* Kevin Fenzi: > On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 09:54:39AM +0900, Mamoru TASAKA wrote: >> Hello: >> >> Looks like glibc-2.34.9000-33.fc36 was tagged into f36 buildroot on 2021-12-18, >> but very recently untagged from f36 buildroot. >> Many binary rpms rebuilt recently have "Requires: glibc >= 2.34.9000-33.fc36" >> ( for example firefox has: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=28655956 ) >> and not looks like lots of packages cause dependency breakage, e.g. >> >> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=80543777 >> >> Is this intentional? > > Yes, I untagged it. I am trying to get a rawhide comppose to work. ;( > > I guess I can tag it back... that requires is... unfortunate. I've added it based on feedback that partial rawhide upgrades are supposed to work. It's a conservative approximation because we do not have per-symbol RPM version information. I can remove it again, but it has cut down the amount of “why can't I build my package locally” reports significantly (but then there are also fewer glibc symbol changes this cycle). Thanks, Florian _______________________________________________ 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
