Re: Can we retire mozjs68 in rawhide?

2022-11-29 Thread Frantisek Zatloukal
Thanks for trying, fired off the build for real, passed too, mozjs68 retired from rawhide. I'll add it to fedora-obsolete-packages too. On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 12:20 PM Florian Weimer wrote: > * Frantisek Zatloukal: > > > Hey, > > > > yeah, I am looking forward to throwing it away, erlang-js

Re: Can we retire mozjs68 in rawhide?

2022-11-29 Thread Florian Weimer
* Frantisek Zatloukal: > Hey, > > yeah, I am looking forward to throwing it away, erlang-js was changed ( > https://github.com/erlang-mozjs/erlang-mozjs/issues/6 ) to be built against > the new mozjs, > but the build has failed, so repos still contain the old version ( >

Re: Can we retire mozjs68 in rawhide?

2022-11-29 Thread Frantisek Zatloukal
Hey, yeah, I am looking forward to throwing it away, erlang-js was changed ( https://github.com/erlang-mozjs/erlang-mozjs/issues/6 ) to be built against the new mozjs, but the build has failed, so repos still contain the old version ( https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=2085927

Re: Can we retire mozjs68 in rawhide?

2022-11-29 Thread Kalev Lember
On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 10:44 AM Florian Weimer wrote: > I don't see anything depending on it in the RPM specs file archive. > > It looks like the configure script might get confused when building with > future C compilers which do not accept implicit function declarations, > and it's probably

Can we retire mozjs68 in rawhide?

2022-11-29 Thread Florian Weimer
I don't see anything depending on it in the RPM specs file archive. It looks like the configure script might get confused when building with future C compilers which do not accept implicit function declarations, and it's probably not worth porting this to C99. Thanks, Florian