11:55 p.m.
Currently we have an old version of cmark in Fedora: version 0.29.
I had several requests to update it to the latest release 0.30.2 from 2021.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1974335
I created a copr repo for testing:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/petersen/cmark/
From my repoquerying I think the following fedora packages depend on cmark:
evolution-3.47.1-1.fc38.src.rpm
gnome-builder-43.4-3.fc38.src.rpm
mkvtoolnix-73.0.0-1.fc38.src.rpm
neochat-22.11-2.fc38.src.rpm
nheko-0.11.0-1.fc38.src.rpm
perl-Clownfish-CFC-0.6.3-17.fc37.src.rpm
perl-CommonMark-0.290000-13.fc37.src.rpm
So I plan to go ahead with this rebase and rebuilding these packages after
the mass rebuild if that's okay. We can consider whether to backport to F37
and possibly F36 if needed afterwards.
Jens
1:32 a.m.
On Tue, 2023-01-17 at 13:55 +0800, Jens-Ulrik Petersen wrote:
So I plan to go ahead with this rebase and rebuilding these packages
after the mass rebuild if that's okay.
Hi,
does the new version change any API and/or soname version?
We can consider whether to backport to F37 and possibly F36 if
needed
afterwards.
I do not think you should change API/soname version in stable releases,
that can lead to trouble (for example for 3rd-party packages).
Bye,
Milan
2:57 a.m.
On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 3:38 PM Milan Crha <mcrha(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Tue, 2023-01-17 at 13:55 +0800, Jens-Ulrik Petersen wrote:
> So I plan to go ahead with this rebase and rebuilding these packages
> after the mass rebuild if that's okay.
Hi,
does the new version change any API and/or soname version?
I don't think so and the test results look quite good actually (only
neochat fails due to cmark-0.30.2):
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/petersen/cmark/monitor/
(I think upstream is a bit conservative with still linking the SONAME to
the version.)
so I think we can go ahead and push this to rawhide.
> We can consider whether to backport to F37 and possibly F36 if
needed
> afterwards.
I do not think you should change API/soname version in stable releases,
that can lead to trouble (for example for 3rd-party packages).
You are right - let's not plan to do that yet, though I know one new
dependent package newly needs 0.30.
Jens
2:13 a.m.
On 17. 01. 23 6:55, Jens-Ulrik Petersen wrote:
Currently we have an old version of cmark in Fedora: version 0.29.
I had several requests to update it to the latest release 0.30.2 from 2021.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1974335
<https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1974335>
I created a copr repo for testing:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/petersen/cmark/
<https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/petersen/cmark/>
From my repoquerying I think the following fedora packages depend on cmark:
evolution-3.47.1-1.fc38.src.rpm
gnome-builder-43.4-3.fc38.src.rpm
mkvtoolnix-73.0.0-1.fc38.src.rpm
neochat-22.11-2.fc38.src.rpm
nheko-0.11.0-1.fc38.src.rpm
perl-Clownfish-CFC-0.6.3-17.fc37.src.rpm
perl-CommonMark-0.290000-13.fc37.src.rpm
So I plan to go ahead with this rebase and rebuilding these packages after the
mass rebuild if that's okay. We can consider whether to backport to F37 and
possibly F36 if needed afterwards.
Hello Jens. It looks this update has landed in rawhide, but packages still
depend on the old version:
$ repoquery -q --repo=rawhide --whatrequires 'libcmark.so.0.29.0()(64bit)'
evolution-0:3.47.1-3.fc38.x86_64
gnome-builder-0:43.4-7.fc38.x86_64
mkvtoolnix-gui-0:73.0.0-1.fc38.x86_64
neochat-0:22.11-4.fc38.x86_64
nheko-0:0.11.1-3.fc38.x86_64
perl-Clownfish-CFC-0:0.6.3-19.fc38.x86_64
perl-CommonMark-0:0.290000-15.fc38.x86_64
$ repoquery -q --repo=rawhide --provides cmark-lib
...
libcmark.so.0.30.3
libcmark.so.0.30.3()(64bit)
Looking at https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-e5f26e9386
it seems the packages were actually in the update, so problem might be elsewhere?
There seem to have been side tag rebuilds, but in the root log, they have:
cmark-devel x86_64 0.29.0-8.fc38 build 23 k
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
11:16 p.m.
Thanks for this feedback.
Not sure what happened :-( but I am rebuilding them now (mkvtoolnix was expected).
Cheers, Jens
6:09 a.m.
On Monday, 30 January 2023 at 06:16, Jens Petersen wrote:
Thanks for this feedback.
Not sure what happened :-( but I am rebuilding them now (mkvtoolnix was expected).
Feel free to fix mkvtoolnix using the upstream patch I mentioned.
Regards,
Dominik
--
Fedora https://getfedora.org | RPM Fusion http://rpmfusion.org
There should be a science of discontent. People need hard times and
oppression to develop psychic muscles.
-- from "Collected Sayings of Muad'Dib" by the Princess Irulan
477
days inactive
490
days old
5 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski -
Jens Petersen -
Jens-Ulrik Petersen
-
Milan Crha -
Miro Hrončok