Hi, This is entirely my fault, and I apologize. Will respond inline and discuss potential workarounds below. Also cc:ing epel-devel which is relevant. On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 02:18:48PM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 1:33 PM Bob Mauchin <zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, 17 Nov 2022, 10:09 Remi Collet, <Fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> > >> ** Please, manage EPEL-9 like a "stable" branch. ** > >> > >> soname change should be avoid, > >> if not possible (security exception ?) should be properly managed > >> and, at least, announced > >> That is indeed the policy: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/epel/epel-policy-incompatible-upgrades/ and I should have posted an announcement before putting up an update. > > > > Those are my packages but I don't recall authoring such changes? I remember considering David 1.0.0 for EPEL9 but didn't do so because of the dependency nightmare. > > I assume the dav1d 1.0.0 update was accidentally merged from Fedora > when building dependencies for rav1e. > I've pinged salimma on IRC / Matrix about this, he pushed these changes. > Indeed. When bringing up rust-rav1e, I did not notice the strict version dependency between rust-dav1d and dav1d until most of the rest have been built. This is the first mistake, had that been caught earlier I would have tried building an older version of rust-dav1d and other crates depending on it. In EPEL itself only libavif uses it, which is in turn is only used by kf5-kimageformats, which has a planned update going out soon, so between just rebuilding libavif or also rebasing it, it seems to be a good time to also update it: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-385df27ee1 Now this brings up two questions; I'll start with the more immediate one. ## Since dav1d update is already out though, what's the best path forward? - I can package a dav1d092 compatibility package to provide libdav1d.so.5 - I can also package a compatibility libavif package, but against which dav1d? - rebuild rpmfusion dependents against dav1d 1.0 and libavif 0.11 ## How do we better address (Fedora, EPEL) <=> RPM Fusion dependencies? On the Fedora side there is nothing currently that officially considers RPM Fusion (beyond the few allowlisted subsets like the Nvidia drivers). Amending the incompatible update policy to mention RPM Fusion is probably a no-go, but maybe mentioning "consider testing against well-known and popular third party repos" is doable? Best regards, -- Michel Alexandre Salim identities: https://keyoxide.org/5dce2e7e9c3b1cffd335c1d78b229d2f7ccc04f2
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
