The ppl library has got a new snapshot tarball release. It's indirectly by current gcc development tree and thus is very important to have. The tarball is at http://www.cs.unipr.it/ppl/Download/ftp/snapshots/ppl-0.10pre27.tar.bz2
So I have updated the ppl spec and srpm to the latest ppl-0.10-pre30 snapshot that got released. spec file: http://www.seketeli.org/dodji/rpms/ppl/ppl-0.10-0.pre30.spec srpm: http://www.seketeli.org/dodji/rpms/ppl/ppl-0.10-0.pre30.spec I hope this helps.
Ooops, the srpm is at: http://www.seketeli.org/dodji/rpms/ppl/ppl-0.10-0.pre30.fc9.src.rpm Sorry.
I have started working on that. However, I have problems for which the help of some Fedora packaging expert could speed things up significantly: this would be highly appreciated).
If you have trouble with some packaging issue I would help you as your sponsor.
Hi Mamoru, thanks a lot! I have a couple of problems with rpmlint. The first one is that the guidelines in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Java, say: BuildRequires and Requires At a minimum, Java packages MUST: BuildRequires: java-devel [>= specific_version] BuildRequires: jpackage-utils Requires: java >= specific_version Requires: jpackage-utils But if I do that rpmlint -i complains loudly: ppl-java.x86_64: E: devel-dependency java-devel Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package itself. Who is right then? Another worry I have is that PPL 0.10 is a replacement for PPL 0.9: I cannot imagine why one would want to have both versions, but this certainly is not going to work (and I have no idea how to make it work). Is this OK? Tomorrow we will release PPL 0.10. Then I would commit the new ppl.spec file into devel and launch a build. If it works, I would commit ppl.spec also on F-9 and launch a build there. If it works, I would do the same for F-8. And I would stop there. Does this plan make sense to you? Thanks again, Roberto
Well, * soname bump - rpmsodiff shows: -------------------------------------------------------- sonames only in ppl-0.9-25.fc10 [1]: libppl.so.6 /usr/lib/libppl.so.6.0.0 libppl_c.so.0 /usr/lib/libppl_c.so.0.1.0 sonames only in ppl-0.10-2.fc10 [2]: libppl.so.7 /usr/lib/libppl.so.7.0.0 libppl_c.so.2 /usr/lib/libppl_c.so.2.0.0 no common sonames -------------------------------------------------------- So all libraries in ppl binary rpm has soname bump. In such case generally speaking you should _not_ release the new ppl (0.10) into stable repo (now this means F-8, F-9 and even F-10 because F-10 is already frozen). If you have some special reason you want to push new ppl into F-10/9/8, you must - announce it on fedora-devel-list the soname bump in new ppl and the reason you want to push new ppl - check all packages what packages depend on ppl and notify the maintainers of the packages which depend on ppl (for example by -------------------------------------------------------- # repoquery --whatrequires libppl.so.6 libppl_c.so.0 -------------------------------------------------------- !! Fortunately, currently no other packages that ppl itself requires ppl package on Fedora, and no packages has "Requires: ppl-devel" in srpm. So for dependency issue it is safe that you update ppl from 0.9 to 0.10 for now. - If no one objects to it you can push new ppl to F-10/9/8. Then: (In reply to comment #5) > But if I do that rpmlint -i complains loudly: > ppl-java.x86_64: E: devel-dependency java-devel > Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package > itself. - This is because your spec file (ppl-0.10-2.fc10) contains: ---------------------------------------------------------- 134 BuildRequires: java-devel >= 1:1.6.0 135 BuildRequires: jpackage-utils 136 Requires: java-devel >= 1:1.6.0 137 Requires: jpackage-utils ---------------------------------------------------------- The line 136 should be "Requires: java >= 1:1.6.0". Note that on F-8 no package provides "java >= 1:1.6.0". F-8 uses "java-1.7.0-icedtea", which has "java = 1.7.0", which is lower than "1:1.6.0". For other issues your spec looks good (if I find some issues I will tell you about it).
Hi Mamoru. So I goofed, because I already requested update on F-10 and F-9. I am now trying to see whether I can cancel them before loosing the time of anyone. Concerning the urgency, I have been pushed hard to make this update because it is required by GCC 4.4. I mean, I have no personal reasons to update but, judging also from this bug report, I thought Fedora people wanted the update.
I would definitely want the ppl 0.10 packaged for gcc 4.4, as I am packaing cloog (and I need a sponsor for that :-) ), that is a required dependency of that version of gcc 4.4. Cloog depends on ppl 0.10. Thank you for doing all this by the way.
I see no updates request on F-10/F-9 on bodhi. (note: on F-10/9 just rebuilding new packages does not mean that these packages are pushed automatically in the future. You have to submit push requests on bodhi: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ So currently no newly rebuilt ppl packages are pushed into repositories) (In reply to comment #7) > Concerning the urgency, I have been pushed hard to make this update because it > is required by GCC 4.4. I mean, I have no personal reasons to update but, > judging also from this bug report, I thought Fedora people wanted the update. IMO in such case pushing new ppl into F-11 is enough. However I don't know if the submitter of this bug wants new ppl also on older (F-10/9/8) branches. Dodji, would you want the new ppl (0.10) also on F-10/9/8?
> Dodji, would you want the new ppl (0.10) also on F-10/9/8? I'd say no because gcc 4.4 won't land before F-11. So I don't think we need ppl 0.10 in Fedora versions that are < 11.
(In reply to comment #10) > > Dodji, would you want the new ppl (0.10) also on F-10/9/8? > > I'd say no because gcc 4.4 won't land before F-11. So I don't think we need ppl > 0.10 in Fedora versions that are < 11. Okay, then I think that for now it is better that we wait for mass CVS branching (which will occur on Friday according to https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-November/msg00179.html ). After that we can build packages for F-11. For F-10/9/8 IMO it is better to see if someone else appears who wants new ppl for those branches. Again currently newly rebuilt ppl packages for F-10/9/8 are never pushed into repositories, so, Roberto, if you want to revert for those branches it is safe now.
Now as mass branching is done and devel/ directly on Fedora CVS targets at F-11 branch, would you rebuild ppl 0.10 for dist-f11, Roberto? I guess after that we can close this bug.
Done. If someone wants PPL 0.10 on some previous branch, please let me know. BTW, I consider it a pity that, with PPL 0.10 out, F-10 ships PPL 0.9 (no longer maintained, inferior from all points of view, ...). Thanks to all, Roberto
As requested from https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490629, I'm interested in having PPL 0.10 in F-9 and F-10 if possible. If anyone has reasons why it shouldn't be there, I would like to know them. (In reply to comment #13) > Done. If someone wants PPL 0.10 on some previous branch, please let me know. > BTW, I consider it a pity that, with PPL 0.10 out, F-10 ships PPL 0.9 (no > longer maintained, inferior from all points of view, ...). > Thanks to all, > > Roberto
(In reply to comment #13) > Done. If someone wants PPL 0.10 on some previous branch, please let me know. > BTW, I consider it a pity that, with PPL 0.10 out, F-10 ships PPL 0.9 (no > longer maintained, inferior from all points of view, ...). > Thanks to all, > > Roberto I second your opinion here. If you could push PPL 0.10 to F-10, I'd happily push cloog-ppl there as well, as cloog-ppl needs PPL 0.10. cloog-ppl is useful to build gcc 4.4 (from sources at least) so I guess it could be interesting for some hackers to have it there. Thanks.
Good. PPL 0.10.1 will be released on April 14, 2009, I hope. The same day I will build the new RPM packages and push them.
ppl-0.10.1-1.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ppl-0.10.1-1.fc10
ppl-0.10.1-1.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ppl-0.10.1-1.fc9
ppl-0.10.2-2.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ppl-0.10.2-2.fc11
ppl-0.10.2-1.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ppl-0.10.2-1.fc10
ppl-0.10.2-1.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ppl-0.10.2-1.fc9
ppl-0.10.2-1.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
ppl-0.10.2-1.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
ppl-0.10.2-2.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.