V Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 12:30:48PM +0200, Marek Blaha napsal(a): > Hi, > > I'm working with Jonathan on releasing version 2 of the sdbus-cpp > library to Fedora. To do this properly, I planned to create a side > tag, build the updated library and dependent packages which I maintain > there, then notify fedora-devel about the SONAME bump and ask > maintainers of dependent packages to update their code accordingly. > Here is the PR with sdbus-cpp update - > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/sdbus-cpp/pull-request/3 . > > That was the plan - but I’ve run into an issue because dnf5 depends on > sdbus-cpp, and I haven't been able to successfully build dnf5 in the > side tag: > > - My first attempt included only sdbus-cpp-2.1.0-1.fc43 in the side > tag. This failed early with: > "FAILED: BuildrootError: could not init mock buildroot, mock exited > with status 30" (see > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=131320002). The > problem seems to be that mock tries to install dnf5 into the > buildroot, but dnf5 requires libsdbus-c++.so.1()(64bit), which isn’t > available anymore due to the SONAME bump. > > - Then (perhaps naively), I tried tagging the older sdbus-cpp-1 into > the side tag to get the buildroot working. This allowed > initialization, but it meant the outdated version of sdbus-cpp was > used when building dnf5, rather than the intended sdbus-cpp-2.1.0. See > the cancelled build > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=131320572 . > > So my question is: > Is there a recommended way to initialize a side-tag buildroot without > pulling in dnf5? Or is there a better approach to rebuilding dnf5 and > its updated dependencies within a side tag? > It looks you are rebasing sdbus-cpp.
Then either bundle the old library into the rebased package at build time.
I.e. in sdbus-cpp.spec do:
BuildRequires: sdbus-cpp
install %{_libdir}/libsdbus-c++.so.1.so %{buildroot}%{_libdir}
Or create a new compatibility sdbus-cpp1 package by copying it from the old
sdbus-cpp.spec and then rebase sdbus-cpp. Compatibility packages are exempt
from package reviews.
That latter approach is better if you expect that porting dependent packages
will take nontrivial time.
-- Petr
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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
