Sorry folks -- thanks for untagging. I'll ping the list again after May 9, as was suggested earlier in this thread. AG ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Fenzi" <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> To: devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Anthony Green" <green@xxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 8:05:33 PM I'm thinking that a Subject: Re: disruptive libffi upgrade On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 16:34:55 -0500 Michael Cronenworth <mike@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Anthony Green wrote: > > I recently release libffi 3.0.11, and ABI changes are mandating > > a .so number change. Despite the ABI change, I suspect that simple > > rebuilds are all that will be required for dependent packages. > > Can you untag your build for a few weeks? It is too disruptive at the > moment. Additionally, it's broken the build root. ;( You are going to have to coordinate with the python maintainer(s) at least in order to get it in. DEBUG backend.py:862: ['/usr/bin/yum', '--installroot', '/var/lib/mock/f18-build-1319856-211379/root/', 'groupinstall', 'build'] DEBUG util.py:307: Executing command: ['/usr/bin/yum', '--installroot', '/var/lib/mock/f18-build-1319856-211379/root/', 'groupinstall', 'build'] DEBUG util.py:257: Error: Package: python-libs-2.7.3-1.fc18.x86_64 (build) DEBUG util.py:257: Requires: libffi.so.5()(64bit) DEBUG util.py:257: You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem DEBUG util.py:257: You could try running: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest DEBUG util.py:257: Error: Package: glib2-2.32.0-1.fc17.x86_64 (build) DEBUG util.py:257: Requires: libffi.so.5()(64bit) DEBUG util.py:347: Child returncode was: 1 You may have to provide both versions for a rebuild of python, or some other bootstrapping method. I have untagged this build for now. kevin -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
