Re: FreeRDP downgrade in rawhide and f22 updates-testing
On Wed, 2015-03-18 at 22:07 +0300, Pavel Alexeev wrote: Why you revert it in rawhide too? I could help with rebuilding dependencies. Is there other known troubles except so-name change? It's more *rewriting* dependencies than rebuilding them. Especially guacamole. You have to deal with the fact that svc_plugin went away, and also the old event system (the two commits immediately after the FreeRDP snapshot I reverted to). And then potentially more. I did take a look at making guacamole build against FreeRDP HEAD. I got the svc_plugin part working, but then realised that even that had licensing problems because I was lifting Apache-licensed code snippets from FreeRDP. See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1199634#c5 If you want to get guacamole-server building against the latest FreeRDP, that would be *great*. In the meantime, I didn't think it was good to update FreeRDP in rawhide and leave it broken. So I've updated to a snapshot which is new enough to meet my requirements (I need freerdp-shadow), but without breaking guacamole. -- dwmw2 smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
FreeRDP downgrade in rawhide and f22 updates-testing
After a brief flirtation with a FreeRDP 1.2.1-beta snapshot, we concluded that the API breakage was too much to handle and we've reverted to a slightly earlier snapshot of 1.2.0-beta. The 1.2.1 packages were briefly visible in rawhide and f22 updates-testing. Am I right in thinking that we *don't* need to bump the epoch in order to go back to 1.2.0, and that testers should expect to have to use 'distro-sync' occasionally instead of just 'update'? I suppose we can bump the epoch if we have to (it's already non-zero, after all), but my first inclination is always to try to avoid doing so. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-3632 -- dwmw2 smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: FreeRDP downgrade in rawhide and f22 updates-testing
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:08 AM, David Woodhouse dw...@infradead.org wrote: After a brief flirtation with a FreeRDP 1.2.1-beta snapshot, we concluded that the API breakage was too much to handle and we've reverted to a slightly earlier snapshot of 1.2.0-beta. The 1.2.1 packages were briefly visible in rawhide and f22 updates-testing. Am I right in thinking that we *don't* need to bump the epoch in order to go back to 1.2.0, and that testers should expect to have to use 'distro-sync' occasionally instead of just 'update'? I suppose we can bump the epoch if we have to (it's already non-zero, after all), but my first inclination is always to try to avoid doing so. If you've pushed them out to people you'll need to bump the epoch, expecting people to run distro-sync isn't a fix and there's other processes that don't have that functionality (secondary arch builds amongst other things) to deal with it. Peter -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: FreeRDP downgrade in rawhide and f22 updates-testing
On Wed, 18 Mar 2015 11:13:06 + Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:08 AM, David Woodhouse dw...@infradead.org wrote: After a brief flirtation with a FreeRDP 1.2.1-beta snapshot, we concluded that the API breakage was too much to handle and we've reverted to a slightly earlier snapshot of 1.2.0-beta. The 1.2.1 packages were briefly visible in rawhide and f22 updates-testing. Am I right in thinking that we *don't* need to bump the epoch in order to go back to 1.2.0, and that testers should expect to have to use 'distro-sync' occasionally instead of just 'update'? I suppose we can bump the epoch if we have to (it's already non-zero, after all), but my first inclination is always to try to avoid doing so. If you've pushed them out to people you'll need to bump the epoch, expecting people to run distro-sync isn't a fix and there's other processes that don't have that functionality (secondary arch builds amongst other things) to deal with it. Yep. Epoch bump time. kevin pgpTRvcYVcHVb.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: FreeRDP downgrade in rawhide and f22 updates-testing
Hello. 18.03.2015 14:08, David Woodhouse wrote: After a brief flirtation with a FreeRDP 1.2.1-beta snapshot, we concluded that the API breakage was too much to handle and we've reverted to a slightly earlier snapshot of 1.2.0-beta. The 1.2.1 packages were briefly visible in rawhide and f22 updates-testing. Am I right in thinking that we *don't* need to bump the epoch in order to go back to 1.2.0, and that testers should expect to have to use 'distro-sync' occasionally instead of just 'update'? Why you revert it in rawhide too? I could help with rebuilding dependencies. Is there other known troubles except so-name change? I suppose we can bump the epoch if we have to (it's already non-zero, after all), but my first inclination is always to try to avoid doing so. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-3632 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
