding some mistakes such as the rush of build-build again. To emphasize: if you "mess up" (everybody does) you don't have to clean up all by yourself, just get the process started and everyone involved. So, please reconsider your communication strategy as a proven packager. Freedom friends first! 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Possibly unexpcted soname change: liblept.so.5 -> libleptonica.so.5.4.0
On 03.03.22 15:30, Michael J Gruber wrote: So, I explicitely asked what your plan was and got no response. I suggested to fix the problem at the root package and you went ahead rebuilding depending packages. I asked you to use proper commit messages/changelog if you do and got a series of "Rebuild (leptonica)", "Bump as F36 needs another rebuild" and what not. I asked you to at least reference the bz entries and you did not. While I'm typing this a buildroot override comes along. We do have an "unresponsive maintainer" process. Do we have an "unresponsive irreponsible proven packager" process, too? To be honest I'm saddened by such hostility. I maintain a pretty large number of packages mostly in my free time, and I think it's fair to say that I maintain most of the mingw and stack alone. I undertook a pretty large effort to merge some mingw specs into the native specs reduce my workload in the future, often working late into the night. At one point I did 197 commits in one day, and for as much effort and concentration I put into it, mistakes do happen - I am only human. But I think I've always been responsive and taken care to address any issues in a timely matter. So honestly, rather than attacking people for commit messages and attacking me for "the problems I caused last time", you might might consider using a more friendly tone. Sandro ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Possibly unexpcted soname change: liblept.so.5 -> libleptonica.so.5.4.0
So, I explicitely asked what your plan was and got no response. I suggested to fix the problem at the root package and you went ahead rebuilding depending packages. I asked you to use proper commit messages/changelog if you do and got a series of "Rebuild (leptonica)", "Bump as F36 needs another rebuild" and what not. I asked you to at least reference the bz entries and you did not. While I'm typing this a buildroot override comes along. We do have an "unresponsive maintainer" process. Do we have an "unresponsive irreponsible proven packager" process, too? ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Possibly unexpcted soname change: liblept.so.5 -> libleptonica.so.5.4.0
V Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 07:37:35PM +0900, Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a): > Petr Pisar wrote on 2022/02/25 19:10: > > V Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 10:46:15AM +0900, Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a): > > > On f37 / f36 leptonica made some packaging change: > > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/leptonica/c/e2486ca5bc2578ee629457b854c5e13bb94c1dde?branch=rawhide > > > > > > This caused soname change: liblept.so.5 -> libleptonica.so.5.4.0 , which > > > I guess is unexpected. > > > > > There was no soname change: > > > > leptonica-1.81.1-2.fc35.aarch64.rpm provides liblept.so.5()(64bit). > > "dnf repoquery --whatrequires 'liblept.so.5.4.0()(64bit)'" returns > > no results in F36 and F37. Where can you see libleptonica.so.5.4.0? > > > > -- Petr > > > > > leptonica-1.82.0-6.fc37 > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1924153 > I see. I overlooked liblept changing to leptonica. -- Petr signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Possibly unexpcted soname change: liblept.so.5 -> libleptonica.so.5.4.0
> On 25.02.22 11:37, Mamoru TASAKA wrote: > > Apologies, my mistake, upstream uses different library names depending > on whether you build with autotools or cmake, and when switching to > cmake I accidentally only provided the compat symlink for the > unversioned link library, but not for the versioned library. I'll > rebuild affected packages. > > Sandro So, is your plan to create the "lept" compat symlink both versioned and unversioned? No need to rebuild affected packages then. They have been rebuilt during the mass rebuild successfully and FTI now (not FTBFS). Also, if you do decide to rebuild as a proven packager: May I ask you to use more descriptive commit messages than "Rebuild (tesseract)" and close bugs that you caused (referencing them in the bodhi update could help) and maybe correspond with maintainers of affected packages in some way (i.e. do it better than the last time this happened)? 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Possibly unexpcted soname change: liblept.so.5 -> libleptonica.so.5.4.0
On 25.02.22 11:37, Mamoru TASAKA wrote: Petr Pisar wrote on 2022/02/25 19:10: V Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 10:46:15AM +0900, Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a): On f37 / f36 leptonica made some packaging change: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/leptonica/c/e2486ca5bc2578ee629457b854c5e13bb94c1dde?branch=rawhide This caused soname change: liblept.so.5 -> libleptonica.so.5.4.0 , which I guess is unexpected. There was no soname change: leptonica-1.81.1-2.fc35.aarch64.rpm provides liblept.so.5()(64bit). "dnf repoquery --whatrequires 'liblept.so.5.4.0()(64bit)'" returns no results in F36 and F37. Where can you see libleptonica.so.5.4.0? -- Petr leptonica-1.82.0-6.fc37 https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1924153 Apologies, my mistake, upstream uses different library names depending on whether you build with autotools or cmake, and when switching to cmake I accidentally only provided the compat symlink for the unversioned link library, but not for the versioned library. I'll rebuild affected packages. Sandro ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Possibly unexpcted soname change: liblept.so.5 -> libleptonica.so.5.4.0
Petr Pisar wrote on 2022/02/25 19:10: V Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 10:46:15AM +0900, Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a): On f37 / f36 leptonica made some packaging change: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/leptonica/c/e2486ca5bc2578ee629457b854c5e13bb94c1dde?branch=rawhide This caused soname change: liblept.so.5 -> libleptonica.so.5.4.0 , which I guess is unexpected. There was no soname change: leptonica-1.81.1-2.fc35.aarch64.rpm provides liblept.so.5()(64bit). "dnf repoquery --whatrequires 'liblept.so.5.4.0()(64bit)'" returns no results in F36 and F37. Where can you see libleptonica.so.5.4.0? -- Petr leptonica-1.82.0-6.fc37 https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1924153 Regards, Mamoru ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Possibly unexpcted soname change: liblept.so.5 -> libleptonica.so.5.4.0
V Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 10:46:15AM +0900, Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a): > On f37 / f36 leptonica made some packaging change: > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/leptonica/c/e2486ca5bc2578ee629457b854c5e13bb94c1dde?branch=rawhide > > This caused soname change: liblept.so.5 -> libleptonica.so.5.4.0 , which I > guess is unexpected. > There was no soname change: leptonica-1.81.1-2.fc35.aarch64.rpm provides liblept.so.5()(64bit). "dnf repoquery --whatrequires 'liblept.so.5.4.0()(64bit)'" returns no results in F36 and F37. Where can you see libleptonica.so.5.4.0? -- Petr signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Possibly unexpcted soname change: liblept.so.5 -> libleptonica.so.5.4.0
Hello, all:
On f37 / f36 leptonica made some packaging change:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/leptonica/c/e2486ca5bc2578ee629457b854c5e13bb94c1dde?branch=rawhide
This caused soname change: liblept.so.5 -> libleptonica.so.5.4.0 , which I
guess is unexpected.
$ dnf repoquery --quiet --repo=koji-36 --qf '%{sourcerpm}' --whatrequires
"liblept.so.5()(64bit)" | cat -n
1 leptonica-1.82.0-2.fc36.src.rpm
2 mupdf-1.19.0-5.fc36.src.rpm
3 python-PyMuPDF-1.19.4-2.fc36.src.rpm
4 tesseract-5.0.1-2.fc36.src.rpm
5 zathura-pdf-mupdf-0.3.7-5.fc36.src.rpm
$ dnf repoquery --quiet --repo=koji-37 --qf '%{sourcerpm}' --whatrequires
"liblept.so.5()(64bit)" | cat -n
1 mupdf-1.19.0-5.fc36.src.rpm
2 python-PyMuPDF-1.19.5-1.fc37.src.rpm
3 zathura-pdf-mupdf-0.3.7-5.fc36.src.rpm
(Some of the package were rebuilt on f37 due to another reason, so depending
packages' number
differs here)
Currently I am not sure if we can just revert the above change.
Regards,
Mamoru
___
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 on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
