On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 10:07:25PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Kevin Fenzi: > > > On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 09:54:39AM +0900, Mamoru TASAKA wrote: > >> Hello: > >> > >> Looks like glibc-2.34.9000-33.fc36 was tagged into f36 buildroot on > >> 2021-12-18, > >> but very recently untagged from f36 buildroot. > >> Many binary rpms rebuilt recently have "Requires: glibc >= > >> 2.34.9000-33.fc36" > >> ( for example firefox has: > >> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=28655956 ) > >> and not looks like lots of packages cause dependency breakage, e.g. > >> > >> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=80543777 > >> > >> Is this intentional? > > > > Yes, I untagged it. I am trying to get a rawhide comppose to work. ;( > > > > I guess I can tag it back... that requires is... unfortunate. > > I've added it based on feedback that partial rawhide upgrades are > supposed to work. It's a conservative approximation because we do not > have per-symbol RPM version information.
Can you expand on how that works? Every new glibc makes everything built against it require that version or newer? > I can remove it again, but it has cut down the amount of “why can't I > build my package locally” reports significantly (but then there are also > fewer glibc symbol changes this cycle). Hum, yeah... Ideally if we see a problem we would untag pretty quickly. This time it was different because it wasn't very clear at all that it was caused by glibc until a bunch of digging. ;) kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
