On Wed, 11 Aug 2021 at 10:21, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 at 18:23, Benjamin Beasley wrote:
> >
> > It looks like none of the packages I maintain or co-maintain that depend on boost-devel were rebuilt before the side tag was merged.
> >
> > Some (luminance-hdr, cpp-hocon) had automated FTI bugs filed; these were fixed by a manual rebuild on my part. Another (usd) should be in the same boat once some unrelated problems causing FTBFS are resolved.
> >
> > Others (cairomm/cairomm1.16) presumably used only header-only parts of Boost, and were silently continuing to use the old Boost. I rebuilt these as well.
>
> Strictly speaking, they don't need to be rebuilt. They don't have any
> dependency on the version of boost that the rest of the distro uses.
> In some cases it's possible that another package that depends on boost
> libs and cairomm libs will encounter some incompatibility between the
> Boost releases, but this doesn't happen often in practice.
>
> When we update boost in rawhide we never rebuild the packages that
> only depend on boost headers from boost-devel (although often they get
> rebuilt anyway by a mass rebuild after the boost update, but the mass
> rebuild happened first this time).
I suppose we could add to the set of rebuilds by doing a repoquery for
packages which require boost-devel and also provide %{_libdir}/lib*.so
files (or a -devel package). That would ensure that any boost types in
the API and ABI of those shared libraries are using the new versions.
For standalone applications that don't provide any libraries for other
packages to use, there's no need to rebuild them.
> > It’s probably worth looking into the process for finding and rebuilding dependent packages to see why these were not rebuilt, as there must be many other packages that also should have been rebuilt but were not.
>
>
> The process to find them is a reqoquery using --whatrequires
> libboost\* and is correct. It did find all three of luminance-hdr,
> cpp-hocon and usd, so I'm not sure why rebuilds weren't issued for
> them. I'll check to see if that happened to other packages. Thanks for
> pointing it out.
The packages that didn't get rebuilt are:
0ad *
OpenImageIO ***
blender ***
botan *
condor *
cpp-hocon
fawkes **
fcitx5-chinese-addons *
freecad *
gazebo **
gpick *
gqrx *
hugin *
libreoffice *
luminance-hdr
luxcorerender ***
ogre ***
openms *
openshadinglanguage
opentrep *
pcl *
python-graph-tool *
rb_libtorrent *
shiny ***
sourcextractor++ *
springlobby **
usd
vtk *
The ones marked with a single * were submitted but failed to build
(some have now been fixed, some need a FTBFS bug filed).
The ones marked ** depend on one of the ones that failed, so are blocked.
The ones marked with *** couldn't be built because a dependency
failed, but should have been resubmitted after the dep was fixed.
Those are all done now except blender, which was already FTBFS before
the boost update, and luxcorerender and shiny, which I'm rebuilding
now, and gqrx which seems to be broken by the codec2 update.
The rest were not submitted for a rebuild, for some reason. That's
cpp-hocon, luminance-hdr, openshadinglanguage, and usd. I'm not sure
why they didn't get submitted.
_______________________________________________
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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
