Re: You can't be serious! you want to remove mesa-libGL.i686 support?
My investigations shown, probably nothing will be affected by removal of jdk on i686 and the fix in subversion and automake/autotools is fluid and, again, will damage nothing. However I'm not sure. I can not possibly see into all details of all affected packages. Where casual pkg which is being depndent by nothing, may simply get weird FTBFS, but not a package, on which half of the system depend. File a bug against subversion, put it on the release blocker tracker, and do not waste everyone else's time. Thus saying, is it really waste of time? I really doubt. It is making people aware of quite major happening, and thus about fact, that they may be affected, even if they did not know. Maybe "the script that generated this data and filed bugs for packages affected by the removal of Java packages on i686 was a bit over-zealous." ( to quote :) ) but I still somehow finds it correct. A HEADS UP email to this list makes people aware. Dozens of bugs that I was very very strict with what packages to spam with bugs. And from half of distro indirectly affected, I took vonly the most severe subset. will be closed without action is not helpful though. I'm really not sure If I Agree. The email here was dropped 3times. I guess you noticed the replying people are very very small subset of the packagers. But I agree the people wathing bugzilla are probably the same, And those not readinf devel, are not reading the bugzilla either. Jiri, could you please close all the bugzillas that were only opened due to the subversion<-java dependency now when https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2103909 was fixed? I've closed some bugs for very important components manualy, but there are simply too many. Argh:( You should have not. I'm really reluctant to do so. How can you proof the package is really not affected by the change? I had walked through the filled bugs, and I closed one. Qite a few form the list Miro closed should brobably be reopened. Only really few pkgs depends on java only through subversion. Tehy are usually puling java also other pkgs. I admit I had maybe messed up subpkgs output (not the detection), but I would heavily vote to not close the bugs without deeper understanding. J. ___ 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: You can't be serious! you want to remove mesa-libGL.i686 support?
On 7/15/22 11:07, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On Wed, 13 Jul 2022 at 11:04, Jiri Vanek wrote: Hi All! On 7/6/22 01:24, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 06. 07. 22 1:17, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 06. 07. 22 0:14, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: Stephen Smoogen wrote: Hyperbole aside, it isn't a joke. Looking at the chain we see a common If mesa's i686 support should be removed, then this proposal would need to be reverted. ... I cant agree. Of course subversion is main to act, but afaik all its dependence should be warned. Otherwise they would suddenly got very weird FTBFS on i686. No they won't, because only the subversion-hljava subpackage depends on java, so packages that have Requires:subversion or BR:subversion are not affected at all by removing subversion-hljava on i686. I agree I had most likely bug in the deps crawler. Had checked it again, and can not find it. Nvm. I hope I will not be removing any arch any time soon. Not seeing x86_128 knocking behind doors anytime soon:) My investigations shown, probably nothing will be affected by removal of jdk on i686 and the fix in subversion and automake/autotools is fluid and, again, will damage nothing. However I'm not sure. I can not possibly see into all details of all affected packages. Where casual pkg which is being depndent by nothing, may simply get weird FTBFS, but not a package, on which half of the system depend. File a bug against subversion, put it on the release blocker tracker, and do not waste everyone else's time. Thus saying, is it really waste of time? I really doubt. It is making people aware of quite major happening, and thus about fact, that they may be affected, even if they did not know. Maybe "the script that generated this data and filed bugs for packages affected by the removal of Java packages on i686 was a bit over-zealous." ( to quote :) ) but I still somehow finds it correct. A HEADS UP email to this list makes people aware. Dozens of bugs that I was very very strict with what packages to spam with bugs. And from half of distro indirectly affected, I took vonly the most severe subset. will be closed without action is not helpful though. I'm really not sure If I Agree. The email here was dropped 3times. I guess you noticed the replying people are very very small subset of the packagers. But I agree the people wathing bugzilla are probably the same, And those not readinf devel, are not reading the bugzilla either. Jiri, could you please close all the bugzillas that were only opened due to the subversion<-java dependency now when https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2103909 was fixed? I've closed some bugs for very important components manualy, but there are simply too many. Argh:( You should have not. I'm really reluctant to do so. How can you proof the package is really not affected by the change? Because it's obvious from looking at the subversion.spec that the main 'subversion' RPM is not affected in any way by the Java changes. I have actually second set of dependent packages (with 50-77 dependencies) prepared to fill bug aganst, if the mass rebuild next week goes bad. If this thread asks me to close the transitive depndencies of subversion to be closed, I will do so. But I relly think it is bad idea. Owner should check the impact, and close on his own. And actually it is no tso much. It is less then 50 which depends *only* on subversion. But depending on subversion is the wrong check, because subversion doesn't depend on Java, only subversion-hljava does. The script should have been working like this. But for bug reporting the main package is needed. If I messed up it will hurt a bit. I wil ldouble check ___ 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 -- Jiri Vanek Mgr. Principal QA Software Engineer Red Hat Inc. +420 775 39 01 09 ___ 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: You can't be serious! you want to remove mesa-libGL.i686 support?
On Wed, 13 Jul 2022 at 11:04, Jiri Vanek wrote:
>
> Hi All!
>
> On 7/6/22 01:24, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > On 06. 07. 22 1:17, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >> On 06. 07. 22 0:14, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> >>> Stephen Smoogen wrote:
> Hyperbole aside, it isn't a joke. Looking at the chain we see a common
>
>
> If mesa's i686 support should be removed, then this proposal would need to be
> reverted.
>
> I had filled bugs against all native direct dependencies of java (eg
> subversion) and against all packages, which transitively depends on java, and
> are themsleves important (being dependence of 78+ other pkgs[that is where
> the non linear
> curve really started to grow]). All direct no-arch deps got injected
> ExclusiveArch: %{java_arches}. See
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Drop_i686_JDKs#Workflow; there are
> also exact listings of what was filled bug agasint.
>
> problem where subversion relies on java-11-openjdk and without it is
> going
> to cause a lot of packages to be removed. Either subversion needs to lose
> that requirement or a lot of packages are going to get removed as failure
> to build in i686.
>
> libglvnd-glx<-mesa-libGL<-libxcb<-doxygen<-git<-subversion<-java-11-
> >>> openjdk-devel
>
> This email isn't a comment about it being a good or bad thing.. it is
> just
> what is being presented.
> >>>
> >>> I do not see why bogus "bug" reports are filed against a bazillion
> >>> packages
> >>> when subversion is the only package that needs to be fixed.
>
> I cant agree. Of course subversion is main to act, but afaik all its
> dependence should be warned. Otherwise they would suddenly got very weird
> FTBFS on i686.
No they won't, because only the subversion-hljava subpackage depends
on java, so packages that have Requires:subversion or BR:subversion
are not affected at all by removing subversion-hljava on i686.
> My investigations shown, probably nothing will be affected by removal of jdk
> on i686 and the fix in subversion and automake/autotools is fluid and, again,
> will damage nothing. However I'm not sure. I can not possibly see into all
> details of
> all affected packages.
> Where casual pkg which is being depndent by nothing, may simply get weird
> FTBFS, but not a package, on which half of the system depend.
> >>>
> >>> File a bug against subversion, put it on the release blocker tracker, and
> >>> do
> >>> not waste everyone else's time.
>
> Thus saying, is it really waste of time? I really doubt. It is making people
> aware of quite major happening, and thus about fact, that they may be
> affected, even if they did not know. Maybe "the script that generated this
> data and filed
> bugs for
> packages affected by the removal of Java packages on i686 was a bit
> over-zealous." ( to quote :) ) but I still somehow finds it correct.
A HEADS UP email to this list makes people aware. Dozens of bugs that
will be closed without action is not helpful though.
> >>
> >> Jiri, could you please close all the bugzillas that were only opened due
> >> to the subversion<-java dependency now when
> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2103909 was fixed?
> >
> > I've closed some bugs for very important components manualy, but there are
> > simply too many.
>
> Argh:( You should have not. I'm really reluctant to do so. How can you proof
> the package is really not affected by the change?
Because it's obvious from looking at the subversion.spec that the main
'subversion' RPM is not affected in any way by the Java changes.
> I have actually second set of dependent packages (with 50-77 dependencies)
> prepared to fill bug aganst, if the mass rebuild next week goes bad.
>
> If this thread asks me to close the transitive depndencies of subversion to
> be closed, I will do so. But I relly think it is bad idea. Owner should
> check the impact, and close on his own. And actually it is no tso much. It is
> less then 50
> which depends *only* on subversion.
But depending on subversion is the wrong check, because subversion
doesn't depend on Java, only subversion-hljava does.
___
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: You can't be serious! you want to remove mesa-libGL.i686 support?
Hi All!
On 7/6/22 01:24, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 06. 07. 22 1:17, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 06. 07. 22 0:14, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
Stephen Smoogen wrote:
Hyperbole aside, it isn't a joke. Looking at the chain we see a common
If mesa's i686 support should be removed, then this proposal would need to be
reverted.
I had filled bugs against all native direct dependencies of java (eg subversion) and against all packages, which transitively depends on java, and are themsleves important (being dependence of 78+ other pkgs[that is where the non linear
curve really started to grow]). All direct no-arch deps got injected ExclusiveArch: %{java_arches}. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Drop_i686_JDKs#Workflow; there are also exact listings of what was filled bug agasint.
problem where subversion relies on java-11-openjdk and without it is going
to cause a lot of packages to be removed. Either subversion needs to lose
that requirement or a lot of packages are going to get removed as failure
to build in i686.
libglvnd-glx<-mesa-libGL<-libxcb<-doxygen<-git<-subversion<-java-11-
openjdk-devel
This email isn't a comment about it being a good or bad thing.. it is just
what is being presented.
I do not see why bogus "bug" reports are filed against a bazillion packages
when subversion is the only package that needs to be fixed.
I cant agree. Of course subversion is main to act, but afaik all its dependence
should be warned. Otherwise they would suddenly got very weird FTBFS on i686.
My investigations shown, probably nothing will be affected by removal of jdk on i686 and the fix in subversion and automake/autotools is fluid and, again, will damage nothing. However I'm not sure. I can not possibly see into all details of
all affected packages.
Where casual pkg which is being depndent by nothing, may simply get weird
FTBFS, but not a package, on which half of the system depend.
File a bug against subversion, put it on the release blocker tracker, and do
not waste everyone else's time.
Thus saying, is it really waste of time? I really doubt. It is making people aware of quite major happening, and thus about fact, that they may be affected, even if they did not know. Maybe "the script that generated this data and filed
bugs for
packages affected by the removal of Java packages on i686 was a bit
over-zealous." ( to quote :) ) but I still somehow finds it correct.
Jiri, could you please close all the bugzillas that were only opened due to the
subversion<-java dependency now when
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2103909 was fixed?
I've closed some bugs for very important components manualy, but there are
simply too many.
Argh:( You should have not. I'm really reluctant to do so. How can you proof
the package is really not affected by the change?
I have actually second set of dependent packages (with 50-77 dependencies)
prepared to fill bug aganst, if the mass rebuild next week goes bad.
If this thread asks me to close the transitive depndencies of subversion to be closed, I will do so. But I relly think it is bad idea. Owner should check the impact, and close on his own. And actually it is no tso much. It is less then 50
which depends *only* on subversion.
Sorry for delayed reply, Miro, thanx for ping.
J.
--
Jiri Vanek Mgr.
Principal QA Software Engineer
Red Hat Inc.
+420 775 39 01 09
___
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: You can't be serious! you want to remove mesa-libGL.i686 support?
On Tue, 5 Jul 2022 at 23:15, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > > Stephen Smoogen wrote: > > Hyperbole aside, it isn't a joke. Looking at the chain we see a common > > problem where subversion relies on java-11-openjdk and without it is going > > to cause a lot of packages to be removed. Either subversion needs to lose > > that requirement or a lot of packages are going to get removed as failure > > to build in i686. > > > > libglvnd-glx<-mesa-libGL<-libxcb<-doxygen<-git<-subversion<-java-11- > openjdk-devel > > > > This email isn't a comment about it being a good or bad thing.. it is just > > what is being presented. > > I do not see why bogus "bug" reports are filed against a bazillion packages > when subversion is the only package that needs to be fixed. In fact just one subpackage of subversion, subversion-javahl. All the packages (like git) that depend on the main subversion package are completely unaffected if the subversion-javahl subpackage goes away on i686. And even for git, only the git-svn.noarch subpackage has Requires:subversion. The git package does have BuildRequires:subversion for the tests but again, it's not the subversion-javahl subpackage, and will be completely unaffected by updates to remove subversion-javahl on i686. AFAICT nothing depends on subversion-javahl and so nothing will be affected by removing it on i686, and so no packages need to care about the change to subversion that is already in rawhide. ___ 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
OT: triggered Re: You can't be serious! you want to remove mesa-libGL.i686 support?
On Wed, 6 Jul 2022 07:59:08 -0400 Stephen Smoogen wrote: > Thank you for your pointers. I have reflected on my original email and > agree I made several mistakes in that email: > I did not know the size of the bug problem. > I did not investigate why the bugs were filed. > I approached this as a one off versus a systematic problem. > I did not help people who were affected by this in a forward moving > way. This reminds me too much of those old videos of the cultural revolution when the bourgeoisie in China wore signs around their neck confessing their crimes, while being berated by the proletariat (the communist / Maoist true believers). I think this is a bad thing for a community like Fedora. Isn't a simple apology or acknowledgement of error enough? Maybe I'm reading too much into it, or it is satire? ___ 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: You can't be serious! you want to remove mesa-libGL.i686 support?
On Tue, 5 Jul 2022 at 18:16, Kevin Kofler via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > Stephen Smoogen wrote: > > Hyperbole aside, it isn't a joke. Looking at the chain we see a common > > problem where subversion relies on java-11-openjdk and without it is > going > > to cause a lot of packages to be removed. Either subversion needs to lose > > that requirement or a lot of packages are going to get removed as failure > > to build in i686. > > > > libglvnd-glx<-mesa-libGL<-libxcb<-doxygen<-git<-subversion<-java-11- > openjdk-devel > > > > This email isn't a comment about it being a good or bad thing.. it is > just > > what is being presented. > > I do not see why bogus "bug" reports are filed against a bazillion > packages > when subversion is the only package that needs to be fixed. > > Thank you for your pointers. I have reflected on my original email and agree I made several mistakes in that email: I did not know the size of the bug problem. I did not investigate why the bugs were filed. I approached this as a one off versus a systematic problem. I did not help people who were affected by this in a forward moving way. > File a bug against subversion, put it on the release blocker tracker, and > do > not waste everyone else's time. > > 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 > -- Stephen Smoogen, Red Hat Automotive Let us be kind to one another, for most of us are fighting a hard battle. -- Ian MacClaren ___ 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: You can't be serious! you want to remove mesa-libGL.i686 support?
On 06. 07. 22 1:17, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 06. 07. 22 0:14, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: Stephen Smoogen wrote: Hyperbole aside, it isn't a joke. Looking at the chain we see a common problem where subversion relies on java-11-openjdk and without it is going to cause a lot of packages to be removed. Either subversion needs to lose that requirement or a lot of packages are going to get removed as failure to build in i686. libglvnd-glx<-mesa-libGL<-libxcb<-doxygen<-git<-subversion<-java-11- openjdk-devel This email isn't a comment about it being a good or bad thing.. it is just what is being presented. I do not see why bogus "bug" reports are filed against a bazillion packages when subversion is the only package that needs to be fixed. File a bug against subversion, put it on the release blocker tracker, and do not waste everyone else's time. Jiri, could you please close all the bugzillas that were only opened due to the subversion<-java dependency now when https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2103909 was fixed? I've closed some bugs for very important components manualy, but there are simply too many. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ 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: You can't be serious! you want to remove mesa-libGL.i686 support?
On 06. 07. 22 0:14, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: Stephen Smoogen wrote: Hyperbole aside, it isn't a joke. Looking at the chain we see a common problem where subversion relies on java-11-openjdk and without it is going to cause a lot of packages to be removed. Either subversion needs to lose that requirement or a lot of packages are going to get removed as failure to build in i686. libglvnd-glx<-mesa-libGL<-libxcb<-doxygen<-git<-subversion<-java-11- openjdk-devel This email isn't a comment about it being a good or bad thing.. it is just what is being presented. I do not see why bogus "bug" reports are filed against a bazillion packages when subversion is the only package that needs to be fixed. File a bug against subversion, put it on the release blocker tracker, and do not waste everyone else's time. Jiri, could you please close all the bugzillas that were only opened due to the subversion<-java dependency now when https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2103909 was fixed? -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ 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: You can't be serious! you want to remove mesa-libGL.i686 support?
Stephen Smoogen wrote: > Hyperbole aside, it isn't a joke. Looking at the chain we see a common > problem where subversion relies on java-11-openjdk and without it is going > to cause a lot of packages to be removed. Either subversion needs to lose > that requirement or a lot of packages are going to get removed as failure > to build in i686. > > libglvnd-glx<-mesa-libGL<-libxcb<-doxygen<-git<-subversion<-java-11- openjdk-devel > > This email isn't a comment about it being a good or bad thing.. it is just > what is being presented. I do not see why bogus "bug" reports are filed against a bazillion packages when subversion is the only package that needs to be fixed. File a bug against subversion, put it on the release blocker tracker, and do not waste everyone else's time. 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: You can't be serious! you want to remove mesa-libGL.i686 support?
On Tue, Jul 5, 2022 at 11:34 PM Stephen Smoogen wrote: > > On Tue, 5 Jul 2022 at 17:26, Leigh Scott wrote: >> >> Is this some sick joke? >> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2104255 > > Hyperbole aside, it isn't a joke. Looking at the chain we see a common > problem where subversion relies on java-11-openjdk and without it is going to > cause a lot of packages to be removed. Either subversion needs to lose that > requirement or a lot of packages are going to get removed as failure to build > in i686. > > libglvnd-glx<-mesa-libGL<-libxcb<-doxygen<-git<-subversion<-java-11-openjdk-devel It appears that the script that generated this data and filed bugs for packages affected by the removal of Java packages on i686 was a bit over-zealous. I can imagine that half the distro is counted as "affected", just because of the git <- subversion <- java dependency chain. I already closed two of the bugs that were assigned to me as "NOTABUG" because it's not on me to fix this problem, but rather on the maintainer of either git or subversion. Fabio ___ 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: You can't be serious! you want to remove mesa-libGL.i686 support?
On Tue, 5 Jul 2022 at 17:26, Leigh Scott wrote: > Is this some sick joke? > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2104255 Hyperbole aside, it isn't a joke. Looking at the chain we see a common problem where subversion relies on java-11-openjdk and without it is going to cause a lot of packages to be removed. Either subversion needs to lose that requirement or a lot of packages are going to get removed as failure to build in i686. libglvnd-glx<-mesa-libGL<-libxcb<-doxygen<-git<-subversion<-java-11-openjdk-devel This email isn't a comment about it being a good or bad thing.. it is just what is being presented. -- Stephen Smoogen, Red Hat Automotive Let us be kind to one another, for most of us are fighting a hard battle. -- Ian MacClaren ___ 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
