Michael J Gruber venit, vidit, dixit 2025-08-06 13:42:29: > Am Mi., 6. Aug. 2025 um 12:32 Uhr schrieb Jitka Plesnikova > <[email protected]>: > > > > > > > > On 8/5/25 21:00, Michael J Gruber wrote: > > > Hi there, > > > > > > this is half a question and half a remark. python-PyMuPDF started to > > > FTBFS recently with a weird error message: > > > > > > https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/build/21026539 > > > > > > python-PyMuPDF uses swig generated python bindings from the package > > > mupdf. After staring at the error and koschei's list of changes for a > > > while, knowing that my regular rebuilds in copr showed no such issue, > > > I did the following in mock locally: > > > > > > rebuild and install mupdf (unchanged) > > > rebuild python-PyMuPDF > > > > > > This worked. My current assumption is that that the patch in > > > swig-4.3.1-4.fc43 introduced a change which made a rebuild necessary - > > > i.e. the mupdf bindings built with swig-4.3.1-3 do not work when I use > > > them to build python-PyMuPDF with swig-4.3.1-4. The rebuilt bindings > > > do work. > > > > > > Since my mock changeroot does not want to downgrade swig I cannot test > > > for sure, just wanted to throw it out there in case someone > > > experiences strange effects with call signatures of overloaded > > > functions using swig. > > > > > > Michael > > Hi, > > > > I applied patch for removing DeprecationWarning > > -https://github.com/swig/swig/issues/2881 > > > > The issue is mention in commit: > > https://github.com/pymupdf/PyMuPDF/commit/9115023eb7844fe3e1ca7ca2842f6f88c427c60b > > > > The fix will be part of future SWIG 4.4.0. > > Sure. That's what I mentioned as "introduced a change". > > What I didn't expect was that this necessitates rebuilds of packages > which use swig - it made unchanged packages FTBFS (which built fine > during mass rebuild). And as this cause and solution was difficult to > spot for me I wanted to warn others. > > Those warnings have been around for a while already (as mentioned in > PyMuPDF), and the swig fix removes them. Neither is a problem, but > apparently the backported swig patch changes something else, too, or > necessitates a rebuild for other reasons. After all, I had to change > *neither* package, but I had to rebuild the first one (against new > swig) in order to build the second one (against new swig), and - other > than glibc - the only relevant change in chroot seems to be that swig > change. > > To put it more bluntly: if a swig change requires rebuilds of packages > BR'ing swig I'd expect a notice. Same if it wasn't swig but something > else. > > Michael
Indeed, swig 4.4.0 requires yet another rebuild. python-PyMuPDF FTBFS: https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/package/python-PyMuPDF If I rebuild mupdf against swig 4.4.0 and then python-PyMuPDF things work. So, again: Are packages using swig supposed to be rebuilt for a swig change? If yes then at least an announcement on devel would be nice (if not taking care of rebuilds). But maybe these packages are doing something special if noone else complains. Michael -- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] 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/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
