Bug 1154474

I've already started doing this, I'll take it.

Thanks for fast response!

FYI I asked about soname change here: https://github.com/google/protobuf/issues/58

I wouldn't be surprised if there are good reasons for the bump. But it'd be good to know if it is unnecessary before sticking it in Rawhide. (Avoid a corrective Epoch bump to revert the soname.)

Yup, the bump is necessary:
http://upstream-tracker.org/versions/protobuf.html

Rawhide sounds good. Is it too late for F21?

FYI

$ repoquery --whatrequires 'libprotobuf.so.8()(64bit)'

clementine-0:1.2.3-1.fc21.x86_64
dmlite-plugins-memcache-0:0.5.0-7.fc20.x86_64
dmlite-plugins-memcache-0:0.7.1-1.fc21.x86_64
dmlite-plugins-s3-0:0.5.1-5.fc21.x86_64
emacs-common-mozc-0:1.15.1814.102-3.fc21.x86_64
gazebo-0:3.1.0-1.fc21.x86_64
gazebo-libs-0:3.1.0-1.fc21.x86_64
ibus-mozc-0:1.15.1814.102-3.fc21.x86_64
java-shogun-0:3.2.0.1-0.27.git20140804.96f3cf3.fc21.x86_64
libcompizconfig-1:0.8.8-11.fc21.x86_64
libhedwig-0:4.2.1-10.fc21.x86_64
lua-shogun-0:3.2.0.1-0.27.git20140804.96f3cf3.fc21.x86_64
mesos-0:0.20.0-2.f421ffd.fc21.x86_64
mixxx-0:1.11.0-3.fc21.x86_64
mono-shogun-0:3.2.0.1-0.27.git20140804.96f3cf3.fc21.x86_64
mosh-0:1.2.4-5.fc21.x86_64
mozc-0:1.15.1814.102-3.fc21.x86_64
mumble-0:1.2.6-4.fc21.x86_64
murmur-0:1.2.6-4.fc21.x86_64
octave-shogun-0:3.2.0.1-0.27.git20140804.96f3cf3.fc21.x86_64
paraview-0:4.2.0-1.fc21.x86_64
paraview-mpich-0:4.2.0-1.fc21.x86_64
paraview-openmpi-0:4.2.0-1.fc21.x86_64
player-gazebo-0:3.1.0-1.fc21.x86_64
pokerth-0:1.1.1-6.fc21.x86_64
protobuf-c-0:1.0.1-2.fc21.x86_64
protobuf-compiler-0:2.5.0-10.fc21.x86_64
protobuf-devel-0:2.5.0-10.fc21.x86_64
python-mesos-0:0.20.0-2.f421ffd.fc21.x86_64
python-shogun-0:3.2.0.1-0.27.git20140804.96f3cf3.fc21.x86_64
python3-shogun-0:3.2.0.1-0.27.git20140804.96f3cf3.fc21.x86_64
ruby-shogun-0:3.2.0.1-0.27.git20140804.96f3cf3.fc21.x86_64
shogun-0:3.2.0.1-0.27.git20140804.96f3cf3.fc21.x86_64
shogun-cli-0:3.2.0.1-0.27.git20140804.96f3cf3.fc21.x86_64

I think you have a week if you want to try to push this through:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy#Pre_Beta
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/21/Schedule

(In reply to Adam Goode from comment #5)
> Yup, the bump is necessary:
> http://upstream-tracker.org/versions/protobuf.html
> 
> Rawhide sounds good. Is it too late for F21?

Yes.

(In reply to Adam Goode from comment #6)
> FYI
> 
> $ repoquery --whatrequires 'libprotobuf.so.8()(64bit)'
> 
> ...

Exactly. We've already cut the F21 release branch, it's pretty late in the cycle for something like this.

Btw, how did you get http://upstream-tracker.org/versions/protobuf.html updated?

If you hit the Issue link at upstream-tracker.org, you can email the maintainer. I got an update and response very quickly

I've got a 2.6.0 package building locally; I pushed it to git and kicked off a scratch build:

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8057195

The first patch applied cleanly, the 2nd just needed to be rebased because we don't accept fuzz, and the 3rd and 4th (generic atomics support on ARM / non-x86) have been upstreamed and could be dropped.

For an actual build, we should probably give a heads up about breakage to dependant package maintainers. I forget the process exactly around that, will need to do a little research.

Ah, wonderful, there is a new dependency:

distutils.errors.DistutilsError: Could not find suitable distribution for Requirement.parse('google-apputils')

Well, if someone else wants to submit google-apputils and get this updated, they are welcome to do so. I don't use protobuf anymore, so I'm not especially eager to go through the efforts of getting another package reviewed. I'll drop this back to protobuf-owner@ and drop my ACLs on protobuf.

(In reply to Conrad Meyer from comment #11)
> For an actual build, we should probably give a heads up about breakage to
> dependant package maintainers. I forget the process exactly around that,
> will need to do a little research.

For rawhide, the policy is no notify maintainers of dependant packages at least one week before the update (mail to $pkg-owner or devel). After that you are free to push it. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy#Rawhide_.2F_devel_.2F_master

I'm preparing google-apputils for review. My work currently has a requirement for 2.6.1 so I'm happy to bump this for epel7 when done. I think we need to bump python-six also? Can someone approve my acls' for Fedora also?

Hi, would it be possible to get an updated version of protoc in Fedora 21? My teammates are using a more recent version than me (quite unusual when you are on Fedora :)). Thanks!

google-apputils review linked.

I also have a 2.6.1 update ready.

*** Bug 1206372 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

I've built 2.6.1 for f23 now.  Unfortunately, f22 is in a bit of a bad state - 2.6.0 had been checked in there, but never built.  I think we're really a bit too late for a soname bump in f22 though.  We may want to resync the f22 branch from the f21 one to prevent accidentally updating to 2.6.X later.

A test is segfaulting on arm, so I'm disabling that for now.  Reported upstream:
https://github.com/google/protobuf/issues/298