On Fri, 2025-01-24 at 12:02 -0600, Michel Lind wrote: > On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 05:07:45PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > Much like libtest, the mass rebuild has inadvertently bumped the soname > > of libnfs. libnfs 6 was in dist-git but had never been built for > > Rawhide (there were some attempts in side tags, but they all seem to > > have been garbage collected). The mass rebuild built it, so now libnfs > > has gone from 5.x to 6.x and soname libnfs.so.14 to libnfs.so.16. This > > actually does include a major API change, see upstream: > > > Would a policy requiring that packages like these have the commit > reverted make sense? > > If it's rpmautospec, then the release number need to be manually fiddled > with, but it seems better than having a potential land mine. Ehhh. I mean...it wouldn't *hurt*, but would it solve the problem? I'm not sure. People don't always follow policies, let's just take that as a given. :P I don't think anyone is going to go out and *proactively check* this on an ongoing basis. So...we'd still kinda need an at-the- time-of-the-mass-rebuild check to actually prevent the problem happening, I suspect. -- Adam Williamson (he/him/his) Fedora QA Fedora Chat: @adamwill:fedora.im | Mastodon: @adamw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx https://www.happyassassin.net -- _______________________________________________ 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
