11:09 a.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Over this weekend I've performed scratch-mass-rebuild without having gcc and
gcc-c++ in buildroot of all Fedora packages, many of which failed due to random
reasons and I grepped all logs for some common errors found by analyzing
hundreds of build logs.
Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B#BuildRequire
s_and_Requies
The grep output is located here:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/gcc-removal.txt
Some packages might be missed due to short koji outage, broken dependencies and
so on, but majority of real failures is below.
If you fixed package(s), found false positive, found missing packages in list
or anything else -- please let me know.
Note to packages which use CMake buildsystem. When you have project(xxx) in
CMakeLists.txt it checks both for C and CXX compilers. So you might encounter
packages where you have BuildRequires: gcc and it fails on CXX compiler (even
you think you don't need it). Solution for this is to send patch to upstream
switching to something like project(xxx C), or if problem is opposite to
project(xxx CXX).
List of packages and respective maintainers:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/gcc-removal-pkgs.txt
- --
- -Igor Gnatenko
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=KRiO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
devel-announce mailing list -- devel-announce(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-announce-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
11:33 a.m.
Hi Igor ,
On Sun, 2018-02-18 at 18:09 +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
Over this weekend I've performed scratch-mass-rebuild without
having
gcc and
gcc-c++ in buildroot of all Fedora packages, many of which failed due
to random
reasons and I grepped all logs for some common errors found by
analyzing
hundreds of build logs.
Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B#Bu
ildRequire
s_and_Requies
The grep output is located here:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/gcc-removal.txt
Some packages might be missed due to short koji outage, broken
dependencies and
so on, but majority of real failures is below.
If you fixed package(s), found false positive, found missing packages
in list
or anything else -- please let me know.
Note to packages which use CMake buildsystem. When you have
project(xxx) in
CMakeLists.txt it checks both for C and CXX compilers. So you might
encounter
packages where you have BuildRequires: gcc and it fails on CXX
compiler (even
you think you don't need it). Solution for this is to send patch to
upstream
switching to something like project(xxx C), or if problem is opposite
to
project(xxx CXX).
List of packages and respective maintainers:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/gcc-removal-pkgs.txt
I support your work, but I was thinking instead one mass change detail
by detail .
Why not ? one mass spec clean up with all the items ?
Thanks,
--
Sérgio M. B.
11:45 a.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On Sun, 2018-02-18 at 17:33 +0000, Sérgio Basto wrote:
Hi Igor ,
On Sun, 2018-02-18 at 18:09 +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> Over this weekend I've performed scratch-mass-rebuild without having
> gcc and
> gcc-c++ in buildroot of all Fedora packages, many of which failed due
> to random
> reasons and I grepped all logs for some common errors found by
> analyzing
> hundreds of build logs.
>
> Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B#Bu
> ildRequire
> s_and_Requies
>
> The grep output is located here:
> https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/gcc-removal.txt
>
> Some packages might be missed due to short koji outage, broken
> dependencies and
> so on, but majority of real failures is below.
>
> If you fixed package(s), found false positive, found missing packages
> in list
> or anything else -- please let me know.
>
> Note to packages which use CMake buildsystem. When you have
> project(xxx) in
> CMakeLists.txt it checks both for C and CXX compilers. So you might
> encounter
> packages where you have BuildRequires: gcc and it fails on CXX
> compiler (even
> you think you don't need it). Solution for this is to send patch to
> upstream
> switching to something like project(xxx C), or if problem is opposite
> to
> project(xxx CXX).
>
> List of packages and respective maintainers:
> https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/gcc-removal-pkgs.txt
I support your work, but I was thinking instead one mass change detail
by detail .
That will come, in few weeks / month.
Why not ? one mass spec clean up with all the items ?
* Get attention from people.
* There might be false positives, so I would like people to check their
packages.
* Whoever will ignore this will get automatic fix later (but it doesn't mean
that it will be 100% correct, although will fix bbuild).
- --
- -Igor Gnatenko
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEhLFO09aHZVqO+CM6aVcUvRu8X0wFAlqJu9IACgkQaVcUvRu8
X0x8bA//e51cbHahF7N8IHtq8MKLvEHvaNJAaC7buqmWwVYFj++Yo8M9mgjKtlGG
4VZPdxmF0TKNGZAGvv7Dx71B42i6acFbwsMAaIcZTc54jHNWo9tV/NXwmOWeG/ce
sZYZt8yye/wgsFBzOnuvs9VJrF+4JGxM0Xyw0UN9JIPtACoRCY0/xkAat28LZILP
2yoe+K8sQkGyiIZthJGpRuScppjfs0PxbEXYaBLuZ6kbdejwwyf30EoPN9OE4uur
pa7iDepfOZqfxaKoF7++dE19uID1AfHNCwcS1Yj93duFWhZMp8MszjVPbvXavo6u
CLhhtMxjEb2yMmQp/PzVoR1RCJV8PSCAxTEc6r6I0WUgElin3ri0McHqefvF2bC2
MrP1Uz1M1ZrQK9wEDL0Ks4Fy/dYKTeWmO6m/ZUnbPHqzcnJJvth6U0S0feUHAOte
y6eh/p/XGs2K7dUi8vuChVj2IKQPwWKeooXL2SA2tuvfAanFhqHyxOLELS/NVWtP
+faB5ZcjFTeRNo0LGalzmDVhCkEaKldHj8xvFZo2A9+IGVPZluY4ef3fdNX8n1yB
wxHWXiRAGTseOT+l2EONK8/MmnnTTVTolPJwhgmk2FjCpCqiawSq4MATCt/eJQfL
PSP/eoL2G+JXAai4v4IB+FIbsLI+HNdDhN43BehRxgpn9KHF1MA=
=E67h
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
11:52 a.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On Sun, 2018-02-18 at 17:38 +0000, Artur Iwicki wrote:
> If you fixed package(s),
Just to make sure: the missing "BuildRequires:" should be added only on the
master (Rawhide) dist-git branch, or on all actively-in-use branches?
It would not hurt if you will do same in all branches, but at least you need to
make fix in Rawhide.
- --
- -Igor Gnatenko
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=Lu2k
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
12:25 p.m.
Hi Igor,
Igor Gnatenko wrote:
If you fixed package(s), found false positive, found missing packages
in list
or anything else -- please let me know.
git amahdal besser82 chrisw pcahyna pstodulk skisela tmz
paperkey fale tmz
These are both fixed. I pushed git on Friday, but likely
during or after your mass-rebuild. I had fixed paperkye
locally when this discussion started, but hadn't pushed it.
That's now down.
cgit kevin praiskup tmz
I've got a scratch build running now, with some other
cleanups I had made locally (removing %{buildroot} cleanup
and removing old EL-5 conditionals among them).
Once I check that a bit I'll push it and cgit will be done
as well.
--
Todd
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Prejudice, n. A vagrant opinion without any visible means of support.
-- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
12:32 p.m.
On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 9:09 AM, Igor Gnatenko
<ignatenkobrain(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
If you fixed package(s), found false positive, found missing packages
in list
or anything else -- please let me know.
I've updated fritzing.
--
Ed Marshall <esm(a)logic.net>
Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.
https://esm.logic.net/
12:38 p.m.
On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 06:09:40PM +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Over this weekend I've performed scratch-mass-rebuild without having
gcc and gcc-c++ in buildroot of all Fedora packages,
Do you mind me asking how long that took (weekend = 2 days?!) and what
sort of computing resources you used? I'd like to compare it to the
rebuild we're doing for riscv64.
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com
virt-df lists disk usage of guests without needing to install any
software inside the virtual machine. Supports Linux and Windows.
http://people.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-df/
12:44 p.m.
Is there any way for me as a regular packager to test my fixes? The
"how to test" section on the wiki
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Remove_GCC_from_BuildRoot#How_To_Test)
still says "mock with configuration provided (TODO)". I tried a
standard mock build, with mock version 1.4.8-1, and it succeeded
WITHOUT any fix.
12:53 p.m.
On 18/02/18 17:09, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
Over this weekend I've performed scratch-mass-rebuild without
having gcc and
gcc-c++ in buildroot of all Fedora packages, many of which failed due to random
reasons and I grepped all logs for some common errors found by analyzing
hundreds of build logs.
Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B#BuildRequire
s_and_Requies
The grep output is located here:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/gcc-removal.txt
I can see python-mapnik at least in there is one of mine and I'll
be happy to fix it once the current dependency hell in rawhide allows
me to build it...
Tom
--
Tom Hughes (tom(a)compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/
12:54 p.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On Sun, 2018-02-18 at 18:38 +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 06:09:40PM +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Over this weekend I've performed scratch-mass-rebuild without having
> gcc and gcc-c++ in buildroot of all Fedora packages,
Do you mind me asking how long that took (weekend = 2 days?!) and what
sort of computing resources you used? I'd like to compare it to the
rebuild we're doing for riscv64.
Yes, 2 days (7 hours less if I would notice out of disk space). It was that
fast because 5k builds (1/4 of all packages) failed pretty quickly with missing
gcc 😉
* 4x Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E7-8860 v4 @ 2.20GHz
* 256 GiB RAM
Actually not all resources have been used, I had 10 koji builders on this
server with 12 CPUs and 16G memory each.
- --
- -Igor Gnatenko
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEhLFO09aHZVqO+CM6aVcUvRu8X0wFAlqJy+QACgkQaVcUvRu8
X0zdhRAAvb2LZC3r45AVGFAZ7Te9E0Vtk9v0sfW0xVgKB9Cexc4Z0jvvJh8xt1FY
KroQClpKHCQilJoWxyYdpB4HF/IcvWlVNN1yS8CNTsxoOwSblUcClSom9K229iRh
vjRVnEbXXwBpKUucV4DwKagwe//WF0GRRD8s3c4ReYy4R6FuNQewmQ/YsSCRsH6S
OxF4UM6ta0DOaJHNFVOtUg9XVlRRXog63OZB6X62CO4qk/TQHB7LaAIrbORPXD86
JGxKvM1u2UUZf+kEXCOlLNJe51denLTdFZ0elU1y329o4mqH57jGOdwfZsI84aWS
/QYdUP4i5lQrfAa7v26yygo6bXmdL2xPXqUdGSH5t8cMOgNHyeL/m9qyUE7NCRsg
OK5iHfi5tOpvWqtgn4ebh2t0p/9wvtqlDWNpAk3KRfSwTlXbjxnlK0apbQSb/VPC
LLBJjA5nF56aEVmgJd8V5duGfX7gyqhdgAfDMFJuU8emacxU3EaIFM9XbIKT30W7
HdXJraO9kXJBHH9x9kvGQycxYx0Jhn63pdwI/pfvGIyYDhzPSUaINRk6byHRMw2b
tVuQ5joVz4GCZQ61ro4TiqIVyMISB5v1ASFRxefq86U5RqXMGM0TUkncrZsApkIZ
M1T8Yfupb51zPNfkYw6J3coKbaNi18mvrfNoXgn6CugCNyvAm5M=
=4E2m
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
12:59 p.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On Sun, 2018-02-18 at 19:44 +0100, Göran Uddeborg wrote:
Is there any way for me as a regular packager to test my fixes? The
"how to test" section on the wiki
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Remove_GCC_from_BuildRoot#How_To_Test
)
still says "mock with configuration provided (TODO)". I tried a
standard mock build, with mock version 1.4.8-1, and it succeeded
WITHOUT any fix.
You can copy mock's fedora-rawhide-x86_64 config file and replace:
- -config_opts['chroot_setup_cmd'] = 'install @buildsys-build'
+config_opts['chroot_setup_cmd'] = 'install bash bzip2 coreutils cpio
diffutils
fedora-release findutils gawk grep gzip info make patch redhat-rpm-config rpm-
build sed shadow-utils tar unzip util-linux which xz'
Half of this is not really needed, but kinda outside of scope of this change.
All these packages were taken from comps.xml and simply removed gcc/gcc-c++
from that list.
- --
- -Igor Gnatenko
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=wfNq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
1:01 p.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On Sun, 2018-02-18 at 18:53 +0000, Tom Hughes wrote:
On 18/02/18 17:09, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> Over this weekend I've performed scratch-mass-rebuild without having gcc
> and
> gcc-c++ in buildroot of all Fedora packages, many of which failed due to
> random
> reasons and I grepped all logs for some common errors found by analyzing
> hundreds of build logs.
>
> Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B#BuildReq
> uire
> s_and_Requies
>
> The grep output is located here:
> https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/gcc-removal.txt
I can see python-mapnik at least in there is one of mine and I'll
be happy to fix it once the current dependency hell in rawhide allows
me to build it...
Just push commit, not necessary to build it right away.
- --
- -Igor Gnatenko
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=5mXE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
1:02 p.m.
On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 07:54:28PM +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On Sun, 2018-02-18 at 18:38 +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 06:09:40PM +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA256
> >
> > Over this weekend I've performed scratch-mass-rebuild without having
> > gcc and gcc-c++ in buildroot of all Fedora packages,
>
> Do you mind me asking how long that took (weekend = 2 days?!) and what
> sort of computing resources you used? I'd like to compare it to the
> rebuild we're doing for riscv64.
Yes, 2 days (7 hours less if I would notice out of disk space). It was that
fast because 5k builds (1/4 of all packages) failed pretty quickly with missing
gcc 😉
* 4x Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E7-8860 v4 @ 2.20GHz
* 256 GiB RAM
Actually not all resources have been used, I had 10 koji builders on this
server with 12 CPUs and 16G memory each.
Interesting stuff, I didn't think it would be so fast even given the
dependency failures.
On:
* 16 x Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2609 v4 @ 1.70GHz
* 64 GB RAM
it's probably going to take something like 5 or 6 days to mass rebuild
for Fedora/RISC-V (using qemu-system-riscv64).
This is not very comparable however because: (a) we're not recompiling
any noarch packages, we're just copying those in from Koji, and
(b) probably only 20% of the archful packages can be successfully
recompiled at this time.
Status if interested:
https://fedorapeople.org/groups/risc-v/autobuild-status.html
(it updates at the bottom of the page).
Thanks,
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com
virt-df lists disk usage of guests without needing to install any
software inside the virtual machine. Supports Linux and Windows.
http://people.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-df/
1:53 p.m.
On 18/02/18 19:01, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On Sun, 2018-02-18 at 18:53 +0000, Tom Hughes wrote:
> On 18/02/18 17:09, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
>
>> Over this weekend I've performed scratch-mass-rebuild without having gcc
>> and
>> gcc-c++ in buildroot of all Fedora packages, many of which failed due to
>> random
>> reasons and I grepped all logs for some common errors found by analyzing
>> hundreds of build logs.
>>
>> Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B#BuildReq
>> uire
>> s_and_Requies
>>
>> The grep output is located here:
>> https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/gcc-removal.txt
>
> I can see python-mapnik at least in there is one of mine and I'll
> be happy to fix it once the current dependency hell in rawhide allows
> me to build it...
Just push commit, not necessary to build it right away.
Tried that with mapnik and ldconfig scriptlets and I'm still
trying to get a build three weeks later ;-)
I've pushed it now anyway, and also fixed libdwarf and osmpbf.
Tom
--
Tom Hughes (tom(a)compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/
2:06 p.m.
False positive on project pmix. I checked my rawhide build logs for all six arches and
there is no `checking for c++`, as you report, in the autotools configure output. The
project is a C project and the spec properly lists BuildRequires: gcc`. There is nothing
wrong and nothing to do.
On Sunday, February 18, 2018 2:53 PM, Tom Hughes <tom(a)compton.nu> wrote:
On 18/02/18 19:01, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On Sun, 2018-02-18 at 18:53 +0000, Tom Hughes wrote:
> On 18/02/18 17:09, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
>
>> Over this weekend I've performed scratch-mass-rebuild without having gcc
>> and
>> gcc-c++ in buildroot of all Fedora packages, many of which failed due to
>> random
>> reasons and I grepped all logs for some common errors found by analyzing
>> hundreds of build logs.
>>
>> Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B#BuildReq
>> uire
>> s_and_Requies
>>
>> The grep output is located here:
>> https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/gcc-removal.txt
>
> I can see python-mapnik at least in there is one of mine and I'll
> be happy to fix it once the current dependency hell in rawhide allows
> me to build it...
Just push commit, not necessary to build it right away.
Tried that with mapnik and ldconfig scriptlets and I'm still
trying to get a build three weeks later ;-)
I've pushed it now anyway, and also fixed libdwarf and osmpbf.
Tom
--
Tom Hughes (tom(a)compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
2:10 p.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On Sun, 2018-02-18 at 20:06 +0000, Philip Kovacs wrote:
False positive on project pmix. I checked my rawhide build logs for
all six
arches and there is no `checking for c++`, as you report, in the autotools
configure output. The project is a C project and the spec properly lists
BuildRequires: gcc`. There is nothing wrong and nothing to do.
- From latest build log
(https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/pmix/2.1.0/2.fc28/data/logs/...
4/build.log):
checking for g++... g++
but you don't have BuildRequires: gcc-c++
On Sunday, February 18, 2018 2:53 PM, Tom Hughes
<tom(a)compton.nu> wrote:
On 18/02/18 19:01, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On Sun, 2018-02-18 at 18:53 +0000, Tom Hughes wrote:
> > On 18/02/18 17:09, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> >
> > > Over this weekend I've performed scratch-mass-rebuild without having
> > > gcc
> > > and
> > > gcc-c++ in buildroot of all Fedora packages, many of which failed due
> > > to
> > > random
> > > reasons and I grepped all logs for some common errors found by
> > > analyzing
> > > hundreds of build logs.
> > >
> > > Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B#Buil
> > > dReq
> > > uire
> > > s_and_Requies
> > >
> > > The grep output is located here:
> > > https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/gcc-removal.txt
> >
> > I can see python-mapnik at least in there is one of mine and I'll
> > be happy to fix it once the current dependency hell in rawhide allows
> > me to build it...
>
> Just push commit, not necessary to build it right away.
Tried that with mapnik and ldconfig scriptlets and I'm still
trying to get a build three weeks later ;-)
I've pushed it now anyway, and also fixed libdwarf and osmpbf.
Tom
- --
- -Igor Gnatenko
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=VmA6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
2:18 p.m.
Igor
On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 11:09 AM, Igor Gnatenko <
ignatenkobrain(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
If you fixed package(s), found false positive, found missing packages in
list
or anything else -- please let me know.
biblesync
mingw-nspr
Fixed
--Greg
2:31 p.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On Sun, 2018-02-18 at 14:18 -0600, Greg Hellings wrote:
Igor
On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 11:09 AM, Igor Gnatenko <
ignatenkobrain(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> If you fixed package(s), found false positive, found missing packages in
> list
> or anything else -- please let me know.
>
>
biblesync
Doesn't seem that it should have BuildRequires: gcc, because based on grep it
wants only CXX compiler.
mingw-nspr
Looks good.
Fixed
Thanks!
- --
- -Igor Gnatenko
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=f07h
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
2:36 p.m.
On 18 February 2018 at 17:09, Igor Gnatenko
<ignatenkobrain(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Over this weekend I've performed scratch-mass-rebuild without having gcc and
gcc-c++ in buildroot of all Fedora packages, many of which failed due to random
reasons and I grepped all logs for some common errors found by analyzing
hundreds of build logs.
Yesterday I've replayed on your proposal but I've not realized that my
reply was held by the moderator.
You started introducing changes only after less than 24h after
publishing proposal.
It does not make any sense sending any proposals if you will be not
waiting for feedback at least few days :-/
Here is the copy of my yesterday reply:
As definitely proposed change will create the whole wave of small
changes adding at least one new BuildRequires I just started thinking
about going slightly deeper (but only a bit deeper ;) ).
When gcc or other compilers are no longer part of the core build env
suit/env as you mention it is necessary to add it straight in
BuildRequires for example gcc.
That is OK.
Q: does it really needs to be gcc? What about clang?
A: theoretically it does not need to be gcc .. especially as macros
like %cmake, %configure are injecting over CC, CXX and other variables
exact commands.
As long as none of the macros like %cmake or %cobfigure has straight
dependency and are not forcing to use gcc (those macros are using
other macros like %{__cc}) already it possible to test build package
written in C using C++ compiler to for example expose some set of
compile warnings generated by C++ compiler or .. use clang.
Build the whole package with using some C code security scanners? No
problem. It is possible to do this without touching spec file.
OK, so .. at the moment macros like:
%__cc gcc
%__cpp gcc -E
%__cxx g++
are defined in /usr/lib/macros which is part of the rpm.
If those macros will be removed from this file and moved to
/usr/lib/macros.d/macros.{gcc,clang} it should be possible to provide
the platform which will open the whole spectrum of completely new
possibilities with some minimal changes in whole build env and no
other changes in all specs.
Only weak point in above is how to force use gcc if both gcc and clang
will be installed (which will be quite typical in case all packages
private build envs).
However, I think that even this is a very small obstacle which can be
easily handled.
Now by default %/{__cc} is provided by gcc but if here it will be
introduced small flexible it should be possible to control which
the compiler should be used even if in packagers build system will be
installed both gcc and clang by simple few changes in ~.rpmrc or on
Fedora build systems in ~mock/.rpmrc file.
So maybe instead:
BuildRequires: gcc
better would be to use:
BuildRequires: %{__cc}
or:
BuildRequires: c-compiler
??
if both gcc and clang will have:
Provides: c-compiler
still it will be possible installed gcc and clang without conflicts.
I'm sure that above it is not complete idea and few small bits still
are missing.
I think that we should hold for few seconds and consider change a bit
this proposal to pen those possibilities.
Comments?
kloczek
--
Tomasz Kłoczko | LinkedIn: http://lnkd.in/FXPWxH
2:45 p.m.
Ok, my configure.ac initializes libtool with both c and c++ :
LT_INIT()LT_LANG([C])LT_LANG([C++])
where only C is needed. There are no ill-effects other than producing some noise in the
configureoutput, but I will patch out the LT_LANG([C++]) line to trim the noise.
On Sunday, February 18, 2018 3:37 PM, Tomasz Kłoczko <kloczko.tomasz(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On 18 February 2018 at 17:09, Igor Gnatenko
<ignatenkobrain(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Over this weekend I've performed scratch-mass-rebuild without having gcc and
gcc-c++ in buildroot of all Fedora packages, many of which failed due to random
reasons and I grepped all logs for some common errors found by analyzing
hundreds of build logs.
Yesterday I've replayed on your proposal but I've not realized that my
reply was held by the moderator.
You started introducing changes only after less than 24h after
publishing proposal.
It does not make any sense sending any proposals if you will be not
waiting for feedback at least few days :-/
Here is the copy of my yesterday reply:
As definitely proposed change will create the whole wave of small
changes adding at least one new BuildRequires I just started thinking
about going slightly deeper (but only a bit deeper ;) ).
When gcc or other compilers are no longer part of the core build env
suit/env as you mention it is necessary to add it straight in
BuildRequires for example gcc.
That is OK.
Q: does it really needs to be gcc? What about clang?
A: theoretically it does not need to be gcc .. especially as macros
like %cmake, %configure are injecting over CC, CXX and other variables
exact commands.
As long as none of the macros like %cmake or %cobfigure has straight
dependency and are not forcing to use gcc (those macros are using
other macros like %{__cc}) already it possible to test build package
written in C using C++ compiler to for example expose some set of
compile warnings generated by C++ compiler or .. use clang.
Build the whole package with using some C code security scanners? No
problem. It is possible to do this without touching spec file.
OK, so .. at the moment macros like:
%__cc gcc
%__cpp gcc -E
%__cxx g++
are defined in /usr/lib/macros which is part of the rpm.
If those macros will be removed from this file and moved to
/usr/lib/macros.d/macros.{gcc,clang} it should be possible to provide
the platform which will open the whole spectrum of completely new
possibilities with some minimal changes in whole build env and no
other changes in all specs.
Only weak point in above is how to force use gcc if both gcc and clang
will be installed (which will be quite typical in case all packages
private build envs).
However, I think that even this is a very small obstacle which can be
easily handled.
Now by default %/{__cc} is provided by gcc but if here it will be
introduced small flexible it should be possible to control which
the compiler should be used even if in packagers build system will be
installed both gcc and clang by simple few changes in ~.rpmrc or on
Fedora build systems in ~mock/.rpmrc file.
So maybe instead:
BuildRequires: gcc
better would be to use:
BuildRequires: %{__cc}
or:
BuildRequires: c-compiler
??
if both gcc and clang will have:
Provides: c-compiler
still it will be possible installed gcc and clang without conflicts.
I'm sure that above it is not complete idea and few small bits still
are missing.
I think that we should hold for few seconds and consider change a bit
this proposal to pen those possibilities.
Comments?
kloczek
--
Tomasz Kłoczko | LinkedIn: http://lnkd.in/FXPWxH
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
2:52 p.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On Sun, 2018-02-18 at 20:36 +0000, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
On 18 February 2018 at 17:09, Igor Gnatenko
<ignatenkobrain(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Over this weekend I've performed scratch-mass-rebuild without having gcc
> and
> gcc-c++ in buildroot of all Fedora packages, many of which failed due to
> random
> reasons and I grepped all logs for some common errors found by analyzing
> hundreds of build logs.
Yesterday I've replayed on your proposal but I've not realized that my
reply was held by the moderator.
You started introducing changes only after less than 24h after
publishing proposal.
It does not make any sense sending any proposals if you will be not
waiting for feedback at least few days :-/
I didn't introduce any changes, I just made mass rebuild and asked people to
fix their packages.
Here is the copy of my yesterday reply:
I have seen it, but as usual with your messages (which are very long and mix
different things) I stopped reading after second paragraph..
Q: does it really needs to be gcc? What about clang?
A: theoretically it does not need to be gcc .. especially as macros
like %cmake, %configure are injecting over CC, CXX and other variables
exact commands.
Yes, theoretically. I think the real reason is because we want explicitly to
use GCC and nothing else.
As long as none of the macros like %cmake or %cobfigure has straight
dependency and are not forcing to use gcc (those macros are using
other macros like %{__cc}) already it possible to test build package
written in C using C++ compiler to for example expose some set of
compile warnings generated by C++ compiler or .. use clang.
Build the whole package with using some C code security scanners? No
problem. It is possible to do this without touching spec file.
Actually csmock already can do that. Probably not in very nice way, but it
works.
Now by default %/{__cc} is provided by gcc but if here it will be
introduced small flexible it should be possible to control which
the compiler should be used even if in packagers build system will be
installed both gcc and clang by simple few changes in ~.rpmrc or on
Fedora build systems in ~mock/.rpmrc file.
So maybe instead:
BuildRequires: gcc
better would be to use:
BuildRequires: %{__cc}
or:
BuildRequires: c-compiler
??
if both gcc and clang will have:
Provides: c-compiler
still it will be possible installed gcc and clang without conflicts.
I'm sure that above it is not complete idea and few small bits still
are missing.
I think that we should hold for few seconds and consider change a bit
this proposal to pen those possibilities.
Are you willing to work on Guidelines Draft for FPC on this? Right now I just
want to get rid out of gcc/gcc-c++ in buildroot and I chose following
**existing guidelines** as a base for this while what you are proposing
requires coordination with FPC.
I'm not against this idea at all, but this is totally outside of scope of this
change. In any case, once we will have necessary BuildRequires all over the
place we can easily replace them with whatever we will decide is correct.
- --
- -Igor Gnatenko
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=Ll0I
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
2:55 p.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On Sun, 2018-02-18 at 20:45 +0000, Philip Kovacs wrote:
Ok, my configure.ac initializes libtool with both c and c++ :
LT_INIT()LT_LANG([C])LT_LANG([C++])
where only C is needed. There are no ill-effects other than producing some
noise in the configureoutput, but I will patch out the LT_LANG([C++]) line to
trim the noise.
Yeah, either you need to add BuildRequires: gcc-c++ or remove this
LT_LANG([C++]). If you won't do any of this, it will stop building 😉
Thanks for fixing!
- --
- -Igor Gnatenko
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=3gzd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
3:52 p.m.
On dimanche 18 février 2018 18:09:40 CET Igor Gnatenko wrote:
Over this weekend I've performed scratch-mass-rebuild without
having gcc
and gcc-c++ in buildroot of all Fedora packages, many of which failed due
to random reasons and I grepped all logs for some common errors found by
analyzing hundreds of build logs.
Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B#BuildRequire
s_and_Requies
The grep output is located here:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/gcc-removal.txt
Some packages might be missed due to short koji outage, broken dependencies
and so on, but majority of real failures is below.
If you fixed package(s), found false positive, found missing packages in
list or anything else -- please let me know.
Fixed:
eclipseo cmrt libva-intel-hybrid-driver qdirstat zegrapher
Best regards,
Robert-André
3:54 p.m.
On 18 February 2018 at 20:52, Igor Gnatenko
<ignatenkobrain(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
[..]
> Yesterday I've replayed on your proposal but I've not
realized that my
> reply was held by the moderator.
> You started introducing changes only after less than 24h after
> publishing proposal.
> It does not make any sense sending any proposals if you will be not
> waiting for feedback at least few days :-/
I didn't introduce any changes, I just made mass rebuild and asked people to
fix their packages.
Gosh .. you are right.
Really sorry :-/
After spotting +1k new emails notifications I did not check who made
those changes and I've been thinking that it was some mass change
introduced by one of the proven packagers.
It does not look good if people before finishing discussion on
*proposal* will be making changes :-/
Or maybe everything has been triggered not by the proposal but by this
thread which has in the Subject "[ACTION NEEDED]" ?
[..]
> Q: does it really needs to be gcc? What about clang?
> A: theoretically it does not need to be gcc .. especially as macros
> like %cmake, %configure are injecting over CC, CXX and other variables
> exact commands.
Yes, theoretically. I think the real reason is because we want explicitly to
use GCC and nothing else.
Looks like this intention has not been verbalised in the proposal.
Here few questions related to such intention.
If Fedora provides more than one C/C++ compilers and both are in the
main part of the distribution -> Why Fedora packages must be glued
statically to gcc/gcc-c++ as C/C++ compilers?
Maybe there are more unverbalised intentions related to such assumption?
Or maybe it is something wrong with clang?
I'm asking because I don't know anything about such issues.
FreeBSD is using now clang/llvm to compile everything so it would be a
real surprise if it is already some known big issue.
[..]
Are you willing to work on Guidelines Draft for FPC on this? Right
now I just
want to get rid out of gcc/gcc-c++ in buildroot and I chose following
**existing guidelines** as a base for this while what you are proposing
requires coordination with FPC.
I've drafted only some idea which was not complete.
Have no idea where did you get this that I'm willing anything.
I'm not against this idea at all, but this is totally outside of
scope of this
change. In any case, once we will have necessary BuildRequires all over the
place we can easily replace them with whatever we will decide is correct.
This is not about arrogance.
If you will be just stopping reading after the first sentence you are
exposing yourself to miss something.
In this first sentence literally was that what is below is out of the
scope of the proposal.
In reply where only a few humble question and asking for few seconds
to consider modify original scope to open some new possibilities.
Now looks like it is to late and changes already started :-(
kloczek
PS. If you really don't like my comments just add my email to spam
filters and let me know about this in prv email.
I promise that I'll never reply to any of your emails.
6:30 p.m.
Hi,
I've fixed all my packages except simspark & rcssserver3d, which seem to
crash on i686 when generating docs using pdflatex, which will probably
needs a fix in TeXLive.
Regards,
Hedayat
/*Igor Gnatenko*/ wrote on Sun, 18 Feb 2018 18:09:40 +0100:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Over this weekend I've performed scratch-mass-rebuild without having gcc and
gcc-c++ in buildroot of all Fedora packages, many of which failed due to random
reasons and I grepped all logs for some common errors found by analyzing
hundreds of build logs.
Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B#BuildRequire
s_and_Requies
The grep output is located here:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/gcc-removal.txt
Some packages might be missed due to short koji outage, broken dependencies and
so on, but majority of real failures is below.
If you fixed package(s), found false positive, found missing packages in list
or anything else -- please let me know.
Note to packages which use CMake buildsystem. When you have project(xxx) in
CMakeLists.txt it checks both for C and CXX compilers. So you might encounter
packages where you have BuildRequires: gcc and it fails on CXX compiler (even
you think you don't need it). Solution for this is to send patch to upstream
switching to something like project(xxx C), or if problem is opposite to
project(xxx CXX).
List of packages and respective maintainers:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/gcc-removal-pkgs.txt
- --
- -Igor Gnatenko
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=KRiO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
devel-announce mailing list -- devel-announce(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-announce-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
6:49 p.m.
On 19/02/18 00:30, Hedayat Vatankhah wrote:
I've fixed all my packages except simspark & rcssserver3d,
which seem to
crash on i686 when generating docs using pdflatex, which will probably
needs a fix in TeXLive.
Yes that's the crash that is blocking me as well... It is new since
the texlive rebuild last week for poppler and has caused the gdal
rebuild to fail.
Tom
--
Tom Hughes (tom(a)compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/
8:02 p.m.
On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 06:09:40PM +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
These are fixed: flac123 fping fxload ocp perl-HTML-Strip sedutil
I retired msed because sedutil replaced it.
2:12 a.m.
Hi Igor
2018-02-18 18:09 GMT+01:00 Igor Gnatenko
<ignatenkobrain(a)fedoraproject.org>:
Over this weekend I've performed scratch-mass-rebuild without having gcc and
gcc-c++ in buildroot of all Fedora packages, many of which failed due to random
reasons and I grepped all logs for some common errors found by analyzing
hundreds of build logs.
Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B#BuildRequire
s_and_Requies
The grep output is located here:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/gcc-removal.txt
amsynth has been fixed in all supported branches.
Thanks for your work.
Guido Aulisi
fas account: tartina
2:30 a.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On Mon, 2018-02-19 at 09:12 +0100, Guido Aulisi wrote:
Hi Igor
> 2018-02-18 18:09 GMT+01:00 Igor Gnatenko <ignatenkobrain(a)fedoraproject.org>
> :
> Over this weekend I've performed scratch-mass-rebuild without having gcc
> and
> gcc-c++ in buildroot of all Fedora packages, many of which failed due to
> random
> reasons and I grepped all logs for some common errors found by analyzing
> hundreds of build logs.
>
> Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B#BuildReq
> uire
> s_and_Requies
>
> The grep output is located here:
> https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/gcc-removal.txt
amsynth has been fixed in all supported branches.
It should have both gcc and gcc-c++.
- --
- -Igor Gnatenko
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=D/jX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
3:02 a.m.
On 19/02/18 08:30, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
On Mon, 2018-02-19 at 09:12 +0100, Guido Aulisi wrote:
> amsynth has been fixed in all supported branches.
It should have both gcc and gcc-c++.
I don't think you ever need both - the guidelines say "gcc, gcc-c++ or
clang" and gcc-c++ has to require gcc anyway.
Tom
--
Tom Hughes (tom(a)compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/
3:25 a.m.
psabata tinyfugue wmname xssstate
All three fixed in Rawhide. Also added other missing build
deps when I was at it :)
Also tinyfugue could do with some more love. I wonder if
anybody is using it in Fedora, though.
P
4:15 a.m.
2018-02-19 9:30 GMT+01:00 Igor Gnatenko <ignatenkobrain(a)fedoraproject.org>:
On Mon, 2018-02-19 at 09:12 +0100, Guido Aulisi wrote:
> Hi Igor
>
> > 2018-02-18 18:09 GMT+01:00 Igor Gnatenko
<ignatenkobrain(a)fedoraproject.org>
> > :
> > Over this weekend I've performed scratch-mass-rebuild without having gcc
> > and
> > gcc-c++ in buildroot of all Fedora packages, many of which failed due to
> > random
> > reasons and I grepped all logs for some common errors found by analyzing
> > hundreds of build logs.
> >
> > Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B#BuildReq
> > uire
> > s_and_Requies
> >
> > The grep output is located here:
> > https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/gcc-removal.txt
>
> amsynth has been fixed in all supported branches.
It should have both gcc and gcc-c++.
Sorry, I thought gcc-c++ implied gcc. When I tested the new buildroot
gcc was installed as a dependency.
If so, I have to fix other packages too.
Guido Aulisi
fas account: tartina
4:27 a.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On Mon, 2018-02-19 at 09:02 +0000, Tom Hughes wrote:
On 19/02/18 08:30, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-02-19 at 09:12 +0100, Guido Aulisi wrote:
>
> > amsynth has been fixed in all supported branches.
>
> It should have both gcc and gcc-c++.
I don't think you ever need both - the guidelines say "gcc, gcc-c++ or
clang" and gcc-c++ has to require gcc anyway.
If your code needs both, better to be explicit and write both.
- --
- -Igor Gnatenko
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=P0X8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
4:29 a.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On Mon, 2018-02-19 at 11:15 +0100, Guido Aulisi wrote:
2018-02-19 9:30 GMT+01:00 Igor Gnatenko
<ignatenkobrain(a)fedoraproject.org>:
> On Mon, 2018-02-19 at 09:12 +0100, Guido Aulisi wrote:
> > Hi Igor
> >
> > > 2018-02-18 18:09 GMT+01:00 Igor Gnatenko
<ignatenkobrain@fedoraproject.
> > > org>
> > > :
> > > Over this weekend I've performed scratch-mass-rebuild without having
> > > gcc
> > > and
> > > gcc-c++ in buildroot of all Fedora packages, many of which failed due
> > > to
> > > random
> > > reasons and I grepped all logs for some common errors found by
> > > analyzing
> > > hundreds of build logs.
> > >
> > > Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B#Buil
> > > dReq
> > > uire
> > > s_and_Requies
> > >
> > > The grep output is located here:
> > > https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/gcc-removal.txt
> >
> > amsynth has been fixed in all supported branches.
>
> It should have both gcc and gcc-c++.
Sorry, I thought gcc-c++ implied gcc. When I tested the new buildroot
gcc was installed as a dependency.
If so, I have to fix other packages too.
Well, it imples but better to be explicit.
- --
- -Igor Gnatenko
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=BAkq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
4:47 a.m.
On 02/19/2018 11:27 AM, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On Mon, 2018-02-19 at 09:02 +0000, Tom Hughes wrote:
> On 19/02/18 08:30, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 2018-02-19 at 09:12 +0100, Guido Aulisi wrote:
>>
>>> amsynth has been fixed in all supported branches.
>>
>> It should have both gcc and gcc-c++.
>
> I don't think you ever need both - the guidelines say "gcc, gcc-c++ or
> clang" and gcc-c++ has to require gcc anyway.
If your code needs both, better to be explicit and write both.
Wrong. g++ requires gcc for technical reasons.
5:10 a.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On Mon, 2018-02-19 at 11:47 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 02/19/2018 11:27 AM, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On Mon, 2018-02-19 at 09:02 +0000, Tom Hughes wrote:
> > On 19/02/18 08:30, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 2018-02-19 at 09:12 +0100, Guido Aulisi wrote:
> > >
> > > > amsynth has been fixed in all supported branches.
> > >
> > > It should have both gcc and gcc-c++.
> >
> > I don't think you ever need both - the guidelines say "gcc, gcc-c++
or
> > clang" and gcc-c++ has to require gcc anyway.
>
> If your code needs both, better to be explicit and write both.
Wrong. g++ requires gcc for technical reasons.
So what? I didn't say that gcc-c++ doesn't require gcc, I said that if your
package wants both it's better to write both explicitly.
- --
- -Igor Gnatenko
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=Mzzr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
6:55 a.m.
Dne 18.2.2018 v 18:09 Igor Gnatenko napsal(a):
List of packages and respective maintainers:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/gcc-removal-pkgs.txt
msuchy PyPAM imvirt obs-signd perl-Filesys-Df perl-Math-FFT rhnsd
rhnsd - sent PR to upstream
everything else fixed in rawhide.
Thank you for this list.
Mirek
6:57 a.m.
On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 10:39 PM, Igor Gnatenko
<ignatenkobrain(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Over this weekend I've performed scratch-mass-rebuild without having gcc and
gcc-c++ in buildroot of all Fedora packages, many of which failed due to random
reasons and I grepped all logs for some common errors found by analyzing
hundreds of build logs.
Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B#BuildRequire
s_and_Requies
The grep output is located here:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/gcc-removal.txt
Some packages might be missed due to short koji outage, broken dependencies and
so on, but majority of real failures is below.
If you fixed package(s), found false positive, found missing packages in list
or anything else -- please let me know.
Note to packages which use CMake buildsystem. When you have project(xxx) in
CMakeLists.txt it checks both for C and CXX compilers. So you might encounter
packages where you have BuildRequires: gcc and it fails on CXX compiler (even
you think you don't need it). Solution for this is to send patch to upstream
switching to something like project(xxx C), or if problem is opposite to
project(xxx CXX).
List of packages and respective maintainers:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/gcc-removal-pkgs.txt
Thanks Igor for all this work. I have fixed my packages now in rawhide only.
Parag
7:28 a.m.
On 18/02/18 18:09, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
Some packages might be missed due to short koji outage, broken
dependencies and
so on, but majority of real failures is below.
If you fixed package(s), found false positive, found missing packages in list
or anything else -- please let me know.
I fixed patchelf in patchelf-0.9-7.fc28.
Thanks
Jeremy.
8 a.m.
> On Sun, 2018-02-18 at 18:09 +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> > Over this weekend I've performed scratch-mass-rebuild
> > without having gcc and gcc-c++ in buildroot of all Fedora
> > packages, many of which failed due to random reasons and
> > I grepped all logs for some common errors found by
> > analyzing hundreds of build logs.
Fixed:
* ldapvi
* lout
* slrn
* sl
* oneko
With the two most important packages (the last ones) fixed, the
most difficult work is done, I believe!
Matěj
--
https://matej.ceplovi.cz/blog/, Jabber: mcepl(a)ceplovi.cz
GPG Finger: 3C76 A027 CA45 AD70 98B5 BC1D 7920 5802 880B C9D8
Find the dependencies -- and eliminate them.
-- according to http://is.gd/oeYpcI the motto of the MS Excel team
8:30 a.m.
On 18/02/18 18:09, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> Some packages might be missed due to short koji outage,
> broken dependencies and so on, but majority of real failures
> is below.
>
> If you fixed package(s), found false positive, found missing
> packages in list or anything else -- please let me know.
Also fixed gnuchess and leafnode.
Matěj
--
https://matej.ceplovi.cz/blog/, Jabber: mcepl(a)ceplovi.cz
GPG Finger: 3C76 A027 CA45 AD70 98B5 BC1D 7920 5802 880B C9D8
Because dwm is customized through editing its source code, it’s
pointless to make binary packages of it. This keeps its userbase
small and elitist. No novices asking stupid questions.
-- http://dwm.suckless.org/
9:13 a.m.
On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 12:09 PM, Igor Gnatenko <
ignatenkobrain(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
Over this weekend I've performed scratch-mass-rebuild without
having gcc
and
gcc-c++ in buildroot of all Fedora packages, many of which failed due to
random
reasons and I grepped all logs for some common errors found by analyzing
hundreds of build logs.
I have added the missing BuildRequires to the following packages:
jsmith asterisk jansson libpri libresample pjproject
--
Jared Smith
9:49 a.m.
On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 11:09 AM, Igor Gnatenko <
ignatenkobrain(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Over this weekend I've performed scratch-mass-rebuild without having gcc
and
gcc-c++ in buildroot of all Fedora packages, many of which failed due to
random
reasons and I grepped all logs for some common errors found by analyzing
hundreds of build logs.
Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B#
BuildRequire
s_and_Requies
The grep output is located here:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/gcc-removal.txt
Some packages might be missed due to short koji outage, broken
dependencies and
so on, but majority of real failures is below.
If you fixed package(s), found false positive, found missing packages in
list
or anything else -- please let me know.
Fixed BackupPC Coin3 LibRaw LinLog OCE OpenColorIO SIMVoleon SoQt
apiextractor aprsdigi atop ax25-tools codec2 dvdauthor f2c fdupes flamp
fldigi fllog flrig fltk flxmlrpc freecad freedv generatorrunner hamlib
hedgewars iguanaIR lcms2 libdxfrw librecad libspnav lirc nec2c openCOLLADA
pmount pysdm pyside-tools python-pivy python-pyside qastools qodem shiboken
shiny soxr spacenavd splat spnavcfg trustedqsl unittest-cpp vtable-dumper
xnec2c yaml-cpp03
Thanks,
Richard
12:01 p.m.
On Sun, 2018-02-18 at 18:09 +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
Over this weekend I've performed scratch-mass-rebuild without
having
gcc and
gcc-c++ in buildroot of all Fedora packages, many of which failed due
to random
reasons and I grepped all logs for some common errors found by
analyzing
hundreds of build logs.
Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B#Bu
ildRequire
s_and_Requies
The grep output is located here:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/gcc-removal.txt
Some packages might be missed due to short koji outage, broken
dependencies and
so on, but majority of real failures is below.
If you fixed package(s), found false positive, found missing packages
in list
or anything else -- please let me know.
fixed shairport-sync
>
> Note to packages which use CMake buildsystem. When you have
> project(xxx) in
> CMakeLists.txt it checks both for C and CXX compilers. So you might
> encounter
> packages where you have BuildRequires: gcc and it fails on CXX
> compiler (even
> you think you don't need it). Solution for this is to send patch to
> upstream
> switching to something like project(xxx C), or if problem is opposite
> to
> project(xxx CXX).
>
> List of packages and respective maintainers:
> https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/gcc-removal-pkgs.txt
>
> _______________________________________________
> devel-announce mailing list -- devel-announce(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-announce-leave(a)lists.fedoraproj
> ect.org
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
5:34 p.m.
Am Sonntag, den 18.02.2018, 18:09 +0100 schrieb Igor Gnatenko:
Over this weekend I've performed scratch-mass-rebuild without
having
gcc and
gcc-c++ in buildroot of all Fedora packages, many of which failed due
to random
reasons and I grepped all logs for some common errors found by
analyzing
hundreds of build logs.
Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B#Bu
ildRequire
s_and_Requies
The grep output is located here:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/gcc-removal.txt
Some packages might be missed due to short koji outage, broken
dependencies and
so on, but majority of real failures is below.
If you fixed package(s), found false positive, found missing packages
in list
or anything else -- please let me know.
Fixed astyle, aeskulap, codeblocks, dvdbackup and pcsc-cyberjack in
Rawhide.
Rebuild aeskulap in Rawhide, because it failed in f28-mass-rebuild.
Many thanks for your ongoing effort,
Jens
Note to packages which use CMake buildsystem. When you have
project(xxx) in
CMakeLists.txt it checks both for C and CXX compilers. So you might
encounter
packages where you have BuildRequires: gcc and it fails on CXX
compiler (even
you think you don't need it). Solution for this is to send patch to
upstream
switching to something like project(xxx C), or if problem is opposite
to
project(xxx CXX).
List of packages and respective maintainers:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/gcc-removal-pkgs.txt
_______________________________________________
devel-announce mailing list -- devel-announce(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-announce-leave(a)lists.fedoraproj
ect.org
--
Jens Lody <fedora(a)jenslody.de>
5:45 p.m.
On Sun, 18 Feb 2018, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
If you fixed package(s), found false positive, found missing packages
in list
or anything else -- please let me know.
Fixed ascii, hardlink, netmask, pam_usb, and reptyr.
--
Francisco Javier Tsao Santín
http://gattaca.es
1024D/71CF4D62 42 F1 53 35 EF 98 98 8A FC 6C 56 B3 4C A7 7D FB
6:02 a.m.
On 02/18/2018 06:09 PM, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
List of packages and respective maintainers:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/gcc-removal-pkgs.txt
zdohnal c2esp cups cups-filters enscript foomatic hplip jbigkit mgetty openobex
pnm2ppa ptouch-driver python-cups python-smbc qpdf sane-backends sane-frontends splix
system-config-printer vim xsane
Done in packages where I am the main admin.
--
Zdenek Dohnal
Associate Software Engineer
Red Hat Czech - Brno TPB-C
6:51 a.m.
On 02/20/2018 01:02 PM, Zdenek Dohnal wrote:
On 02/18/2018 06:09 PM, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
>
> List of packages and respective maintainers:
> https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/gcc-removal-pkgs.txt
Done in packages where I am admin.
TY!
J.
11:20 a.m.
On Sun, 2018-02-18 at 18:09 +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
If you fixed package(s), found false positive, found missing packages
in list
or anything else -- please let me know.
Fixed in rawhide:
aspell
exempi
gpxsee
groff
joe
jpilot
libcgroup
libpng12
libpng15
libtiff
man-db
pilot-link
Also fixed the following unlisted packages:
libjpeg-turbo
libpipeline
libpng
mailx
uClibc
Thanks,
Nikola
11:31 a.m.
On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 12:09 PM, Igor Gnatenko
<ignatenkobrain(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
If you fixed package(s), found false positive, found missing packages
in list
or anything else -- please let me know.
I've added the missing BuildRequires to the following packages:
elog gfm hyperrogue ocaml-mccs spasm-ng tfdocgen tilp2
Ben Rosser
5:03 p.m.
On Sun, 2018-02-18 at 18:09 +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
List of packages and respective maintainers:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/gcc-removal-pkgs.txt
nphilipp babl dcraw gegl gimp gpsdrive gtick gtkimageview hydrogen
jaaa lensfun libgnomecanvasmm26 libiec61883 liblo liblrdf libltc
libraw1394 libsamplerate pngcrush python-sqlalchemy sane-backends sane-
frontends suitesparse ufraw uucp widelands xsane
Done where others didn't beat me to it.
Nils
--
Nils Philippsen "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to
Software Engineer purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither
Red Hat Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
PGP fingerprint: C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F 656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011
5:46 p.m.
On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 06:09:40PM +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
If you fixed package(s) -- please let me know.
Fixed: util-linux-2.32-0.2.fc29
Karel
--
Karel Zak <kzak(a)redhat.com>
http://karelzak.blogspot.com
5:47 p.m.
On Wed, 2018-02-21 at 00:03 +0100, Nils Philippsen wrote:
On Sun, 2018-02-18 at 18:09 +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> List of packages and respective maintainers:
> https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/gcc-removal-pkgs.txt
> nphilipp babl dcraw gegl gimp gpsdrive gtick gtkimageview
> hydrogen
beanstalkd and clamsmtp are done
6:21 p.m.
On 18 February 2018 at 12:09, Igor Gnatenko
<ignatenkobrain(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Over this weekend I've performed scratch-mass-rebuild without having gcc and
gcc-c++ in buildroot of all Fedora packages, many of which failed due to random
reasons and I grepped all logs for some common errors found by analyzing
hundreds of build logs.
Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B#BuildRequire
s_and_Requies
The grep output is located here:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/gcc-removal.txt
Some packages might be missed due to short koji outage, broken dependencies and
so on, but majority of real failures is below.
If you fixed package(s), found false positive, found missing packages in list
or anything else -- please let me know.
Note to packages which use CMake buildsystem. When you have project(xxx) in
CMakeLists.txt it checks both for C and CXX compilers. So you might encounter
packages where you have BuildRequires: gcc and it fails on CXX compiler (even
you think you don't need it). Solution for this is to send patch to upstream
switching to something like project(xxx C), or if problem is opposite to
project(xxx CXX).
List of packages and respective maintainers:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/gcc-removal-pkgs.txt
So this may not be all the packages which would need a
BuildRequires:gcc in them. I had two packages without
Buildrequires:gcc not on the list but definitely using a gcc compiler.
I am guessing something else in the buildrequires is pulling them in
as a dependency.
I don't know if that will be a problem later on but wanted to mention it.
--
Stephen J Smoogen.
1:08 a.m.
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 07:21:43PM -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> List of packages and respective maintainers:
> https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/gcc-removal-pkgs.txt
So this may not be all the packages which would need a
BuildRequires:gcc in them. I had two packages without
Buildrequires:gcc not on the list but definitely using a gcc compiler.
I am guessing something else in the buildrequires is pulling them in
as a dependency.
I don't know if that will be a problem later on but wanted to mention it.
The same as with any other missing dependency: if the package that
your package depends on at some point loses *its* dependency, your
package will FTBFS. Not a problem now, but something to fix in the
long term.
Zbyszek
1:50 a.m.
Hi,
On Sun, 2018-02-18 at 18:09 +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
If you fixed package(s), found false positive, found missing
packages
in list
or anything else -- please let me know.
Done: boost-gdb-printers cppunit libabw libcdr libcmis libcss libe-book
libeot libepubgen libetonyek libexttextcat libfreehand libgltf
libhubbub libixion libmspub libmwaw libodfgen liborcus libpagemaker
libparserutils libqxp librevenge librvngabw libstaroffice libvisio
libwapcaplet libwpd libwpg libwps libzmf mdds writerperfect
D.
4:18 a.m.
On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 06:09:40PM +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
If you fixed package(s) -- please let me know.
Fixed: util-linux-2.32-0.2.fc29
--
Karel Zak <kzak(a)redhat.com>
http://karelzak.blogspot.com
8:28 a.m.
On 21 February 2018 at 02:08, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
<zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl> wrote:
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 07:21:43PM -0500, Stephen John Smoogen
wrote:
> > List of packages and respective maintainers:
> > https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/gcc-removal-pkgs.txt
> So this may not be all the packages which would need a
> BuildRequires:gcc in them. I had two packages without
> Buildrequires:gcc not on the list but definitely using a gcc compiler.
> I am guessing something else in the buildrequires is pulling them in
> as a dependency.
>
> I don't know if that will be a problem later on but wanted to mention it.
The same as with any other missing dependency: if the package that
your package depends on at some point loses *its* dependency, your
package will FTBFS. Not a problem now, but something to fix in the
long term.
I guess the problem I am having is I have no idea what we are
"fixing". It all seems like needless form filling for no benefit. If
XYZ-a is always going to pull in ABC.. why are we are explicitely
saying we need ABC. Is the end goal to have every package that could
be in the build root at the time of building be explicitely there?
[AKA get rid of the build root?] Is the end goal to fix this "one
thing" that I am not seeing?
Zbyszek
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
--
Stephen J Smoogen.
8:52 a.m.
New subject: <DKIM> Re: [ACTION NEEDED] Missing BuildRequires: gcc/gcc-c++
Le 2018-02-21 15:28, Stephen John Smoogen a écrit :
I guess the problem I am having is I have no idea what we are
"fixing". It all seems like needless form filling for no benefit. If
XYZ-a is always going to pull in ABC.. why are we are explicitely
saying we need ABC. Is the end goal to have every package that could
be in the build root at the time of building be explicitely there?
[AKA get rid of the build root?]
The aim is to have a minimal build root, which is sufficient to
interpret spec files and pull in language-specific compilers as need,
not to have every compiler Fedora ships in the default build root just
in case it is needed. As you may have noticed, Fedora includes more and
more language stacks, many of them not gcc based, most of them with
heavy language-specific tooling.
The gcc BR is kind of a special case, it would be more interesting to
have a "I am a C program that uses gcc" macro that does more things than
just pulling in the gcc compiler (replace C with every language gcc is
used with)
A lighter default build root means saving time and resources in koji,
copr or mock, which translates in savings days during mass rebuilds,
which means problems are identified earlier, and fixing them is less
time-constrained, rushed, exhausting and risky.
--
Nicolas Mailhot
10:40 a.m.
On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 18:09:40 +0100
Igor Gnatenko <ignatenkobrain(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Over this weekend I've performed scratch-mass-rebuild without having
gcc and gcc-c++ in buildroot of all Fedora packages, many of which
failed due to random reasons and I grepped all logs for some common
errors found by analyzing hundreds of build logs.
Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B#BuildRequire
s_and_Requies
The grep output is located here:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/gcc-removal.txt
Some packages might be missed due to short koji outage, broken
dependencies and so on, but majority of real failures is below.
If you fixed package(s), found false positive, found missing packages
in list or anything else -- please let me know.
Fixed:
curl gtkwave gtorrentviewer mod_fcgid perl-B-Hooks-OP-Check
perl-Crypt-IDEA perl-Date-Simple perl-Digest-MD4 perl-JSON-XS
perl-MooseX-Role-WithOverloading perl-Readonly-XS
perl-Variable-Magic perl-perl5i perl-true
Won't need fixing if perl-ExtUtils-CBuilder grows a dependency on gcc
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1547165):
perl-ExtUtils-CChecker perl-File-LibMagic perl-Hash-StoredIterator
perl-Module-Build-XSUtil perl-Time-y2038
Paul.
7:19 a.m.
On 02/18/2018 06:09 PM, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
The grep output is located here:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/gcc-removal.txt
fbset should be taken care of because I had to touch the package anyway,
and it has seen few actual changes over the years.
Thanks,
Florian
7:26 a.m.
On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 06:09:40PM +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
List of packages and respective maintainers:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/gcc-removal-pkgs.txt
adelton mod_auth_openidc mod_authnz_pam mod_intercept_form_submit mod_lookup_identity
perl-Cache-Mmap perl-Crypt-DES perl-Sys-CPU
I've updated and built
mod_authnz_pam
mod_intercept_form_submit
mod_lookup_identity
perl-Cache-Mmap
perl-Crypt-DES
I'm leaving mod_auth_openidc to John and perl-Sys-CPU to Emmanuel,
as I don't want to step on their toes.
--
Jan Pazdziora
Senior Principal Software Engineer, OpenShift Security Team, Red Hat
5:14 a.m.
Hey,
On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 6:09 PM, Igor Gnatenko
<ignatenkobrain(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
List of packages and respective maintainers:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/gcc-removal-pkgs.txt
Done:
gnome-session
gnome-shell-extensions(*)
Cheers,
Florian
(*) accidentally, by changing build systems to meson which insists
less on a cc dependency ...
8:33 a.m.
fixed g2clib and pyproj.
Jos
On 02/18/2018 06:09 PM, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> Over this weekend I've performed scratch-mass-rebuild without having gcc and
> gcc-c++ in buildroot of all Fedora packages, many of which failed due to random
> reasons and I grepped all logs for some common errors found by analyzing
> hundreds of build logs.
>
> Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B#BuildRequire
> s_and_Requies
>
> The grep output is located here:
> https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/gcc-removal.txt
>
> Some packages might be missed due to short koji outage, broken dependencies and
> so on, but majority of real failures is below.
>
> If you fixed package(s), found false positive, found missing packages in list
> or anything else -- please let me know.
>
> Note to packages which use CMake buildsystem. When you have project(xxx) in
> CMakeLists.txt it checks both for C and CXX compilers. So you might encounter
> packages where you have BuildRequires: gcc and it fails on CXX compiler (even
> you think you don't need it). Solution for this is to send patch to upstream
> switching to something like project(xxx C), or if problem is opposite to
> project(xxx CXX).
>
> List of packages and respective maintainers:
> https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/gcc-removal-pkgs.txt
>
> _______________________________________________
> devel-announce mailing list -- devel-announce(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-announce-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>
9:40 a.m.
Hi
On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 6:09 PM, Igor Gnatenko <
ignatenkobrain(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Over this weekend I've performed scratch-mass-rebuild without having gcc
and
gcc-c++ in buildroot of all Fedora packages, many of which failed due to
random
reasons and I grepped all logs for some common errors found by analyzing
hundreds of build logs.
[...]
List of packages and respective maintainers:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/gcc-removal-pkgs.txt
I fixed mine:
musuruan abbayedesmorts-gpl ballerburg edgar fbzx flobopuyo hatari
libicns osmctools pinta pipepanic tecnoballz zaz
Bye,
Andrea
12:13 p.m.
I fixed ipvsadm and keepalived. I will also fix foghorn, but I am strongly
considering retiring this package. Did this need fixed in the 'f28' branch
or is master (Rawhide) sufficient? Thanks.
Ryan
On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 11:09 AM, Igor Gnatenko <
ignatenkobrain(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Over this weekend I've performed scratch-mass-rebuild without having gcc
and
gcc-c++ in buildroot of all Fedora packages, many of which failed due to
random
reasons and I grepped all logs for some common errors found by analyzing
hundreds of build logs.
Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B#
BuildRequire
s_and_Requies
The grep output is located here:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/gcc-removal.txt
Some packages might be missed due to short koji outage, broken
dependencies and
so on, but majority of real failures is below.
If you fixed package(s), found false positive, found missing packages in
list
or anything else -- please let me know.
Note to packages which use CMake buildsystem. When you have project(xxx) in
CMakeLists.txt it checks both for C and CXX compilers. So you might
encounter
packages where you have BuildRequires: gcc and it fails on CXX compiler
(even
you think you don't need it). Solution for this is to send patch to
upstream
switching to something like project(xxx C), or if problem is opposite to
project(xxx CXX).
List of packages and respective maintainers:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/gcc-removal-pkgs.txt
- --
- -Igor Gnatenko
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=KRiO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
devel-announce mailing list -- devel-announce(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-announce-leave@lists.
fedoraproject.org
12:37 p.m.
I've fixed disktype, ncdu, and whowatch in rawhide. Thanks for
generating the list!
Regards,
Rich
--
Richard Fearn
richardfearn(a)gmail.com
12:56 p.m.
On Sat, 2018-02-24 at 16:40 +0100, Andrea Musuruane wrote:
Hi
On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 6:09 PM, Igor Gnatenko <ignatenkobrain@fedora
project.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Over this weekend I've performed scratch-mass-rebuild without
> having gcc and
> gcc-c++ in buildroot of all Fedora packages, many of which failed
> due to random
> reasons and I grepped all logs for some common errors found by
> analyzing
> hundreds of build logs.
> [...]
> List of packages and respective maintainers:
> https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/gcc-removal-pkgs.txt
I fixed cups-bjnp while I released a new version earlier this week.
7:48 p.m.
On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 10:09 AM, Igor Gnatenko
<ignatenkobrain(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Over this weekend I've performed scratch-mass-rebuild without having gcc and
gcc-c++ in buildroot of all Fedora packages, many of which failed due to random
reasons and I grepped all logs for some common errors found by analyzing
hundreds of build logs.
Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B#BuildRequire
s_and_Requies
The grep output is located here:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/gcc-removal.txt
Some packages might be missed due to short koji outage, broken dependencies and
so on, but majority of real failures is below.
If you fixed package(s), found false positive, found missing packages in list
or anything else -- please let me know.
Note to packages which use CMake buildsystem. When you have project(xxx) in
CMakeLists.txt it checks both for C and CXX compilers. So you might encounter
packages where you have BuildRequires: gcc and it fails on CXX compiler (even
you think you don't need it). Solution for this is to send patch to upstream
switching to something like project(xxx C), or if problem is opposite to
project(xxx CXX).
List of packages and respective maintainers:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/gcc-removal-pkgs.txt
I just fixed espresso
exodusii gasnet libaec tng votca-csg votca-tools!
gromacs and votca-xtp have the fix, but they fail to build for a
different reason.
- --
- -Igor Gnatenko
--
Christoph Junghans
Web: http://www.compphys.de
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=KRiO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
devel-announce mailing list -- devel-announce(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-announce-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org 
3:47 a.m.
Will you be doing such rebuild every weekend to track the progress? ;)
V.
Dne 18.2.2018 v 18:09 Igor Gnatenko napsal(a):
Over this weekend I've performed scratch-mass-rebuild without
having
gcc and
gcc-c++ in buildroot of all Fedora packages, many of which failed due
to random
reasons and I grepped all logs for some common errors found by analyzing
hundreds of build logs.
Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B#BuildRequire
s_and_Requies
The grep output is located here:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/gcc-removal.txt
Some packages might be missed due to short koji outage, broken
dependencies and
so on, but majority of real failures is below.
If you fixed package(s), found false positive, found missing packages
in list
or anything else -- please let me know.
Note to packages which use CMake buildsystem. When you have
project(xxx) in
CMakeLists.txt it checks both for C and CXX compilers. So you might
encounter
packages where you have BuildRequires: gcc and it fails on CXX
compiler (even
you think you don't need it). Solution for this is to send patch to
upstream
switching to something like project(xxx C), or if problem is opposite to
project(xxx CXX).
List of packages and respective maintainers:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/gcc-removal-pkgs.txt
_______________________________________________ > devel-announce mailing list --
devel-announce(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
devel-announce-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org >
_______________________________________________ > devel mailing list --
devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to
devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
4:09 a.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On Mon, 2018-02-26 at 10:47 +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Will you be doing such rebuild every weekend to track the progress?
;)
My plan is to do this bi-weekly ;) So this weekend then.
- --
- -Igor Gnatenko
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEhLFO09aHZVqO+CM6aVcUvRu8X0wFAlqT3OkACgkQaVcUvRu8
X0xg4w/+LzcLBqe3eEhfWMK6pALA41hAuurh9i9Q3sF8A3KAj5p69aCESdRka10E
E7U+S1h3fjAzsnhb2aOpgm6y5qCzd2CsnV4J+7gTJtX5+jPxc75NMd9jd9XFC8QF
1Knq1ORdKguDJkuny8MfZwg3NKOtMyVIZFbVexRDyGy9lYJp9QvANEYj51vTcTRA
gMps0w4thxTgaVxfB0VYhSyUeXjfIvCCfRCfZ1ihhogLN3bRMwNSMhRG41fRlO+I
BfulxnqTsRFMWzch9CJhpSJl4Tp3tBWjpeCqvmBholANyBlRQdWG3MqmnGjIYZ1N
ww51l/fJXQ6R62OigevTPCTiLRiu6hKJSOmxOrOuVS4yHLBgtFqKlR04zWQY73pu
oNb8W04bOOkVXCfsQke0oHxLXy9XAONuRXLOzhggmKtR364HRSUmeP07KwvQ4qxo
dG1kqXQ+KXHYOjx5AYQ+1QZJ8HHWnvU1XchwfGluXmwPE7VcfwPL3j3zgzjd8ngO
DhUrvJpGmBfKH6z+XsIs88Z9WsHnttyTlDoKHcFk72hAIV/4owCJ04NrdPgBeT2s
2XKCrwD3n+eBDcSjaR8TDFyfqRb74+sRTOcsRZCPaKwoBIqi4GagCe9VQFSPUlW4
ELIMgxLK9DrCxG0GgevEE9E9OpYFKwoS+N8O4lmGRtHUBLzcObA=
=pfKh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
8:32 a.m.
Hi,
Le 18/02/2018 à 18:09, Igor Gnatenko a écrit :
If you fixed package(s), found false positive, found missing packages
in list
or anything else -- please let me know.
I fixed :
nsca
openalchemist
perl-Encode-EUCJPASCII
perl-Linux-Pid
perl-Unicode-LineBreak
toppler
Regards,
Xavier
8:33 a.m.
Hi,
Le 18/02/2018 à 18:09, Igor Gnatenko a écrit :
If you fixed package(s), found false positive, found missing packages
in list
or anything else -- please let me know.
I've fixed :
nsca
openalchemist
perl-Encode-EUCJPASCII
perl-Linux-Pid
perl-Unicode-LineBreak
toppler
Regards,
Xavier
11:12 a.m.
On Mon, 2018-02-26 at 11:09 +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
On Mon, 2018-02-26 at 10:47 +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Will you be doing such rebuild every weekend to track the progress?
> ;)
My plan is to do this bi-weekly ;) So this weekend then.
Hello,
So I made a fix for clamsmtp, and pushed it to master. However its in
your list with the error:
clamsmtp:/mnt/koji/work/tasks/4870/64870/build.log:checking for cc...
no
Here's the latest change (minus release bump and changelog) I had made
to the spec file:
diff --git a/clamsmtp.spec b/clamsmtp.spec
index 4ed326e..776b0d8 100644
-BuildRequires: clamav-devel
-BuildRequires: systemd-units
+BuildRequires: clamav-devel gcc gcc-c++ systemd-units
+
Requires(pre): shadow-utils
Requires(post): systemd-sysv
What did I do wrong/miss?
--
Nathanael
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
3:15 p.m.
Better late then never, vsqlite++ updated and rebuilt
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 6:12 PM, Nathanael D. Noblet <nathanael(a)gnat.ca>
wrote:
On Mon, 2018-02-26 at 11:09 +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-02-26 at 10:47 +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> > Will you be doing such rebuild every weekend to track the progress?
> > ;)
>
> My plan is to do this bi-weekly ;) So this weekend then.
Hello,
So I made a fix for clamsmtp, and pushed it to master. However its in
your list with the error:
clamsmtp:/mnt/koji/work/tasks/4870/64870/build.log:checking for cc...
no
Here's the latest change (minus release bump and changelog) I had made
to the spec file:
diff --git a/clamsmtp.spec b/clamsmtp.spec
index 4ed326e..776b0d8 100644
-BuildRequires: clamav-devel
-BuildRequires: systemd-units
+BuildRequires: clamav-devel gcc gcc-c++ systemd-units
+
Requires(pre): shadow-utils
Requires(post): systemd-sysv
What did I do wrong/miss?
--
Nathanael
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
11:11 p.m.
On 18 February 2018 at 12:09, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
Over this weekend I've performed scratch-mass-rebuild without
having gcc and
gcc-c++ in buildroot of all Fedora packages, many of which failed due to random
reasons and I grepped all logs for some common errors found by analyzing
hundreds of build logs.
Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B#BuildRequire
s_and_Requies
Shouldn't we consider having -devel packages Require gcc or gcc-c++?
What good is a header package without a compiler anyway?
This would also (indirectly) pull in the compiler and fix most of
these failed builds.
Best,
Orcan
2:33 a.m.
New subject: <DKIM> Re: [ACTION NEEDED] Missing BuildRequires: gcc/gcc-c++
Le mercredi 28 février 2018 à 00:11 -0500, Orcan Ogetbil a écrit :
Shouldn't we consider having -devel packages Require gcc or gcc-c++?
What good is a header package without a compiler anyway?
This would also (indirectly) pull in the compiler and fix most of
these failed builds.
gcc is not the only compiler that reads header files
Regards,
--
Nicolas Mailhot
4:28 a.m.
New subject: <DKIM> Re: [ACTION NEEDED] Missing BuildRequires: gcc/gcc-c++
28.02.2018 09:33 Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> wrote:
Le mercredi 28 février 2018 à 00:11 -0500, Orcan Ogetbil a écrit :
>
> Shouldn't we consider having -devel packages Require gcc or gcc-c++?
> What good is a header package without a compiler anyway?
> This would also (indirectly) pull in the compiler and fix most of
> these failed builds.
>
gcc is not the only compiler that reads header files
Also, do the header files actually *require* gcc to be present?
I know it makes sense to have both installed but there are potential
use cases where a user may need only the devel packages but not gcc:
- abrt may need devel packages to generate readable stack traces,
- a user may use a different compiler than gcc (e.g., compat-gcc-34).
Regards,
Rafal
7:53 a.m.
New subject: <DKIM> Re: [ACTION NEEDED] Missing BuildRequires: gcc/gcc-c++
On 28 February 2018 at 05:28, Rafal Luzynski wrote:
28.02.2018 09:33 Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>
> Le mercredi 28 février 2018 à 00:11 -0500, Orcan Ogetbil a écrit :
> >
> > Shouldn't we consider having -devel packages Require gcc or gcc-c++?
> > What good is a header package without a compiler anyway?
> > This would also (indirectly) pull in the compiler and fix most of
> > these failed builds.
> >
>
> gcc is not the only compiler that reads header files
Also, do the header files actually *require* gcc to be present?
I know it makes sense to have both installed but there are potential
use cases where a user may need only the devel packages but not gcc:
- abrt may need devel packages to generate readable stack traces,
- a user may use a different compiler than gcc (e.g., compat-gcc-34).
Hi,
All of these use cases can be handled by some virtual provides. My
suggestion didn't intend to be specific to gcc. I guess I should have
said something like Requires: <some-virtual-provides>.
Best,
Orcan
8:19 a.m.
New subject: <DKIM> Re: <DKIM> Re: [ACTION NEEDED] Missing BuildRequires:
gcc/gcc-c++
My point was *non-C-compilers* can read *C/C++* header files because
they need to read the ABI definitions to use it from their non C/C++
code.
That makes a C/C++ header file consumable by pretty much any kind of
compiler, so it's *completely useless* to try to make C/C++ devel
packages pull in a compiler, via virtual provides or not.
Only the packager knows the compiler he intends to use to consume the
devel packages of other projects.
--
Nicolas Mailhot
8:28 a.m.
New subject: <DKIM> Re: <DKIM> Re: [ACTION NEEDED] Missing BuildRequires: gcc/gcc-c++
On 28 February 2018 at 09:19, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
My point was *non-C-compilers* can read *C/C++* header files because
they
need to read the ABI definitions to use it from their non C/C++ code.
That makes a C/C++ header file consumable by pretty much any kind of
compiler, so it's *completely useless* to try to make C/C++ devel packages
pull in a compiler, via virtual provides or not.
Hello,
These are all _very_ edge use-cases. The primary use is to build the
software. Hence pulling in a compiler will not be quite harmful; it is
certainly not *completely useless*.
On the other hand it will clear up vast majority of the build
failures. I was trying to come up with the least intrusive solution.
Best,
Orcan
8:29 a.m.
New subject: <DKIM> Re: [ACTION NEEDED] Missing BuildRequires: gcc/gcc-c++
On 02/28/2018 11:28 AM, Rafal Luzynski wrote:
28.02.2018 09:33 Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net>
wrote:
>
> Le mercredi 28 février 2018 à 00:11 -0500, Orcan Ogetbil a écrit :
>>
>> Shouldn't we consider having -devel packages Require gcc or gcc-c++?
>> What good is a header package without a compiler anyway?
>> This would also (indirectly) pull in the compiler and fix most of
>> these failed builds.
>>
>
> gcc is not the only compiler that reads header files
Also, do the header files actually *require* gcc to be present?
No. C headers never require *GCC*. Packages wanting to use them need an
arbitrary C compiler.
Ralf
8:38 a.m.
New subject: <DKIM> Re: <DKIM> Re: [ACTION NEEDED] Missing BuildRequires:
gcc/gcc-c++
On 02/28/2018 04:28 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
On 28 February 2018 at 09:19, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> My point was *non-C-compilers* can read *C/C++* header files because they
> need to read the ABI definitions to use it from their non C/C++ code.
>
> That makes a C/C++ header file consumable by pretty much any kind of
> compiler, so it's *completely useless* to try to make C/C++ devel packages
> pull in a compiler, via virtual provides or not.
Hello,
These are all _very_ edge use-cases. The primary use is to build the
software. Hence pulling in a compiler will not be quite harmful; it is
certainly not *completely useless*.
On the other hand it will clear up vast majority of the build
failures. I was trying to come up with the least intrusive solution.
The headers don't *require* any damn thing, except perhaps other headers
(from other -devel packages). They are generally *used by* C/C++
compilers, but there are all sorts of other users (including humans just
looking at it) too as has been pointed out.
Point being, "used by" and "requires" are two very different kind of
dependencies.
- Panu -
9:03 a.m.
On 02/18/2018 07:09 PM, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Over this weekend I've performed scratch-mass-rebuild without having gcc and
gcc-c++ in buildroot of all Fedora packages, many of which failed due to random
reasons and I grepped all logs for some common errors found by analyzing
hundreds of build logs.
Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B#BuildRequire
s_and_Requies
The grep output is located here:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/gcc-removal.txt
jussilehtola IQmol OpenMesh PyQuante QMsgBox QsLog agedu cppcheck
dd_rescue ddrescue epson-inkjet-printer-escpr epstool ergo gle gsl
libint multitail octave packmol pcc potrace
I've taken care of all of these.
--
Susi Lehtola
Fedora Project Contributor
jussilehtola(a)fedoraproject.org
9:03 a.m.
New subject: <DKIM> Re: <DKIM> Re: <DKIM> Re: [ACTION NEEDED] Missing
BuildRequires: gcc/gcc-c++
Le 2018-02-28 15:28, Orcan Ogetbil a écrit :
On 28 February 2018 at 09:19, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
These are all _very_ edge use-cases.
Those are *not* edge-cases.
Most system libraries are written in C/C++ so pretty much all the
language toolchains we ship (except for toy languages not intended to
produce complex apps) will read C/C++ header files from their compilers
to use those system libraries, and will BuildRequires the corresponding
C/C++ package to do so.
--
Nicolas Mailhot
9:06 a.m.
New subject: <DKIM> Re: <DKIM> Re: <DKIM> Re: [ACTION NEEDED] Missing
BuildRequires: gcc/gcc-c++
Le 2018-02-28 16:03, Nicolas Mailhot a écrit :
Most system libraries are written in C/C++ so pretty much all the
language toolchains we ship (except for toy languages not intended to
produce complex apps) will read C/C++ header files from their
compilers to use those system libraries, and will BuildRequires the
corresponding C/C++ package to do so.
the corresponding C/C++ -devel package that is
Even forgetting about clang a C/C++ -devel package is *not* used solely
to build C/C++ code with a C/C++ compiler.
--
Nicolas Mailhot
9:51 a.m.
Dne 18.2.2018 v 18:09 Igor Gnatenko napsal(a):
List of packages and respective maintainers:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/gcc-removal-pkgs.txt
xchat-ruby was retired.
ruby and rubygem-bcrypt are fixed (at least in git).
Vít
10:37 a.m.
Orcan Ogetbil <oget.fedora(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Shouldn't we consider having -devel packages Require gcc or
gcc-c++?
What good is a header package without a compiler anyway?
This would also (indirectly) pull in the compiler and fix most of
these failed builds.
Do you mean that maintainers should add those dependencies manually?
How much less manual work would that be compared to adding build-time
dependencies?
Or do you mean that RPMbuild should automatically add "gcc" as a
dependency to every subpackage whose name ends with "-devel"? That would
be no help at all for Ada, C++, Fortran, Go or Objective C, which need
gcc-gnat, gcc-c++, gcc-gfortran, gcc-go and gcc-objc, respectively. It
would be plainly wrong for Pascal for example, according to the
dependencies of the package fpc which requires binutils but not gcc.
Or do you mean that RPMbuild should automatically detect which
programming languages are present in each -devel subpackage, and add
dependencies accordingly?
Björn Persson
11:30 a.m.
On Wed, 2018-02-28 at 16:51 +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 18.2.2018 v 18:09 Igor Gnatenko napsal(a):
>
> List of packages and respective maintainers:
> https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/gcc-removal-pkgs.txt
>
Igor, you will fix my packages isn't it ?
Thanks,
--
Sérgio M. B.
2:23 p.m.
>>>> "OO" == Orcan Ogetbil
<oget.fedora(a)gmail.com> writes:
OO> Shouldn't we consider having -devel packages Require gcc or gcc-c++?
OO> What good is a header package without a compiler anyway?
You could argue whether they're useful without a compiler, but they are
certainly useful without gcc. Because that's not the only compiler.
- J<
8:11 p.m.
New subject: <DKIM> Re: <DKIM> Re: <DKIM> Re: [ACTION NEEDED] Missing
BuildRequires: gcc/gcc-c++
On 28 February 2018 at 10:03, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le 2018-02-28 15:28, Orcan Ogetbil a écrit :
>
> On 28 February 2018 at 09:19, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> These are all _very_ edge use-cases.
Those are *not* edge-cases.
We have a few thousand build failures. If you cannot find as many (or
at least in the same magnitude) such use case examples these will stay
as edge cases.
Please start counting.
Best,
Orcan
8:32 p.m.
On 28 February 2018 at 11:37, Björn Persson wrote:
Orcan Ogetbil <oget.fedora(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Shouldn't we consider having -devel packages Require gcc or gcc-c++?
> What good is a header package without a compiler anyway?
> This would also (indirectly) pull in the compiler and fix most of
> these failed builds.
Do you mean that maintainers should add those dependencies manually?
How much less manual work would that be compared to adding build-time
dependencies?
Or do you mean that RPMbuild should automatically add "gcc" as a
dependency to every subpackage whose name ends with "-devel"? That would
be no help at all for Ada, C++, Fortran, Go or Objective C, which need
gcc-gnat, gcc-c++, gcc-gfortran, gcc-go and gcc-objc, respectively. It
would be plainly wrong for Pascal for example, according to the
dependencies of the package fpc which requires binutils but not gcc.
Or do you mean that RPMbuild should automatically detect which
programming languages are present in each -devel subpackage, and add
dependencies accordingly?
Björn Persson
Hi Bjorn, thank you for the brainstorm.
Of course the last option would be ideal. However I don't think we
have the tools to collect the necessary information (it would indeed
be useful information), maybe we could concentrate on adding
capability to collect such statistics to the builder.
What I meant was the first option (from experience). How much less
manual work would that be? Well, add the requires to some top level
devel files, e.g. glibc-devel, zlib-devel, libxcb-devel,
alsa-lib-devel etc; and a decent amount of the build failures above
will clear. Then one can deal with the remaining
libraries/applications, again starting from the top level ones. I am
guessing all related build failures will clear after no more than a
few hundred added requires, compared to thousands of BuildRequires.
Regards,
Orcan
2:42 a.m.
New subject: <DKIM> Re: <DKIM> Re: <DKIM> Re: <DKIM> Re: [ACTION NEEDED]
Missing BuildRequires: gcc/gcc-c++
Le mercredi 28 février 2018 à 21:11 -0500, Orcan Ogetbil a écrit :
On 28 February 2018 at 10:03, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le 2018-02-28 15:28, Orcan Ogetbil a écrit :
> >
> > On 28 February 2018 at 09:19, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>
>
> > These are all _very_ edge use-cases.
>
>
> Those are *not* edge-cases.
We have a few thousand build failures. If you cannot find as many (or
at least in the same magnitude) such use case examples these will stay
as edge cases.
Please start counting.
Apart from being a totally unfriendly attitude (I have more packages
that you, so I can piss on your builds) I *do* have more than 570 Go
specs that would be negatively affected by pulling gcc in the buildroot
for no good reason just to avoid fixing the specs that actually need
this.
And I'm just one packager.
--
Nicolas Mailhot
10 a.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Igor Gnatenko"
<ignatenkobrain(a)fedoraproject.org>
To: devel-announce(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2018 6:09:40 PM
Subject: [ACTION NEEDED] Missing BuildRequires: gcc/gcc-c++
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Over this weekend I've performed scratch-mass-rebuild without having gcc and
gcc-c++ in buildroot of all Fedora packages, many of which failed due to
random
reasons and I grepped all logs for some common errors found by analyzing
hundreds of build logs.
Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B#BuildRequire
s_and_Requies
The grep output is located here:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/gcc-removal.txt
Some packages might be missed due to short koji outage, broken dependencies
and
so on, but majority of real failures is below.
If you fixed package(s), found false positive, found missing packages in list
or anything else -- please let me know.
Note to packages which use CMake buildsystem. When you have project(xxx) in
CMakeLists.txt it checks both for C and CXX compilers. So you might encounter
packages where you have BuildRequires: gcc and it fails on CXX compiler (even
you think you don't need it). Solution for this is to send patch to upstream
switching to something like project(xxx C), or if problem is opposite to
project(xxx CXX).
List of packages and respective maintainers:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/gcc-removal-pkgs.txt
- --
- -Igor Gnatenko
Fixed for python-ethtool, python-peewee, python-protocols, qbittorrent
python35 seems to be a false positive as it has gcc-c++ BR's (but it may be redundant
and only require gcc).
--
Regards,
Charalampos Stratakis
Software Engineer
Python Maintenance Team, Red Hat
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=KRiO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
devel-announce mailing list -- devel-announce(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-announce-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
2:01 a.m.
Hi,
I fixed all my packages.
my package list: google-noto-emoji-fonts ibus-libpinyin ibus-libzhuyin
ibus-pinyin ibus-rime libpinyin librime libthai opencc pyzy scim
scim-bridge scim-fcitx scim-pinyin scim-thai sunpinyin zinnia
Thanks,
Peng Wu
On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 1:09 AM, Igor Gnatenko <
ignatenkobrain(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Over this weekend I've performed scratch-mass-rebuild without having gcc
and
gcc-c++ in buildroot of all Fedora packages, many of which failed due to
random
reasons and I grepped all logs for some common errors found by analyzing
hundreds of build logs.
Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B#
BuildRequire
s_and_Requies
The grep output is located here:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/gcc-removal.txt
Some packages might be missed due to short koji outage, broken
dependencies and
so on, but majority of real failures is below.
If you fixed package(s), found false positive, found missing packages in
list
or anything else -- please let me know.
Note to packages which use CMake buildsystem. When you have project(xxx) in
CMakeLists.txt it checks both for C and CXX compilers. So you might
encounter
packages where you have BuildRequires: gcc and it fails on CXX compiler
(even
you think you don't need it). Solution for this is to send patch to
upstream
switching to something like project(xxx C), or if problem is opposite to
project(xxx CXX).
List of packages and respective maintainers:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/gcc-removal-pkgs.txt
- --
- -Igor Gnatenko
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=KRiO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
devel-announce mailing list -- devel-announce(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-announce-leave@lists.
fedoraproject.org
9:08 a.m.
done: procps-ng, psmisc, psacct
On 02/18/2018 06:09 PM, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Over this weekend I've performed scratch-mass-rebuild without having gcc and
> gcc-c++ in buildroot of all Fedora packages, many of which failed due to random
> reasons and I grepped all logs for some common errors found by analyzing
> hundreds of build logs.
>
> Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B#BuildRequire
> s_and_Requies
>
> The grep output is located here:
> https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/gcc-removal.txt
>
> Some packages might be missed due to short koji outage, broken dependencies and
> so on, but majority of real failures is below.
>
> If you fixed package(s), found false positive, found missing packages in list
> or anything else -- please let me know.
>
> Note to packages which use CMake buildsystem. When you have project(xxx) in
> CMakeLists.txt it checks both for C and CXX compilers. So you might encounter
> packages where you have BuildRequires: gcc and it fails on CXX compiler (even
> you think you don't need it). Solution for this is to send patch to upstream
> switching to something like project(xxx C), or if problem is opposite to
> project(xxx CXX).
>
> List of packages and respective maintainers:
> https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/gcc-removal-pkgs.txt
>
> - --
> - -Igor Gnatenko
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEhLFO09aHZVqO+CM6aVcUvRu8X0wFAlqJs1QACgkQaVcUvRu8
> X0xxkRAAj56QZYSxzDXiMyvM9eLdVS0Qrt9jiNa66rasIbDVciTym7WQoV2CXxM+
> ZxaOCYU8eyxOhE1rx36KITJ7SgU6ugLu2dVZlG/QR8vH3RTqJPV/GWhM/WUAgaon
> f/SPwTIMk31qvEuKwlqLgNH1rwpRH2NfWVelZChwi1zXOglMvIHakV7sSedYy2i9
> bmVvf/1ylj/NbaI6FaLUqg81UQhUulD8RYeZi1cyxSpit/4aysP7ixCb4MLizmwH
> uNUO0y//xxL0hMSShmfTlsPXowU+NpkzV+lFQ/k2X4KcCZWMabfCt69TdyTbYlj5
> ai8oFGNI94Tv6rrzR/Rirfl/eODtdaaeNqyg/MBze6hYpS2w2oezOEmdYvlpJ7Xo
> z0fN/vIus1SeeyIKWo4KYHZYRX6g2nTCUeGYJqvCIRVxS9UJsy45C/HlnIWTtedn
> Dyp9O/0aSDhY+ErPQi64+HloZrY7p+KsCzPNc9HdzLbhnfM5IUn2TmO+qHngBSlY
> zGNfpOsBmmllSuBftWDfiayh8C9sBUpGT9693iyQYXPIwjZkQSHAclDZa7naN3Oy
> NKQaqVOsDmgDDP9xVOyr/Aue3jQk/8QHraM5DgO05L6lXHwdm+rjIdbb7CU2rFF7
> Gl14+kSFP7yufRQiS6Gt96eN4ePxSuD7XjiT/9GicztDXypNeX8=
> =KRiO
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
_______________________________________________
> devel-announce mailing list -- devel-announce(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-announce-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>
7:34 p.m.
On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 7:08 AM, Jan Rybar <jrybar(a)redhat.com> wrote:
done: procps-ng, psmisc, psacct
On 02/18/2018 06:09 PM, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Over this weekend I've performed scratch-mass-rebuild without having gcc
> and
> gcc-c++ in buildroot of all Fedora packages, many of which failed due to
> random
> reasons and I grepped all logs for some common errors found by analyzing
> hundreds of build logs.
>
> Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B#Build
> Require
> s_and_Requies
>
> The grep output is located here:
> https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/gcc-removal.txt
>
> Some packages might be missed due to short koji outage, broken
> dependencies and
> so on, but majority of real failures is below.
>
> If you fixed package(s), found false positive, found missing packages in
> list
> or anything else -- please let me know.
>
> Note to packages which use CMake buildsystem. When you have project(xxx)
> in
> CMakeLists.txt it checks both for C and CXX compilers. So you might
> encounter
> packages where you have BuildRequires: gcc and it fails on CXX compiler
> (even
> you think you don't need it). Solution for this is to send patch to
> upstream
> switching to something like project(xxx C), or if problem is opposite to
> project(xxx CXX).
>
> List of packages and respective maintainers:
> https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/gcc-removal-pkgs.txt
>
>
Forgot to email the list, but I took care of bwm-ng (which was FTBFS as
well) and pystatgrab. For the others next to my name I am not a primary or
even secondary maintainer, so I am a little bit hesitant to make the
changes.
I do wonder if libstatgrab needs the fix or the fact that it depends on
autotools has already indirectly taken care of it such that it is not on
your list? Happy to add it if needed/wanted/desired.
FAS: ttorling
- -- - -Igor Gnatenko
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEhLFO09aHZVqO+CM6aVcUvRu8X0wFAlqJs1QACgkQaVcUvRu8
> X0xxkRAAj56QZYSxzDXiMyvM9eLdVS0Qrt9jiNa66rasIbDVciTym7WQoV2CXxM+
> ZxaOCYU8eyxOhE1rx36KITJ7SgU6ugLu2dVZlG/QR8vH3RTqJPV/GWhM/WUAgaon
> f/SPwTIMk31qvEuKwlqLgNH1rwpRH2NfWVelZChwi1zXOglMvIHakV7sSedYy2i9
> bmVvf/1ylj/NbaI6FaLUqg81UQhUulD8RYeZi1cyxSpit/4aysP7ixCb4MLizmwH
> uNUO0y//xxL0hMSShmfTlsPXowU+NpkzV+lFQ/k2X4KcCZWMabfCt69TdyTbYlj5
> ai8oFGNI94Tv6rrzR/Rirfl/eODtdaaeNqyg/MBze6hYpS2w2oezOEmdYvlpJ7Xo
> z0fN/vIus1SeeyIKWo4KYHZYRX6g2nTCUeGYJqvCIRVxS9UJsy45C/HlnIWTtedn
> Dyp9O/0aSDhY+ErPQi64+HloZrY7p+KsCzPNc9HdzLbhnfM5IUn2TmO+qHngBSlY
> zGNfpOsBmmllSuBftWDfiayh8C9sBUpGT9693iyQYXPIwjZkQSHAclDZa7naN3Oy
> NKQaqVOsDmgDDP9xVOyr/Aue3jQk/8QHraM5DgO05L6lXHwdm+rjIdbb7CU2rFF7
> Gl14+kSFP7yufRQiS6Gt96eN4ePxSuD7XjiT/9GicztDXypNeX8=
> =KRiO
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
_______________________________________________
> devel-announce mailing list -- devel-announce(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-announce-leave(a)lists.fed
> oraproject.org
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>
> _______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
12:36 a.m.
On 2018-02-18 09:09 AM, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
Over this weekend I've performed scratch-mass-rebuild without
having
gcc and
gcc-c++ in buildroot of all Fedora packages, many of which failed due
to random
reasons and I grepped all logs for some common errors found by analyzing
hundreds of build logs.
Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:C_and_C%2B%2B#BuildRequire
s_and_Requies
The grep output is located here:
https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/gcc-removal.txt
Some packages might be missed due to short koji outage, broken
dependencies and
so on, but majority of real failures is below.
If you fixed package(s), found false positive, found missing packages
in list
or anything else -- please let me know.
Fixed for ETL, alembic, gimp-dbp, radeontop
False positive for both synfig, synfigtudio which depends of ETL and
python-lcms2
openvdb fails to build with gcc 8.x for some odd reasons despite the
BuildRequires.
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25736367
However, openvdb successfully compiled with gcc 7.x as seen on scratch
build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/watchlogs?taskID=25736527
--
Luya Tshimbalanga
Graphic & Web Designer
E: luya(a)fedoraproject.org
W: http://www.coolest-storm.net
12:10 p.m.
On 2018-02-18 11:09, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
Over this weekend I've performed scratch-mass-rebuild without
having gcc and
gcc-c++ in buildroot of all Fedora packages, many of which failed due to random
reasons and I grepped all logs for some common errors found by analyzing
hundreds of build logs.
Some packages might be missed due to short koji outage, broken dependencies and
so on, but majority of real failures is below.
If you fixed package(s), found false positive, found missing packages in list
or anything else -- please let me know.
Fixed: lame latex2rtf libpsl notification-daemon ttfautohint
xcf-pixbuf-loader
--
Yaakov Selkowitz
Software Engineer - Platform Enablement Group
Red Hat, Inc.
2223
days inactive
2252
days old
109 comments
69 participants
participants (69)
-
Andrea Musuruane -
Artur Iwicki -
Ben Rosser -
Bill Peck -
Björn Persson -
Charalampos Stratakis -
Christoph Junghans -
Chuck Anderson -
David Tardon -
Ed Marshall -
Florian Müllner -
Florian Weimer -
Francisco J. Tsao Santin -
Greg Hellings -
Guido Aulisi -
Göran Uddeborg -
Hedayat Vatankhah -
Igor Gnatenko -
Jakub Jelinek -
Jan Pazdziora -
Jan Rybar -
Jared K. Smith -
Jason L Tibbitts III -
Jens Lody -
Jens-Ulrik Petersen -
Jeremy Sanders -
Jiri Kucera -
Jiri Vanek -
Jos de Kloe -
Karel Zak -
Louis Lagendijk -
Luya Tshimbalanga -
Mattia Verga -
Matěj Cepl -
Miroslav Suchý -
Nathanael D. Noblet -
Nicolas Mailhot -
Nikola Forró -
Nils Philippsen -
Orcan Ogetbil -
Panu Matilainen -
Parag Nemade -
Paul Howarth -
Peng Wu -
Petr Šabata -
Philip Kovacs -
Rafael dos Santos -
Rafal Luzynski -
Ralf Corsepius -
Remi Collet -
Richard Fearn -
Richard Shaw -
Richard W.M. Jones -
Robert-André Mauchin -
Ryan O'Hara -
Stephen John Smoogen -
Susi Lehtola -
Sérgio Basto -
Tim Orling -
Todd Zullinger -
Tom Hughes -
Tomasz Kłoczko -
Vinzenz Feenstra -
Vojtěch Trefný -
Vít Ondruch -
Xavier Bachelot -
Yaakov Selkowitz -
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek -
Zdenek Dohnal