On 22. 03. 22 19:48, Adam Williamson wrote:
now we have convenient self-service side tags,*please use them*.
Especially for something as major as a bump of perl that changes
dependencies of packages built against it like this. Side tags avoid
this mess entirely. Using the mechanism to produce an
On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 5:05 PM Mattia Verga via devel
wrote:
> Maybe BR overrides usage should be restricted only to users with special
> needs (users in provenpackager or releng groups), while "normal" users
> should be forced to take the side-tag way?
As always, there are special cases. I
V Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 05:04:29PM +, Mattia Verga via devel napsal(a):
> Il 24/03/22 09:12, Petr Pisar ha scritto:
> > V Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 05:40:28PM +, Mattia Verga via devel napsal(a):
> >> So, now that we have side-tags to perform this kind of builds, does the
> >> buildroot override
Il 24/03/22 09:12, Petr Pisar ha scritto:
> V Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 05:40:28PM +, Mattia Verga via devel napsal(a):
>> So, now that we have side-tags to perform this kind of builds, does the
>> buildroot override existence still make sense? Is there any use case
>> that still requires BR
V Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 05:40:28PM +, Mattia Verga via devel napsal(a):
> So, now that we have side-tags to perform this kind of builds, does the
> buildroot override existence still make sense? Is there any use case
> that still requires BR overrides and cannot be done with side-tags?
>
I use
On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 10:16 AM Adam Williamson
wrote:
> 2) Just to note what I wound up doing here - aside from the special
> polymake case, I found (I hope) all the packages that got built against
> 5.34.1, bumped and rebuilt them against 5.34.0, and edited the
> standalone updates to have the
On Wed, 2022-03-23 at 18:13 -0400, Elliott Sales de Andrade wrote:
> >
> > 1) Neat trick: I'm pretty sure the buildroot override only needs to be
> > valid until all the build dependencies have been installed. For my
> > polymake rebuild, I put the override back in place, fired the polymake
> >
On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 12:16 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2022-03-23 at 08:39 +, Paul Howarth wrote:
> >
> > OK, so this is largely my fault. Whilst I didn't do the initial perl
> > 5.34.1 build and update, I did set up the buildroot override and the
> > builds of the two packages
On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 10:41:52 -0700
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> I wonder... should we stop allowing buildroot overrides?
>
> Or at the very least add a admon to adding a new one in bodhi,
> explaining that you should probibly use a side tag, etc?
They're still very useful when bringing up new EPEL
On 23. 03. 22 18:40, Mattia Verga via devel wrote:
So, now that we have side-tags to perform this kind of builds, does the
buildroot override existence still make sense? Is there any use case
that still requires BR overrides and cannot be done with side-tags?
As I've said elsewhere in the
On 23. 03. 22 18:41, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
I wonder... should we stop allowing buildroot overrides?
I wondered this for a long time. Unfortunately I still find usecases for
buildroot overrides. E.g. when we ship new versions of some macro packages etc.
and we want them available even before the
I wonder... should we stop allowing buildroot overrides?
Or at the very least add a admon to adding a new one in bodhi,
explaining that you should probibly use a side tag, etc?
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
devel mailing list --
So, now that we have side-tags to perform this kind of builds, does the
buildroot override existence still make sense? Is there any use case
that still requires BR overrides and cannot be done with side-tags?
Mattia
___
devel mailing list --
On Wed, 2022-03-23 at 08:39 +, Paul Howarth wrote:
>
> OK, so this is largely my fault. Whilst I didn't do the initial perl
> 5.34.1 build and update, I did set up the buildroot override and the
> builds of the two packages (perl-PAR-Packer and polymake) that have
> hard dependencies on the
On Wed, 2022-03-23 at 08:39 +, Paul Howarth wrote:
>
> In mitigation, my thinking was that since the f36 beta freeze is still
> ongoing, the perl update and its hard dependencies would almost
> certainly have been pushed to stable at the same time anyway. In
> addition, since those updates
On 22. 03. 22 19:48, Adam Williamson wrote:
I found quite a big mess today, caused by an attempt to bump perl to
5.34.1 in Fedora 36:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-cea638ebd4
Because some packages depend on the exact perl interpreter version, the
maintainer made a
On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 11:48:57 -0700
Adam Williamson wrote:
> I found quite a big mess today, caused by an attempt to bump perl to
> 5.34.1 in Fedora 36:
>
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-cea638ebd4
>
> Because some packages depend on the exact perl interpreter version,
>
I found quite a big mess today, caused by an attempt to bump perl to
5.34.1 in Fedora 36:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-cea638ebd4
Because some packages depend on the exact perl interpreter version, the
maintainer made a buildroot override for perl:
18 matches
Mail list logo
