|Summary:||boolstuff 0.1.13 is out|
|Product:||[Fedora] Fedora||Reporter:||Patrice Dumas <pertusus>|
|Component:||boolstuff||Assignee:||Conrad Meyer <cse.cem+redhatbugz>|
|Status:||CLOSED RAWHIDE||QA Contact:||Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>|
|Fixed In Version:||Doc Type:||Bug Fix|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||2010-05-01 19:43:21 UTC||Type:||---|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
Description Patrice Dumas 2010-05-01 10:46:48 UTC
Description of problem: I haven't tested is, but the previous version 0.1.12 worked fine, and didn't need the following patches anymore: boolstuff-0.1.11-gcc43.patch boolstuff-0.1.11-gcc44-fixes.diff Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible: Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: Expected results: Additional info:
Comment 1 Conrad Meyer 2010-05-01 19:43:21 UTC
Ok, I've removed those patches and it seems to build fine locally. The package has been updated in rawhide ( http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2154177 ) and F-13 ( http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2154192 ) and F-12 ( http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2154195 ).
Comment 2 Patrice Dumas 2010-05-01 20:48:02 UTC
Have you checked that the API and ABI didn't changed for the older releases? I vaguely remember at least a change in API.
Comment 3 Conrad Meyer 2010-05-01 20:52:57 UTC
$ repoquery --whatrequires boolstuff boolstuff-devel-0:0.1.11-8.fc12.i686 booldnf-0:0.1.11-8.fc12.x86_64 boolstuff-devel-0:0.1.11-8.fc12.x86_64 Those are all RPMs from the boolstuff SRPM.
Comment 4 Conrad Meyer 2010-05-01 20:53:44 UTC
I am happy to not push the bump to F-12, but it should go to F-13, IMO.
Comment 5 Patrice Dumas 2010-05-01 21:11:15 UTC
(In reply to comment #3) > $ repoquery --whatrequires boolstuff > boolstuff-devel-0:0.1.11-8.fc12.i686 > booldnf-0:0.1.11-8.fc12.x86_64 > boolstuff-devel-0:0.1.11-8.fc12.x86_64 > > Those are all RPMs from the boolstuff SRPM. you should better do something along repoquery --archlist=src --whatrequires boolstuff-devel or repoquery --whatrequires libboolstuff-0.1.so.0 At least halevt requires boolstuff-devel. I guess it is the only dependency.
Comment 6 Patrice Dumas 2010-05-01 21:14:03 UTC
(In reply to comment #4) > I am happy to not push the bump to F-12, but it should go to F-13, IMO. I tend to disagree, changing API/ABI after the branching seems wrong to me. But you are the maintainer, it is your choice.
Comment 7 Conrad Meyer 2010-05-01 22:34:51 UTC
F-13 hasn't been released yet; I don't see the harm in upgrading if it doesn't break halevt (which doesn't exist in F-12).
Comment 8 Patrice Dumas 2010-05-01 22:48:34 UTC
halevt indeed exists in F-12. Or there is something weird going on. The halevt version in fedora is quite old, though. Newer version requires indeed boolstuff 0.1.12 at least because of the API change I talked about. In fact this could even be a reason for updating in F-13, such that it is possible to rebuild newer halevt versions.
Comment 9 Conrad Meyer 2010-05-01 23:07:19 UTC
Er, sorry, I misunderstood. halevt doesn't appear to depend on boolstuff in F-12.
Comment 10 Patrice Dumas 2010-05-01 23:18:13 UTC
(In reply to comment #9) > Er, sorry, I misunderstood. halevt doesn't appear to depend on boolstuff in > F-12. That would be quite strange. Are you sure it doesn't depend on boolstuff soname, which should be like libboolstuff-0.1.so.0?
Comment 11 Conrad Meyer 2010-05-02 03:22:24 UTC
The command: > repoquery --whatrequires libboolstuff-0.1.so.0 wasn't giving me anything earlier; however: $ repoquery -qR halevt reports that it does, indeed, require libboolstuff-0.1.so.0()(64bit)
Comment 12 Conrad Meyer 2010-05-10 02:13:51 UTC
@Patrice: Shall we get a buildroot override and bump halevt in F-13 then?
Comment 13 Patrice Dumas 2010-05-10 12:21:21 UTC
That would certainly be good. But maybe you could send a mail to the current halevt owner (or to the generic fedora halevt-owner mail alias) before processing.