Bug 1035142 - xiphos needs rebuild because gtkhtml3 version update
Summary: xiphos needs rebuild because gtkhtml3 version update
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED EOL
Alias: None
Product: Fedora EPEL
Classification: Fedora
Component: xiphos
Version: el6
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
urgent
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Christopher Meng
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2013-11-27 07:25 UTC by Tuomo Soini
Modified: 2020-11-30 15:55 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2020-11-30 15:55:05 UTC
Type: Bug


Attachments (Terms of Use)
This is my rebuild of xiphos 3.1.5-1 on a system with the new .so (4.45 MB, application/x-rpm)
2013-12-26 22:42 UTC, Robert Lightfoot
no flags Details
Source RPM for 3.1.5-1.1 (6.42 MB, application/x-rpm)
2013-12-26 23:48 UTC, Robert Lightfoot
no flags Details

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.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.