Re: FTBFS after mass rebuild (not during!)

2025-02-06 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 at 21:22, Michael J Gruber wrote: > > So, over at upstream they raised the suspicion that some parts of what > I'm linking are compiled with different flags. To recap: I get > ``` > /usr/include/c++/15/bits/stl_vector.h:1262: std::vector<_Tp, > _Alloc>::reference std::vector<_Tp

Re: FTBFS after mass rebuild (not during!)

2025-02-04 Thread Michael J Gruber
Am Mo., 3. Feb. 2025 um 22:40 Uhr schrieb Jerry James : > > On Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 2:22 PM Michael J Gruber > wrote: > > So, over at upstream they raised the suspicion that some parts of what > > I'm linking are compiled with different flags. To recap: I get > > ``` > > /usr/include/c++/15/bits/s

Re: FTBFS after mass rebuild (not during!)

2025-02-03 Thread Jerry James
On Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 2:22 PM Michael J Gruber wrote: > So, over at upstream they raised the suspicion that some parts of what > I'm linking are compiled with different flags. To recap: I get > ``` > /usr/include/c++/15/bits/stl_vector.h:1262: std::vector<_Tp, > _Alloc>::reference std::vector<_Tp

Re: FTBFS after mass rebuild (not during!)

2025-02-03 Thread Michael J Gruber
So, over at upstream they raised the suspicion that some parts of what I'm linking are compiled with different flags. To recap: I get ``` /usr/include/c++/15/bits/stl_vector.h:1262: std::vector<_Tp, _Alloc>::reference std::vector<_Tp, _Alloc>::operator[](size_type) [with _Tp = const char*; _Alloc =

Re: FTBFS after mass rebuild (not during!)

2025-01-25 Thread Michael J Gruber
Trying to get to the bottom of things. I can reproduce it now in mock locally, it occurs in `page.first_widget` in the first subtest in test_widgets.py (or any other subtest), and this throws ``` /usr/include/c++/15/bits/stl_vector.h:1262: std::vector<_Tp, _Alloc>::reference std::vector<_Tp, _All

Re: FTBFS after mass rebuild (not during!)

2025-01-25 Thread Iñaki Ucar
Do you have more details about why the test crashes? I have a similar case [1] (i.e. mass rebuild fine, then FTBFS), and the only relevant dependency change was glibc. It's also in the report Koschei gives for your package, so I'm inclined to think it's a similar thing. [1] https://bugzilla.redhat

FTBFS after mass rebuild (not during!)

2025-01-25 Thread Michael J Gruber
Hi there, I have a FTBFS that I can't wrap my head around. Maybe some of you have experienced similar weirdness after the mass rebuild. python-PyMuPDF-1.25.1-2.fc42 FTBFS in rawhide according to koschei [1] and koji scratch [2]. Indeed, the build itself succeeds but a test fails because a thread