Bug 1035142

Summary: xiphos needs rebuild because gtkhtml3 version update
Product: [Fedora] Fedora EPEL Reporter: Tuomo Soini <tis>
Component: xiphosAssignee: Christopher Meng <i>
Status: CLOSED EOL QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: urgent Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: el6CC: BobLfoot, dakingun, fredex, i, mcepl
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2020-11-30 15:55:05 UTC Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Attachments:
Description Flags
This is my rebuild of xiphos 3.1.5-1 on a system with the new .so
none
Source RPM for 3.1.5-1.1 none

Description Tuomo Soini 2013-11-27 07:25:50 UTC
package: xiphos-3.1.5-1.el6.x86_64 from epel
  unresolved deps: 
     libgtkhtml-editor.so.0()(64bit)

gtkhtml3 updated with rhel-6.5, xiphos needs rebuild.

Comment 1 Robert Lightfoot 2013-11-28 13:14:57 UTC
rebuilt from src.rpm on system using gtkhtml3-3.32 and the libgtkhtml-editor-3.14.so.0 library.  Appears to work ok.  Still waiting for official EPEL build however.

Comment 2 fred smith 2013-12-06 21:43:56 UTC
I'm having the same problem on Centos 6.5. 

Trying to figure out whether this is a Centos problem (not having a symlink named libgtkhtml-editor.so.0 as part of the gtkhtml3 rpm, or EPEL for expecting a plain non-version-specific symlink.

Comment 3 Robert Lightfoot 2013-12-26 22:42:25 UTC
Created attachment 842130 [details]
This is my rebuild of xiphos 3.1.5-1 on a system with the new .so

Comment 4 fred smith 2013-12-26 23:07:18 UTC
Works for me! Thanks!

Will this eventually become the "official" epel version?

Comment 5 Robert Lightfoot 2013-12-26 23:48:52 UTC
Created attachment 842145 [details]
Source RPM for 3.1.5-1.1

I doubt it Fred as that will be numbered 3.1.5-2 most likely.  or something higher hence my reason for using 3.1.5-1.1 as the number. I jsut make it available as is for checkout.

Comment 6 Robert Lightfoot 2014-06-13 12:11:26 UTC
Adding an additional comment to see if there exists an ETA on the rebuild?

Comment 7 Tuomo Soini 2014-07-10 09:05:36 UTC
Hey, we are still waiting for fixing rebuild.

Comment 8 Robert Lightfoot 2014-07-10 18:54:58 UTC
tuomo - there is an unsigned rpm in comments 3 & 5 which is "unofficial"  It works for fred smith and I.  THanks for saying there is more than just 1 person using this tool.

Comment 9 Christopher Meng 2014-07-27 12:49:57 UTC
Deji is a zombie now

Comment 10 Robert Lightfoot 2014-07-27 17:36:06 UTC
Thanks for assuming this Christopher.  When I attain packager status, I'll co-manage this if you need/want the help.

Comment 11 Matěj Cepl 2016-04-04 18:08:35 UTC
Well, I haven't know about this bug, so when somebody asked me for help with RHEL-6, I just rebuild the package from EPEL-7 and it is on https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mcepl/xiphos-epel/builds/

I know it is against EPEL rules, but I don't think a complete rebuild of the Sword stack breaks any packages outside of it. What do you think about rebase?

Comment 12 Matěj Cepl 2016-04-04 18:17:59 UTC
Moreover, the attached src.rpm, doesn't seem to make Koji much happy http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13557233

Comment 13 Ben Cotton 2020-11-05 16:53:48 UTC
This message is a reminder that EPEL 6 is nearing its end of life. Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for EPEL 6 on 2020-11-30. It is our policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a 'version' of 'el6'.

Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later EPEL version.

Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before EPEL 6 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged  change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above.

Comment 14 Ben Cotton 2020-11-05 16:56:24 UTC
This message is a reminder that EPEL 6 is nearing its end of life. Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for EPEL 6 on 2020-11-30. It is policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a 'version' of 'el6'.

Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later EPEL version.

Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before EPEL 6 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version, you are encouraged to change the 'version' to a later version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above.

Comment 15 Ben Cotton 2020-11-30 15:55:05 UTC
EPEL el6 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2020-11-30. EPEL el6 is
no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further
security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug.

If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of
EPEL please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you
are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the
current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this
bug.

Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.