On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 07:12:18AM +0000, Sam P. wrote: > Hi James, > > On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 4:34 pm James Cameron <[1]qu...@laptop.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 01:21:19AM -0500, Jerry Vonau wrote: > > > > > > > On September 3, 2015 at 12:38 AM James Cameron <[2]qu...@laptop.org> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 12:11:38AM -0500, Jerry Vonau wrote: > > > > F22 upgrades clean to 106, feels pretty zippy in a VM. Back to > > > > figuring out what is now different in the dependencies given the > > > > logs[1] for the builds look more or less the same F21 <-> F23. There > > > > has to be a rpm package with a library that was split somewhere, > > > > sugar's toolkit wants to use something but is left unsatisfied. > > > > > > It might be interesting to see if the F23 build of 0.104.1 also has > > > the problem on F23. As further proof that it isn't anything Sugar > did. > > > > > I can get to a cmdline via the bootprompt using the F23 iso, so I'll do > the > > 104 on F23 test, just not tonight. > > > > It's not what sugar did, but didn't do yet, adapt to the new build > > environment for F23. Is the current recommended sugar development > > still sugar-build at EOL'd F20? > > Good question. Don't know. Hopefully someone from Sugar Labs can > tell us. > > I'm pretty sure it is. But most of the maintainers disable broot and just run > in natively in Fedora. > > Although sugar-build hides all these kinds of problems by building on > the target system instead of packaging. > > sugar-build is not used when deploying, so it seems unwise to use it > for development. ;-) > > Works fine if you disable broot. Maybe we should change defaults (no broot > for > Fedora ever). > > Otherwise there is really nothing wrong with a bunch of build scripts and > package install scripts IMHO :)
Oh good, so you're saying there is a way we can build Sugar into a deployment image without having to use RPMs for it? Or do you mean that sugar-build can generate the RPMs? How do we avoid placing unnecessary build dependencies into the deployment image? > > Thanks, > Sam > > > > Comparing the logs of 0.104.1 build for x86_64 between F22 and F23, > > > the only interesting change that springs up is; > > > > > > -LDFLAGS='-Wl,-z,relro ' > > > +LDFLAGS='-Wl,-z,relro -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-ld' > > > > > > Doesn't seem related to the reported problem, however. > > > > I tend to agree, but I'm not sure of the full effect of the flag. I > > think there is a package that was split and a dependence needed by > > sugar/toolkit moved to a new sub-package and is not in what is > > declared as (Build)Requires anymore. If this is true then the new > > sub-package should now be used in the spec file somewhere, just > > finding the package. > > Hmm, doesn't seem related to the sugarext library missing from the > expected directory. Maybe I've misunderstood the problem. > > -- > James Cameron > [3]http://quozl.linux.org.au/ > _______________________________________________ > Sugar-devel mailing list > [4]Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org > [5]http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel > > References: > > [1] mailto:qu...@laptop.org > [2] mailto:qu...@laptop.org > [3] http://quozl.linux.org.au/ > [4] mailto:Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org > [5] http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel -- James Cameron http://quozl.linux.org.au/ _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel