Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2013-01-28 at 19:44 +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
DEBUG util.py:264: Error: Package: 2:qemu-system-mips-1.3.0-5.fc19.x86_64 (build)
DEBUG util.py:264: Requires: libseccomp.so.1()(64bit)
DEBUG util.py:264: Error: Package: 2:qemu-system-or32-1.3.0-5.fc19.x86_64 (build)
DEBUG util.py:264: Requires: libseccomp.so.1()(64bit)
DEBUG util.py:264: Error: Package: 2:qemu-system-microblaze-1.3.0-5.fc19.x86_64 (build)
DEBUG util.py:264: Requires: libseccomp.so.1()(64bit)
[etc]
full log: http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/9474/4909474/root.log
This seems to have been caused by this build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=380981
Affected packages:
- libcacard-tools
- qemu
So, just as a path for anyone who's interested to take a look down, I
think we could potentially Do Something about all these unannounced
soname bumps. We do have a test in autoqa that catches them, and doesn't
seem to have a huge amount of 'false positives'.
FYI
http://upstream-tracker.org/versions/libseccomp.html
The test case is
rpmguard, and here is it noticing this soname bump:
http://autoqa.fedoraproject.org/resultsdb/frontend/testrun?id_=956918
http://autoqa.fedoraproject.org/results/511987-autotest/virt02.qa/rpmguard/results/libseccomp-2.0.0-0.f.html
N: Comparing libseccomp-1.0.1-0.fc19 and libseccomp-2.0.0-0.fc19 (archs:
i686) ...
W: provision-added libseccomp.so.2
W: provision-removed libseccomp.so.1
N: Comparing libseccomp-1.0.1-0.fc19 and libseccomp-2.0.0-0.fc19 (archs: x86_64) ...
W: provision-added libseccomp.so.2()(64bit)
W: provision-removed libseccomp.so.1()(64bit)
now rpmguard does various other things, so we'd need to filter out the
provision-removed (especially) results for this case. But we do at least
have this information being captured by autoqa, I think.
That's all I got!
--
Andrey Ponomarenko, ROSA Lab.
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
