On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 11:04:44AM +0000, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On Thu, 15 Jan 2026 at 09:44, Daniel P. Berrangé <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jan 11, 2026 at 04:01:20PM +0000, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 at 20:53, sagitter--- via devel > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Some of my packages need Boost; so, please, let me know when you start > > > > the rebuilds > > > > > > You can check the status of your packages in the test rebuild at: > > > https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/ppalka/boost-1.90-2-all-arches/builds/ > > > > > > If the package isn't there, it doesn't depend on any boost shared > > > libs, so we won't be rebuilding it. > > > > Hmm, your original mail was Jan 9th, and I fixed the linux-sgx package > > compat with GCC 16 on Jan 7th. This copr is showing 8 attempts to rebuild > > it using the outdated dist-git content that fails with GCC 16, and now the > > merged side tag has created broken deps. > > Those are two separate things. The test builds in copr were done using > the mass-prebuild tool. I'm not sure exactly how that works, but if > the builds were done using content from before your fixes on Jan 7th, > then the test builds won't have built the fixed package. > > But that's nothing to do with the merged side tag, which did not use > any of the content from the copr test builds. The copr test builds are > still in copr and only in copr and not leaving copr. The fact that > those used old package versions doesn't affect what's in rawhide, at > all.
Oh I mis-understood then, as I thought that copr was supposed to give us a heads up of problems so we could fix them before the side tag got merged. > > Why weren't these builds done with latest rawhide ? > > The test builds were done with the latest rawhide *when the test > builds started*. > > The side tag builds that have been merged back to rawhide were done > with the latest rawhide too, but a much later rawhide than the test > builds in copr, because the side tag builds were done much later. > > I think linux-sgx just needs to be rebuilt again with the new boost. > That didn't happen in the side tag because linux-sgx FTBFS with the > new boost: > > asio::io_service qgs_server.h:46:33: error: expected ‘)’ before ‘&’ token > > This is not a problem with GCC 16, so I doubt you already fixed it on Jan 7th. Indeed not, since I wasn't aware of it. I'm wondering what the point of using the side tag was if the dependent package maintainers aren't told of any problems before the side tag is merged into rawhide ? With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| -- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
