17.03.2015 02:57, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 21:02:25 +0300
> Pavel Alexeev wrote:
>
>> The main question should it be done in such manner? May be it have
>> worth run at least off-tree (without commits and versions bump) mass
>> rebuild? It allow estimate amount of broken packages a
On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 21:02:25 +0300
Pavel Alexeev wrote:
> The main question should it be done in such manner? May be it have
> worth run at least off-tree (without commits and versions bump) mass
> rebuild? It allow estimate amount of broken packages and see
> dependencies. Do we have resources t
15.03.2015 16:57, Michael Schwendt пишет:
> On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 14:49:28 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
>> Right now, many issues/problems are interacting and affecting packages
>> simultanously, which occasionally render fixing these issues quite
>> complicated.
>>
>> So far I've hit:
>> - GCC-5
On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 14:49:28 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Right now, many issues/problems are interacting and affecting packages
> simultanously, which occasionally render fixing these issues quite
> complicated.
>
> So far I've hit:
> - GCC-5.0
> - "Hardening"
> - boost upgrade
> - ImageMagi
On 03/10/2015 01:30 PM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
On Monday, 09 March 2015 at 16:06, Pavel Alexeev wrote:
06.03.2015 19:34, Kevin Fenzi пишет:
On Fri, 6 Mar 2015 11:31:45 -0500
Rich Mattes wrote:
There's no planned f22 rebuild for gcc5, as f22 defaults to
-D_GLIBCXX_USE_CXX11_ABI
On Monday, 09 March 2015 at 16:06, Pavel Alexeev wrote:
> 06.03.2015 19:34, Kevin Fenzi пишет:
> > On Fri, 6 Mar 2015 11:31:45 -0500
> > Rich Mattes wrote:
> >
> >> There's no planned f22 rebuild for gcc5, as f22 defaults to
> >> -D_GLIBCXX_USE_CXX11_ABI=0. These issues are cropping up in f23.
>
06.03.2015 19:34, Kevin Fenzi пишет:
> On Fri, 6 Mar 2015 11:31:45 -0500
> Rich Mattes wrote:
>
>> There's no planned f22 rebuild for gcc5, as f22 defaults to
>> -D_GLIBCXX_USE_CXX11_ABI=0. These issues are cropping up in f23.
>>
>> There should probably be a mass rebuild for f23, and sooner rath
On Fri, 6 Mar 2015 11:31:45 -0500
Rich Mattes wrote:
> There's no planned f22 rebuild for gcc5, as f22 defaults to
> -D_GLIBCXX_USE_CXX11_ABI=0. These issues are cropping up in f23.
>
> There should probably be a mass rebuild for f23, and sooner rather
> than later as rawhide is currently a big
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Pavel Alexeev
wrote:
> According to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/GCC5 there no
> planned mass-rebuild for GCC5.
>
There's no planned f22 rebuild for gcc5, as f22 defaults to
-D_GLIBCXX_USE_CXX11_ABI=0. These issues are cropping up in f23.
There shoul
Hello.
06.03.2015 16:51, Tomáš Smetana wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Mar 2015 14:11:03 +0100
> Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 06 Mar 2015 12:49:12 +0300, Pavel Alexeev wrote:
>>
>>> Hello.
>>>
>>> ImageMagick itself built in rawhide.
just go ahead an rebuild pfstools, please. I'll intervene onl
On Fri, 6 Mar 2015 14:11:03 +0100
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Fri, 06 Mar 2015 12:49:12 +0300, Pavel Alexeev wrote:
>
> > Hello.
> >
> > ImageMagick itself built in rawhide.
>
> > > just go ahead an rebuild pfstools, please. I'll intervene only in
> > > the case something goes wrong.
> > F
On Fri, 06 Mar 2015 12:49:12 +0300, Pavel Alexeev wrote:
> Hello.
>
> ImageMagick itself built in rawhide.
> > just go ahead an rebuild pfstools, please. I'll intervene only in the
> > case
> > something goes wrong.
> First attempt fails [1] with:
>
> pfsinimgmagick.opfsoutimgmagick.o: : In
On Fri, 06 Mar 2015 12:49:12 +0300
Pavel Alexeev wrote:
> Hello.
>
> ImageMagick itself built in rawhide.
> pfsinimgmagick.opfsoutimgmagick.o: : InIn functionfunction
> ``writeFrames(readFramesint(,int ,char* *char)**)': /builddir/'build:/
> BUILD/builddir/build/BUILD//pfstools-1.8.5/src/filefo
Hello.
ImageMagick itself built in rawhide.
05.03.2015 15:52, Tomáš Smetana wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Mar 2015 02:09:00 +0300
> Pavel Alexeev wrote:
>
>> Hello.
>>
>> I have long outstanding update of ImageMagick[1] and plan do it in
>> rawhide in 1-3 days.
> <...>
>
>> Affected packages needs to be r
Hello.
I have long outstanding update of ImageMagick[1] and plan do it in
rawhide in 1-3 days.
So-name happened libMagick++-6.Q16.so.3 -> libMagick++-6.Q16.so.6 (from
ImageMagick-c++ sub-package).
Other names did not changed: libMagickCore-6.Q16.so.2,
libMagickWand-6.Q16.so.2
Affected packages
15 matches
Mail list logo