On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 03:38:36PM -0700, Stefan Nuxoll wrote:
> No, but it would be a good start. Maybe koji can automatically open a ticket
> on bugzilla for all packages that require a rebuild due to an soname bump (if
> the package Requires either the package or has a query-able reference to
dependent packages
to see if there are any breaking changes would be nice too.
Stefan Nuxoll
> Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2016 11:46:34 +0100
> From: mschwe...@gmail.com
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Subject: Re: Unannounced soname bump: libpsl
>
> On Thu, 4 Feb 2016 04:21:59 -05
On Thu, 4 Feb 2016 10:53:11 +0100, David Tardon wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 11:27:30PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
> > > This is the hazard of using %{_libdir}/*.so.* in %files. Is there any
> > > reason why such a syntax should NOT be formally discouraged in the
On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 11:46:34AM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > Rawhide is broken too often too easily, leading to too few
> > contributors/developers running it, leading to more problems.
> Is the Fedora Project still not doing anything to change that?
Well, see previous messages in this th
On Thu, 4 Feb 2016 04:21:59 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Rawhide is broken too often too easily, leading to too few
> contributors/developers running it, leading to more problems.
Is the Fedora Project still not doing anything to change that?
As long as some developers continue using Rawhide a
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 05:10:43AM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Ideally, every
> line in a package definition (specfile or what have you) is only there
> because of some exception from the typical case. For well-behaved
> upstreams, the perfect packaging description would be _empty_. With al
On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 11:27:30PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
> > This is the hazard of using %{_libdir}/*.so.* in %files. Is there any
> > reason why such a syntax should NOT be formally discouraged in the
> > packaging guidelines?
>
> There is: I do not want to have to
On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 10:04:39AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >Why bureaucracy?
>
> Because this cannot work without coordination in a multi-admin world
> => Fedora is not a Cathedral, so bureaucracy is inevitably required.
I don't think this follows. I mean, let's just look at the _metaphor_
On 02/04/2016 09:44 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 07:09:53PM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Right. Tooling should stop that too. And I'm not just talking
_completely_ in hand-wavy theory. This is Dennis Gilmore's plan, where
any package build which breaks other packages (or pos
On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 07:09:53PM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >>Right. Tooling should stop that too. And I'm not just talking
> >>_completely_ in hand-wavy theory. This is Dennis Gilmore's plan, where
> >>any package build which breaks other packages (or possibly other
> >>integration testing)
On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 09:08:04AM -0700, Jerry James wrote:
> > Right. Tooling should stop that too. And I'm not just talking
> > _completely_ in hand-wavy theory. This is Dennis Gilmore's plan, where
> > any package build which breaks other packages (or possibly other
> > integration testing) get
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Why would it be a pointless edit? Surely you are editing it to update
> to the new version, why wouldn't you also just edit it to adjust the
> so files? or do you not test your version upgrade specs before firing
> off official builds?
Of course not. The rule of thumb is "Rawh
On Wed, 03 Feb 2016 23:27:30 +0100
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
> > This is the hazard of using %{_libdir}/*.so.* in %files. Is there
> > any reason why such a syntax should NOT be formally discouraged in
> > the packaging guidelines?
>
> There is: I do not want to have to po
Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
> This is the hazard of using %{_libdir}/*.so.* in %files. Is there any
> reason why such a syntax should NOT be formally discouraged in the
> packaging guidelines?
There is: I do not want to have to pointlessly edit my specfile each time
some soname changes, and waste a
On 02/03/2016 12:42 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 05:26:23 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 06:13:13PM -0600, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
This approach really scales badly and creates busywork.
And breaking rawhide however often due to unnoticed soname bumps
d
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 3:26 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Right. Tooling should stop that too. And I'm not just talking
> _completely_ in hand-wavy theory. This is Dennis Gilmore's plan, where
> any package build which breaks other packages (or possibly other
> integration testing) gets automaticall
On Wed, 3 Feb 2016 05:26:23 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 06:13:13PM -0600, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
> > >This approach really scales badly and creates busywork.
> > And breaking rawhide however often due to unnoticed soname bumps
> > does scale well and does not cause bu
On Tue, 02 Feb 2016 13:01:04 +0100, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Even if the spec file uses wildcards to include any shared library
> > version, the automatic dependency checks for Rawhide will notice the
> > SONAME change and inform the packager about it.
> > [...]
>
> This is too late, though. We
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 06:13:13PM -0600, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
> >Ideally, every line in a package definition (specfile or what have you)
> >is only there because of some exception from the typical case. For
> >well-behaved
> >upstreams, the perfect packaging description would be _empty_.
> I d
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 06:13:13PM -0600, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
> >This approach really scales badly and creates busywork.
> And breaking rawhide however often due to unnoticed soname bumps
> does scale well and does not cause busywork?
Right. Tooling should stop that too. And I'm not just talki
On 2016-02-02 04:10, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 10:20:32AM +0100, Adam Williamson wrote:
The reason to not use globs anyway, though, is simple and exactly the
one in this thread: when the soname changes, all the package's
dependencies need rebuilding. Thus, as the packager, yo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/01/2016 10:02 PM, John Dulaney wrote:
>
>>
>> This is the hazard of using %{_libdir}/*.so.* in %files. Is there any
>> reason why such a syntax should NOT be formally discouraged in the
>> packaging gui
On Tue, 2016-02-02 at 11:16 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
> Even if the spec file uses wildcards to include any shared library
> version, the automatic dependency checks for Rawhide will notice the
> SONAME change and inform the packager about it. => The packager will
> need to take proper acti
On Tue, 02 Feb 2016 10:20:32 +0100, Adam Williamson wrote:
> The reason to not use globs anyway, though, is simple and exactly the
> one in this thread: when the soname changes, all the package's
> dependencies need rebuilding. Thus, as the packager, you need to know
> when the soname changes. If
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 10:20:32AM +0100, Adam Williamson wrote:
> The reason to not use globs anyway, though, is simple and exactly the
> one in this thread: when the soname changes, all the package's
> dependencies need rebuilding. Thus, as the packager, you need to know
> when the soname changes
On Tue, 2016-02-02 at 02:29 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 2:19 AM, Adam Williamson
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2016-02-01 at 15:02 -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Yaakov Selkowitz > > .com
> > > > wrote:
> > > > On 2016-02-01 07:45, Adam Williamson wr
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 2:19 AM, Adam Williamson
wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-02-01 at 15:02 -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Yaakov Selkowitz > > wrote:
>> > On 2016-02-01 07:45, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> > > Hi, folks. Looks like there was an unannounced soname bump in
>> >
On Mon, 2016-02-01 at 15:02 -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Yaakov Selkowitz > wrote:
> > On 2016-02-01 07:45, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > Hi, folks. Looks like there was an unannounced soname bump in
> > > Rawhide
> > > today: libpsl.so.0 -> libpsl.so.5, in package
>
> This is the hazard of using %{_libdir}/*.so.* in %files. Is there any
> reason why such a syntax should NOT be formally discouraged in the
> packaging guidelines?
>
It hasn't been actively discouraged, and I have, in fact seen it encouraged
during packa
On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Yaakov Selkowitz
wrote:
> On 2016-02-01 07:45, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
>> Hi, folks. Looks like there was an unannounced soname bump in Rawhide
>> today: libpsl.so.0 -> libpsl.so.5, in package libpsl. Looks like the
>> only other package using that lib is wget, so
On 2016-02-01 07:45, Adam Williamson wrote:
Hi, folks. Looks like there was an unannounced soname bump in Rawhide
today: libpsl.so.0 -> libpsl.so.5, in package libpsl. Looks like the
only other package using that lib is wget, so that needs rebuilding.
I'll try a straight rebuild, if that doesn't
Hi, folks. Looks like there was an unannounced soname bump in Rawhide
today: libpsl.so.0 -> libpsl.so.5, in package libpsl. Looks like the
only other package using that lib is wget, so that needs rebuilding.
I'll try a straight rebuild, if that doesn't work I'll contact the
maintainer.
--
Adam Wil
32 matches
Mail list logo
