Orion Poplawski writes:
> On 02/24/2015 05:22 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Orion Poplawski wrote:
>>> Getting:
>>>
>>> /builddir/build/BUILD/mrpt-1.0.2/libs/base/include/mrpt/utils/mrpt_macros.h:296:150:
>>> error: no match for 'operator<<' (operand types are
>>> 'std::basic_ostream' and 'std::ostr
Josh Boyer writes:
> We should not include preprocessed source files by default without the user
> knowing and agreeing. People use gcc to build proprietary source still.
There's a check box to this effect in ABRT. It's not much different
from sending backtraces or some other things that ABRT
Parag Nemade writes:
> I actually got more confused when pmachata built harfbuzz without
> giving specific information in the changelog.
The reason was that I was rebuilding both Boots and ICU deps, and since
I just took a list of conflicts en blocks (as explained in another
e-mail), I needed a
Mikolaj Izdebski writes:
> I don't know why 0.9.38-3 was built, it looks like unnecessary build.
Yes, it is.
About 30 packages diverged after f22-boost side-tag had been created.
It's impractical to check by hand whether any happened to be already
rebuilt in the short window since the merge. S
Hi,
Most of the mass rebuild finished last week already, but due to FOSDEM
and other circumstances (like me leaving the result file on my home NFS
out of reach yesterday) I'm only getting to writing this now. A bunch
of Boost-related bugs have been already resolved, or I contacted the
maintainers
Dodji Seketeli writes:
>> but the link just points to the package. While it's not necessarily
>> difficult to use, I wouldn't quite call it intuitive either.
>
> Indeed. And while we are in the "Shameless Plug" department, I'd like
> to mention the presence of a new tool called 'abidiff'. You c
Petr Machata writes:
> I'll rebase TBB to 4.3u2 next week.
This is now done in Rawhide. The F21 update is here:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tbb-4.3-1.20141204.fc21
Thanks,
Petr
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org
The packages with MPICH enabled are here:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8678117
http://ppc.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2283793
http://s390.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1706653
http://arm.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2852781
Thanks
Your favorite time of the year, and mine as well, is here!
The plan is to do the rebase next week, maybe on the weekend already.
As usual, I'll request a side tag, build boost, and then work through
the dependent packages. I'll wrap the work on Thursday at the latest
regardless on what state it i
Dodji Seketeli writes:
> Petr Machata a écrit:
>
>> The soname didn't change. I reviewed the actual changes using abidiff,
>> and the only thing reported that I think is an actual ABI violation is
>> insertion of one virtual method. I don't think tha
Marcin Juszkiewicz writes:
> W dniu 19.01.2015 o 20:58, Petr Machata pisze:
>> I'll rebase TBB to 4.3u2 next week. A scratch build is here:
>>
>> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8665932
>
> Can you do builds on secondary architectures
Hello,
I'll rebase TBB to 4.3u2 next week. A scratch build is here:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8665932
Client packages are as follows, their owners are CC'd.
adobe-source-libraries-0:1.0.43-23.fc22.src
freecad-0:0.14-5.fc22.src
gazebo-0:4
Colin Walters writes:
> On Tue, Jul 1, 2014, at 12:53 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
>
>> Yes, soname bumps are nonevents with OBS, since everything is
>> automatically rebuilt. Sounds like Koschei is a big step towards that.
>
> I've always found it really strange how so many people talk about
> "
Hi there,
the rebuilds are mostly over, thanks for everyone who chimed in. Some
packages may have been double-rebuilt, as there was no synchronization
between the partakers.
Maybe next year I'll publish the list of packages on a wiki, organized
by dependencies, so that people at least know in wh
Hello,
boost-1.55.0 has been built in a side-tag f21-boost. I'll be rebuilding
Boost clients over the next couple days--first those that depend on
Boost DSO's, then possibly the rest. Anyone wanting to join the party
should feel free. This is the incantation to use to build in the side
tag:
$
Ralf Corsepius writes:
> However, I recall another case, "deps on dirs" often don't work:
> (massively) "parallel make".
>
> Did you try to build the package single-threaded (make -j1)?
No, it used -j2 (as bug 885474 suggests).
PM.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://ad
Ralf Corsepius writes:
> I guess, no. AFAIS, this makefile carries deps on directories.
>
> This is a very old known general limitation of and portability isse
> with make and one of known "donts".
>
> "Deps on dirs" work on local Linux file systems, but doesn't work on
> linux nfs and is known
Ahmad Samir writes:
> $ yum list boost-static*
> [...]
> Available Packages
> boost-static.i686
> 1.53.0-6.fc19fedora
> boost-static.x86_64
> 1.53.0-8.fc19updates
>
>
> it looks like boost-static-1.53.0-8.fc19
Peter Robinson writes:
> Maybe we need to put a "mass rebuild starts" point in the Schedule in
> the future so that people are more aware of this and have the sorts of
> features like a perl rebase done in reasonable time.
That would be useful.
Thanks,
PM
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedo
More failures from another bunch of rebuilds of about 100 packages that
have API-only dependence on Boost. I fixed those overtly Boost-related,
what remains seems to fail due to something else, so it should be OK to
just fix these in Rawhide and ignore Boost.
Note that f20-boost will be merged so
"punto...@libero.it" writes:
> there is also zookeeper... to be rebuild with the new boost?
Yeah, I only got around to rebuilding those that directly depend on
Boost DSO's. I guess I can order builds of the rest of the dependencies
today, though originally my plan was to go through DSO deps onl
"punto...@libero.it" writes:
> Il 29/07/2013 18:01, Petr Machata ha scritto:
>> bookkeeper 5663346 Package: xbean-3.13-2.fc20.noarch (build)
>> Requires: eclipse-equinox-osgi
> sorry, i rebuilt without boost 1.54.x support...
> eclipse-equinox-osgi is a
Ville Skyttä writes:
> These are now fixed in master.
Thanks!
PM
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Petr Machata writes:
> as some of you may have noticed, the biannual Boost rebuild has been
> underway since Saturday! [...] I'll appreciate any help that I can
> get with resolving the current failures.
I forgot to mention that if you wish to build Boost clients, you should
use
Hi there,
as some of you may have noticed, the biannual Boost rebuild has been
underway since Saturday! So far about 100 packages have been rebuilt.
I'll appreciate any help that I can get with resolving the current
failures. Just ping me on IRC (_petr) so that we don't duplicate
effort. Curren
Petr Machata writes:
> Dan Mashal writes:
>
>> > The Feature page still belongs to the FeaturePageIncomplete category.
>>
>> I feel a somewhat similar way about boost and it would be nice if
>> there was some more detailed descriptions here.
>
> So
Dan Mashal writes:
> > The Feature page still belongs to the FeaturePageIncomplete category.
>
> I feel a somewhat similar way about boost and it would be nice if
> there was some more detailed descriptions here.
Frankly, my biannual filing of Feature/Change page is mostly
cargo-culting. It
Richard Shaw writes:
> I initially got abi-compliance-checker into Fedora because one of my
> packages does not maintain any sort of API/ABI compatibility or even
> versioning for that matter. That way I could always check a new
> release to see if any of its dependencies needed to be rebuilt.
I
Petr Pisar writes:
> Is the installed libSDL.so symlink a mistage in the SDL-devel package?
>
> Is renaming libSDL.so to libSDL-1.2.so wise? The libSDL.so is used in
> upstream and other distributions.
I'm speculating here, but renaming the actual DSO like this would make
it possible to install
This was long overdue, last update was almost a year ago. That said,
the update should be safe: upstream-tracker.org lists only one warning
that is potentially ABI-breaking, which is that the constant "eid_max"
changed value. That constant doesn't appear to be used by any of the
clients. Soname
Dan Horák writes:
> Josh Stone píše v Út 05. 03. 2013 v 09:44 -0800:
>> Is that feasible for C++ APIs? I mean, it might be possible if you're
>> *really* careful about hiding class changes, but this project is not
>> structured that way.
>
> it is, see eg. the wxWidgets library, they are really
Kevin Fenzi writes:
> On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 02:57:19 +0100
> Petr Machata wrote:
>
>> Hi there,
>>
>> I have just built boost 1.53. I didn't go through the side tag as
>> originally envisioned, as tomorrow's mass rebuild should take care of
>> i
Hi there,
I have just built boost 1.53. I didn't go through the side tag as
originally envisioned, as tomorrow's mass rebuild should take care of it
all in one fell swoop. I'll still be available for help if your package
mysteriously fails or if there's just too many <'s and >'s in your
package
Kevin Fenzi writes:
> I know the last cycle the boost tag was merged back in and there were a
> lot of packages that still needed rebuilding. For this cycle, do you
> have any provenpackagers in your feature owners that could just make
> sure all the packages are rebuilt? It would be nice to merg
Hi there,
as every release, we (the Boost maintainers) intend to rebase Boost for
Fedora 19. The targeted release is 1.53.0. The plan is outlined on the
feature page [1].
Boost 1.53 is not out yet (it will be on February 4). Beta is out, but
I don't think it's a good idea to rebase to that. W
Hi there,
if you had problems with linking or detection of Boost.Thread due to a
message that looks similar to this:
/usr/bin/ld: /tmp/ccAv0B8G.o: undefined reference to symbol
'_ZN5boost6system15system_categoryEv'
/usr/bin/ld: note: '_ZN5boost6system15system_categoryEv' is defined in DSO
/
Petr Machata writes:
> look at re-enabling Python 3 this week, but I'm thinking that I'll
> actually build it only after the merge.
Python 3 support is in git. I'll spin a build after the merge is done.
Thanks,
PM
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fe
David Malcolm writes:
> On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 01:22 +0200, Petr Machata wrote:
>> Jon Ciesla writes:
>> > On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 11:33 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
>> >> (c) move the boost-1.50 from f18-boost into f18 proper
>> >
>> > My unders
Jon Ciesla writes:
> On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 11:33 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
>> Feature freeze for Fedora 18 is tomorrow (2012-08-07), and git is about
>> to be branched after that for Fedora 19, as per:
>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/18/Schedule
Ah, I didn't realize we need to go wi
David Malcolm writes:
> On Sat, 2012-08-04 at 21:30 +0530, Parag N(पराग़) wrote:
>
>> Thanks. But I am getting this error for xs package scratch build.
>>
>> DEBUG util.py:257: --> gc-devel-7.2c-3.fc18.x86_64
>> DEBUG util.py:257: --> readline-devel-6.2-5.fc18.x86_64
>> DEBUG util.py:257: Er
Jon Ciesla writes:
> I rebuilt my boost users into f18-boost, and now I'm getting rawhide
> broken dep warnings for one that needs a rebuild for libGLEW. The
> boost rebuild in f18-boost has the new libGLEW. I'm assuming I can
> just let it sit until f18-boost is tagged into f18, right?
Yes, I
one of your packages doesn't like the new boost. We'll figure out
how to work around the notorious API changes. (Or fix boost.)
Thank you,
Petr Machata
Related:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/F18Boost150
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825826
https://fedorahosted.org
Michael Schwendt writes:
> 21 link with flex libs<-- flex doesn't change often, though
I believe that libfl.a hasn't really changed in Fedora at all. It
exports two symbols, totaling something like 10 lines of actual code.
Absence of client rebuilds is just not a problem in this cas
Hi there,
we (the Boost maintainers) intend to bump boost to a more recent version
in course of Fedora 18 development. Though no schedule is available for
Boost or Fedora as of yet, it seems like we are aiming for 1.50 and
there should be a couple months of overlap. We intend to make this a
feat
Ralf Ertzinger writes:
> Hi.
>
> On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 22:26:20 +0100, Petr Machata wrote
>
>> Please don't do this.
>>
>> The main reason being that header code from bundled boost is in
>> general not binary compatible with the native code from system
Alec Leamas writes:
> I've tried to package Adobe Source Libraries, (BZ:790628). Once again,
> I'm running into bundling issues.. The situation is basically that ASL
> build system expects a boost source tree to be available. This is not
> just to include and link, it's for the complete build pro
Richard Shaw writes:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Rex Dieter wrote:
>> Richard Shaw wrote:
>>
>>> I've gone through the CMakeLists.txt and added "add_dependencies(..."
>>> but I think that's redundant because target_link_libraries is getting
>>> set properly.
>>
>> I'm not sure this is red
Julian Sikorski writes:
> I was trying to build mame (an rpmfusion package) with gcc-4.7. I have
> managed to get it to build, but it fails at the linking stage:
>
> obj/sdl/libocore.a(sdlsocket.o): In function `operator new(unsigned long)':
> /builddir/build/BUILD/mame-0.144u5/src/emu/emualloc.h
Orion Poplawski writes:
> On 12/05/2011 05:29 PM, Petr Machata wrote:
>> Orion Poplawski writes:
>>
>>> I'm seeing the following boost related build error building paraview
>>> in rawhide. Do any boost gurus know what the issue might be the
>>> i
Orion Poplawski writes:
> I'm seeing the following boost related build error building paraview
> in rawhide. Do any boost gurus know what the issue might be the
> issue?
Hi there, please do not hesitate to file bugs for such regressions. I
only noticed this message today.
The problem here is
Adam Williamson writes:
> On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 14:49 +0100, Petr Machata wrote:
>> Bruno Wolff III writes:
>>
>> > It looks like there was a soname bump in boost yesterday. Boost affects
>> > enough stuff, that there really should have been a heads up messa
Bruno Wolff III writes:
> It looks like there was a soname bump in boost yesterday. Boost affects
> enough stuff, that there really should have been a heads up message posted to
> the devel list about this.
Yes, Denis Arnaud has kindly prepared a new release, but forgot to give
a yell. That sai
Hi there,
SSIA. The update is ABI-breaking (at least concurrent_priority_queue
changed member layout, I didn't look further), but upstream didn't bump
soname. Rebuild is recommended. I'm CC-ing maintainers of the three
client packages that I know about.
Thanks,
PM
--
devel mailing list
devel@
Petr Machata writes:
> Kevin Kofler writes:
>
>>> It's not the Firefox maintainers, it is Mozilla who have decided that
>>> release numbers are irrelevant and that the bug fix release for
>>> Firefox 5 is Firefox 6.
>>
>> If Firefox were followi
Kevin Kofler writes:
>> It's not the Firefox maintainers, it is Mozilla who have decided that
>> release numbers are irrelevant and that the bug fix release for
>> Firefox 5 is Firefox 6.
>
> If Firefox were following the update policy, they'd backport the security
> fixes, not push the new vers
Hi there,
I rebased TBB to 3.0. This should even be ABI-stable release--upstream
didn't bump the SONAME, and I verified that no ABI-looking symbols
disappeared.
Thanks,
PM
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Petr Machata writes:
> "Jon Ciesla" writes:
>
>> Wesnoth seems not to like the new Boost all that well:
>>
>> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=3218720&name=build.log
>>
>> Is this a common sort of error? My Boost-fu is weak,
Petr Machata writes:
> "Jon Ciesla" writes:
>
>> Wesnoth seems not to like the new Boost all that well:
>>
>> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=3218720&name=build.log
>>
>> Is this a common sort of error? My Boost-fu is weak,
"Jon Ciesla" writes:
> Wesnoth seems not to like the new Boost all that well:
>
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=3218720&name=build.log
>
> Is this a common sort of error? My Boost-fu is weak, so there might be
> something obvious I'm missing.
Yeah, all boost errors tend to s
Petr Machata writes:
> in accordance with the announced Fedora feature[1][2], we (the Boost
> maintainers) plan to rebase Boost to 1.47.0 really soon now. [...]
>
> I'll do that in the next few days and if all comes out green-ish, I'll
> push the package into Fedora 16
Peter Robinson writes:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Petr Machata <[1]pmach...@redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
> in accordance with the announced Fedora feature[1][2], we (the Boost
> maintainers) plan to rebase Boost to 1.47.0 really soon now. Boost
> 1.47.0 has be
Kalev Lember writes:
> On 07/18/2011 11:35 PM, Petr Machata wrote:
>> in accordance with the announced Fedora feature[1][2], we (the Boost
>> maintainers) plan to rebase Boost to 1.47.0 really soon now. Boost
>> 1.47.0 has been released recently and Denis Arnaud kindly did
ncerns that you
have.
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/F16Boost147
[2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711845
Thanks,
Petr Machata
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Bruno Wolff III writes:
> On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 16:18:34 +0200,
> Petr Machata wrote:
>> Bruno Wolff III writes:
>>
>> > I don't remember seeing a soname bump announcement for boost and since
>> > for branched it went from 1.46.0 to 1.46.1 and
Bruno Wolff III writes:
> I don't remember seeing a soname bump announcement for boost and since
> for branched it went from 1.46.0 to 1.46.1 and then back to 1.46.0, I don't
> want to start rebuilding stuff if this is going to happen in rawhide too.
It's not our plan te revert this in rawhide,
Kevin Fenzi writes:
> I have someone very interested in taking over
> mediawiki-openid and php-pear-Auth-OpenID, so I will probably approve
> them for those packages soon since they are both very broken and need
> love, but I wonder how many of the others are in the same state. :(
>
> Hope he's
Richard Shaw writes:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 8:19 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
>> This would be more appropriate on fedora-devel (any follow-up questions
>> should go there).
>>
>> Basically, you rebuild a package when there is a good reason to rebuild
>> it. You've made packaging changes or you pu
Hi,
I guess I never made that point, or indeed realized at the beginning
that it is so, but fixing builds by compiling with -DBOOST_FILESYSTEM_VERSION=2
should be considered a work-around. boost::filesystem v2 will go away
eventually. Current documentation[1] states that it will be as soon
as in
07.02.2011 20:03, Zach Carter wrote:
> I believe my package schroot may have been hit by a 1.46 issue that is fixed
> in
> 1.47
>
> Is there a plan to update to 1.47 or backport the fixes?
Not in a systematic manner, but generally yes, we do fixes of this sort.
>
> From the 1.47 changelog:
>
>
06.02.2011 15:44, Thomas Spura wrote:
> I just rebuild my package and tried a random other one: xsd and it
> failed:
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2764873
From the looks of it, this is the case of boost::filesystem v2 vs. v3.
This will get rid of it:
diff --git a/xsd.sp
04.02.2011 14:33, Petr Machata wrote:
> I'm in the process of test-driving a couple packages locally to make
> sure that the new boost works. If that turns out well, I'll do a
> non-scratch build of boost-1.46.0-0.beta1 later today.
The packages that I tried built OK, so I&
05.02.2011 00:38, Petr Machata wrote:
> What you are hitting here seems more related to gcc or binutils change.
> For some reason g++ -R isn't valid anymore. Passing this as g++ -Wl,-R
> fixes the problem (or at least works around it). FWIW I don't see -R in
> gcc manual
04.02.2011 21:10, Bastien Nocera wrote:
Could we please either have boost.m4 packaged in Fedora, or at least
changes for running with the latest boost in Fedora integrated upstream?
What you are hitting here seems more related to gcc or binutils change.
For some reason g++ -R isn't valid anym
04.02.2011 14:59, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Petr Machata wrote:
>
>> beta of boost-1.46.0 was released recently and packaged yesterday. It's
>> now in the git, and a scratch build[2] was done. This is in preparation
>> for final release that should be out on 7th, just
Hi,
beta of boost-1.46.0 was released recently and packaged yesterday. It's
now in the git, and a scratch build[2] was done. This is in preparation
for final release that should be out on 7th, just before the feature
freeze. Providing boost-1.46.0 is one of features of F15[1].
I'm in the pr
75 matches
Mail list logo
