On Sat, Oct 3, 2020 at 12:53 AM Fabio Valentini <decathorpe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi everybody, > > I've compiled an updated list of package downgrades when comparing > fedora 32 to fedora 33. Note that a lot of packages were either not > built for f33 at all (packagers missing the branch point?), or had no > bodhi update created for updates (packagers missing the bodhi > activation point?). > > I tried to annotate the list of downgrades with my most likely > explanation (according to information visible in dist-git, koji, > bodhi, and RHBZ). Surprisingly, the list of downgrades caused by FTBFS > issues on fedora 33+ is very short. > > For the packages that are obviously simply missing a koji build and/or > a corresponding bodhi update, should we attempt to fix the obvious > packager oversights? > > --- > > - abseil-cpp is newer in 32 than in 33: > 0:20200225.2-4.fc32 > 0:20200225.2-2.fc33 > - abseil-cpp-devel is newer in 32 than in 33: > 0:20200225.2-4.fc32 > 0:20200225.2-2.fc33 > > This one seems to be in a weird state. The newer version was successfully built > for f33, but it's only tagged with f33-rebuild in koji. > > - apcupsd is newer in 32 than in 33: > 0:3.14.14-18.fc32 > 0:3.14.14-17.fc32 > - apcupsd-cgi is newer in 32 than in 33: > 0:3.14.14-18.fc32 > 0:3.14.14-17.fc32 > - apcupsd-gui is newer in 32 than in 33: > 0:3.14.14-18.fc32 > 0:3.14.14-17.fc32 > > This is caused by apcupsd being FTBFS for fedora 33+. > > - appstream-data is newer in 32 than in 33: > 0:32-8.fc32 > 0:32-7.fc33 > > This package has not been updated for fedora 33 yet (will this happen before > the GA?) > > - bootupd is newer in 32 than in 33: > 0:0.1.2-2.fc32 > 0:0.1.1-1.fc33 > > Built for f32+, but a bodhi update for f33 seems to be missing. > > - cdist is newer in 32 than in 33: > 0:6.8.0-1.fc32 > 0:6.6.0-2.fc33 > - cdist-doc is newer in 32 than in 33: > 0:6.8.0-1.fc32 > 0:6.6.0-2.fc33 > > Updated builds for f33 seem to have been missed by the maintainer, f34 and f32 > have 6.8.0, but f33 doesn't. > > - clamtk is newer in 32 than in 33: > 0:6.06-1.fc32 > 0:6.05-1.fc33 > > Updated builds for f33 seem to have been missed by the maintainer, f34 and f32 > have 6.8.0, but f33 doesn't. > > - cockpit-composer is newer in 32 than in 33: > 0:24-1.fc32 > 0:23-1.fc33 > > Updated builds for f33 seem to have been missed by the maintainer, f34 and f32 > have version 24, but f33 doesn't. > > - firefox-pkcs11-loader is newer in 32 than in 33: > 0:3.13.6-1.fc32 > 0:3.13.4-1.fc32 > > This is caused by firefox-pkcs11-loader being FTBFS for fedora 33+. > > - golang-github-willf-bitset-devel is newer in 32 than in 33: > 0:1.1.11-1.fc32 > 0:1.1.10-5.fc33 > > Updated builds for f33 seem to have been missed by the maintainer, f34 and f32 > have version 1.1.11, but f33 doesn't. > > - hyperscan is newer in 32 than in 33: > 0:5.3.0-1.fc32 > 0:5.2.1-2.fc32 > - hyperscan-devel is newer in 32 than in 33: > 0:5.3.0-1.fc32 > 0:5.2.1-2.fc32 > > This is caused by hyperscan being FTBFS for fedora 33+. The FTBFS bug was > closed, but no fixed builds for f33+ were attempted. > > - knot is newer in 32 than in 33: > 0:3.0.0-1.fc32 > 0:2.9.6-1.fc33 > - knot-devel is newer in 32 than in 33: > 0:3.0.0-1.fc32 > 0:2.9.6-1.fc33 > - knot-doc is newer in 32 than in 33: > 0:3.0.0-1.fc32 > 0:2.9.6-1.fc33 > - knot-libs is newer in 32 than in 33: > 0:3.0.0-1.fc32 > 0:2.9.6-1.fc33 > - knot-utils is newer in 32 than in 33: > 0:3.0.0-1.fc32 > 0:2.9.6-1.fc33 > > knot-3.0.0 was built for f33 and f34, but was unpushed from bodhi after > getting negative karma due to it being an API / ABI (?) breaking update. > Not sure if this had the desired effect, because the 3.0.0 update is already > stable for EPEL7, EPEL8, and fedora 31, 32, and rawhide :) > > - legendary is newer in 32 than in 33: > 0:0.20.1-2.fc32 > 0:0.20.1-1.fc33 > > This was built for f33, but it's missing a bodhi update. > > - libecpg is newer in 32 than in 33: > 0:12.4-1.fc32 > 0:12.3-2.fc33 > - libecpg-devel is newer in 32 than in 33: > 0:12.4-1.fc32 > 0:12.3-2.fc33 > - libpgtypes is newer in 32 than in 33: > 0:12.4-1.fc32 > 0:12.3-2.fc33 > > Updated builds for f33 seem to have been missed by the maintainer, f34 and f32 > have version 12.4, but f33 doesn't. The f33 dist-git branch is also missing the > corresponding commit. > > - libmediainfo is newer in 32 than in 33: > 0:20.08-1.fc32 > 0:20.03-3.fc33 > - libmediainfo-devel is newer in 32 than in 33: > 0:20.08-1.fc32 > 0:20.03-3.fc33 > - mediainfo is newer in 32 than in 33: > 0:20.08-1.fc32 > 0:20.03-3.fc33 > - mediainfo-gui is newer in 32 than in 33: > 0:20.08-1.fc32 > 0:20.03-3.fc33 > - mediainfo-qt is newer in 32 than in 33: > 0:20.08-1.fc32 > 0:20.03-3.fc33 > > Updated builds for f33 seem to have been missed by the maintainer, all branches > except f33 have version 20.08. > > - mingw32-mediawriter is newer in 32 than in 33: > 0:4.1.6-1.fc32 > 0:4.1.5-1.fc33 > - mingw64-mediawriter is newer in 32 than in 33: > 0:4.1.6-1.fc32 > 0:4.1.5-1.fc33 > > This is caused by mingw-mediawriter being FTBFS for fedora 33+. > > - ncmpc is newer in 32 than in 33: > 0:0.39-1.fc32 > 0:0.38-2.fc33 > > Updated builds for f33 seem to have been missed by the maintainer, all branches > except f33 have version 0.39. > > - network-scripts-openvswitch is newer in 32 than in 33: > 0:2.13.1-1.fc32 > 0:2.13.0-2.fc33 > - openvswitch is newer in 32 than in 33: > 0:2.13.1-1.fc32 > 0:2.13.0-2.fc33 > - openvswitch-devel is newer in 32 than in 33: > 0:2.13.1-1.fc32 > 0:2.13.0-2.fc33 > - openvswitch-ipsec is newer in 32 than in 33: > 0:2.13.1-1.fc32 > 0:2.13.0-2.fc33 > - openvswitch-test is newer in 32 than in 33: > 0:2.13.1-1.fc32 > 0:2.13.0-2.fc33 > - python3-openvswitch is newer in 32 than in 33: > 0:2.13.1-1.fc32 > 0:2.13.0-2.fc33 > > This was built for f33, but it's missing a bodhi update. > > - python-psycopg2-doc is newer in 32 than in 33: > 0:2.8.6-1.fc32 > 0:2.8.5-3.fc33 > - python3-psycopg2 is newer in 32 than in 33: > 0:2.8.6-1.fc32 > 0:2.8.5-3.fc33 > - python3-psycopg2-debug is newer in 32 than in 33: > 0:2.8.6-1.fc32 > 0:2.8.5-3.fc33 > - python3-psycopg2-tests is newer in 32 than in 33: > 0:2.8.6-1.fc32 > 0:2.8.5-3.fc33 > > This was built for f33, but it's missing a bodhi update. > > - python3-certbot-dns-google is newer in 32 than in 33: > 0:1.7.0-1.fc32 > 0:1.5.0-1.fc33 > > This is caused by python-certbot-dns-google being FTBFS for fedora 33+. > There was no FTBFS bug reported for it, but both releng builds have failed. > The subsequent update to 1.7.0 was also not pushed to f33 and rawhide ... > > - python3-magic is newer in 32 than in 33: > 0:5.38-2.fc32 > 0:0.4.15-4.fc33 > > This is a different source package. Not much we can do here without > introducing an Epoch in the successor package. > > - python3-operator-courier is newer in 32 than in 33: > 0:2.1.9-3.fc32 > 0:2.1.9-2.fc33 > > This looks like packager error (bumping Release in stable branches without > corresponding bump in f33/rawhide) instead of appending a ".1" suffix. > > - python3-xlsxwriter is newer in 32 than in 33: > 0:1.3.4-1.fc32 > 0:1.3.2-1.fc33 > > This was built for f33, but it's missing a bodhi update. > > - radare2 is newer in 32 than in 33: > 0:4.5.0-2.fc32 > 0:4.5.0-1.fc33.1 > - radare2-common is newer in 32 than in 33: > 0:4.5.0-2.fc32 > 0:4.5.0-1.fc33.1 > - radare2-devel is newer in 32 than in 33: > 0:4.5.0-2.fc32 > 0:4.5.0-1.fc33.1 > > This is the reverse error - ".1" was appended to the Release in f33/rawhide, > but the release was bumped to 2 in f32. > > - stellarium is newer in 32 than in 33: > 0:0.20.3-1.fc32 > 0:0.20.2-3.fc33 > > This is caused by stellarium being FTBFS for fedora 33+ (again). > > - strace is newer in 32 than in 33: > 0:5.8-1.fc32 > 0:5.7.0.6.7ab6-1.fc33 > > This is caused by stellarium being FTBFS for fedora 33+. > > - texlive-arphic is newer in 32 than in 33: > 9:svn15878.0-21.fc32 > 9:svn15878-27.fc33 > - texlive-babel-malay-doc is newer in 32 than in 33: > 9:svn43235-21.fc32 > 9:svn43234-27.fc33 > - texlive-tudscr is newer in 32 than in 33: > 9:svn51675-21.fc32 > 9:LPPL-27.fc33 > > That's some pretty weird versioning. "Version: LPPL"? :) > The other two texlive subpackages seem to have been downgraded between TeXLive > releases ... > > - tomcat is newer in 32 than in 33: > 1:9.0.38-2.fc32 > 1:9.0.38-1.fc33 > - tomcat-admin-webapps is newer in 32 than in 33: > 1:9.0.38-2.fc32 > 1:9.0.38-1.fc33 > - tomcat-docs-webapp is newer in 32 than in 33: > 1:9.0.38-2.fc32 > 1:9.0.38-1.fc33 > - tomcat-el-3.0-api is newer in 32 than in 33: > 1:9.0.38-2.fc32 > 1:9.0.38-1.fc33 > - tomcat-jsp-2.3-api is newer in 32 than in 33: > 1:9.0.38-2.fc32 > 1:9.0.38-1.fc33 > - tomcat-jsvc is newer in 32 than in 33: > 1:9.0.38-2.fc32 > 1:9.0.38-1.fc33 > - tomcat-lib is newer in 32 than in 33: > 1:9.0.38-2.fc32 > 1:9.0.38-1.fc33 > - tomcat-servlet-4.0-api is newer in 32 than in 33: > 1:9.0.38-2.fc32 > 1:9.0.38-1.fc33 > - tomcat-webapps is newer in 32 than in 33: > 1:9.0.38-2.fc32 > 1:9.0.38-1.fc33 > > This looks like packager error (bumping Release in stable branches without > corresponding bump in f33/rawhide) instead of appending a ".1" suffix. > > - xcb-imdkit is newer in 32 than in 33: > 0:0-0.3.20200821gitd6609a7.fc32 > 0:0-0.2.20200821gitd6609a7.fc33 > - xcb-imdkit-devel is newer in 32 than in 33: > 0:0-0.3.20200821gitd6609a7.fc32 > 0:0-0.2.20200821gitd6609a7.fc33 > > Updated builds for f33 seem to have been missed by the maintainer, all branches > except f33 have version 0.3.20200821gitd6609a7. > > - yoshimi is newer in 32 than in 33: > 0:1.7.2-1.fc32 > 0:1.7.1-2.fc33 > > Updated builds for f33 seem to have been missed by the maintainer, f32 and f34 > have version 1.7.2, but f33 doesn't. With the impending final freeze for f33, should I open bugs for the packages with missing f33 builds and / or updates, so things can at least get fixed in time for zero-day updates? Fabio _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
