Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

HEADS_UP: The Change of autoconf to version 2.71 is built and done. F36FTBFS bugs are created [1] for failed builds of packages. Most of them are caused by minor issues and not merged pull-requests of fixes regarding autoconf-2.71 change. Hopefully have this done in a short time. Thanks for coope

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 5:29 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 30. 08. 21 17:02, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 11:49 AM Ondrej Dubaj wrote: > >> > >> HEADS-UP: > >> > >> autoconf-2.71 is merged and built in Fedora rawhide together with the rest > >> of autotools: automake-1.16-4

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On 30. 08. 21 17:02, Fabio Valentini wrote: On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 11:49 AM Ondrej Dubaj wrote: HEADS-UP: autoconf-2.71 is merged and built in Fedora rawhide together with the rest of autotools: automake-1.16-4.1 and libtool-2.4.6-43. In the next few days, scratch-build for each dependent

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 11:49 AM Ondrej Dubaj wrote: > > HEADS-UP: > > autoconf-2.71 is merged and built in Fedora rawhide together with the rest of > autotools: automake-1.16-4.1 and libtool-2.4.6-43. > > In the next few days, scratch-build for each dependent package will be > executed and fail

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

HEADS-UP: autoconf-2.71 is merged and built in Fedora rawhide together with the rest of autotools: automake-1.16-4.1 and libtool-2.4.6-43. In the next few days, scratch-build for each dependent package will be executed and failed packages F36FTBFS trackers will be created. Thank you all for your

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Mon, 2021-08-30 at 07:55 +0200, Ondrej Dubaj wrote: > Hi, > > Thank you for the update Ian. It was not meant the way every packager > is ignoring the opened issues, we appreciate your work on this > autoconf-2.71 issue. Sorry for generalizing this. And my comment was not meant to sound negativ

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Hi, Thank you for the update Ian. It was not meant the way every packager is ignoring the opened issues, we appreciate your work on this autoconf-2.71 issue. Sorry for generalizing this. Glad to hear that it will build OK today. HEADS-UP: Starting with merging autoconf-2.71 changes. This week a

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, 2021-08-24 at 10:53 +0200, Ondrej Dubaj wrote: > Hello, > > In the near future, there is a plan to merge autoconf-2.71 to > rawhide. Due to the size of the change and possible breakage of > multiple packages going FTBFS. The number of these packages should > not be many, currently we have

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Hello, maybe the bug was not closed by the maintainer, as grep seems to be building properly https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/odubaj/autoconf-2.70/package/grep/ Ondrej On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 8:10 AM Ondrej Dubaj wrote: > Thanks, I'll look at it. > > Ondrej > > On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Thanks, I'll look at it. Ondrej On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 5:19 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek < zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 02:39:13PM +0200, Ondrej Dubaj wrote: > > Hi, > > > > thanks for your reply, there should not be any packages on critical path, > > which are not buil

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 02:39:13PM +0200, Ondrej Dubaj wrote: > Hi, > > thanks for your reply, there should not be any packages on critical path, > which are not building currently. I see grep on the list: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1943083 We should probably fix that quickly. Z

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Hi, thanks for your reply, there should not be any packages on critical path, which are not building currently. HEADS-UP: The plan for merging autoconf-2.71 to rawhide is Monday (30th Aug 2021), if no issues will come up. After that, there is no need to do a regular build of dependent packages, b

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 10:53:15AM +0200, Ondrej Dubaj wrote: > Hello, > > In the near future, there is a plan to merge autoconf-2.71 to rawhide. Due > to the size of the change and possible breakage of multiple packages going > FTBFS. The number of these packages should not be many, currently we

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Hello, In the near future, there is a plan to merge autoconf-2.71 to rawhide. Due to the size of the change and possible breakage of multiple packages going FTBFS. The number of these packages should not be many, currently we have ~32 opened FTBFS trackers according to autoconf-2.71, where the maj

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Hello, according to the size of this change and the possible breakage of multiple packages before f35 mass rebuild, we decided (team working on this change) to postpone this change to early lifecycle of f36, where we will have enough time to resolve any problems until f36 mass rebuild. On Mon, Au

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 05:28:07PM +0100, Ondrej Dubaj wrote: > Currently, we are trying to stay away from the compat package and with the > help of other package maintainers trying to fix the failures. We will give > time to react accordingly and see other possible steps in a few weeks time. > >

Re: question was: What do we think about always autoreconfing? was: Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal))

On Mon, 2021-04-19 at 09:27 +0200, Ondrej Dubaj wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 3:30 PM David Cantrell > wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 11:26:24AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > >Hijacking this thread originally about > > >https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Autoconf_271 > > >

Re: What do we think about always autoreconfing? (was: Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal))

On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 3:30 PM David Cantrell wrote: > On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 11:26:24AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > >Hijacking this thread originally about > >https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Autoconf_271 > > > >What is the current thinking in Fedora about always running > >"autor

Re: What do we think about always autoreconfing? (was: Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal))

On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 11:26:24AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: Hijacking this thread originally about https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Autoconf_271 What is the current thinking in Fedora about always running "autoreconf -i" during builds that use autotools? I think we are likely to

Re: #How_To_Test Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, 2021-04-14 at 12:58 +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 12:35 PM Sérgio Basto > wrote: > > On Wed, 2021-04-14 at 12:29 +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski > > wrote: > > > On Wednesday, 14 April 2021 at 11:57, Ondrej Dubaj wrote: > > > > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 11:43

Re: #How_To_Test Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 12:35 PM Sérgio Basto wrote: > > On Wed, 2021-04-14 at 12:29 +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski > wrote: > > On Wednesday, 14 April 2021 at 11:57, Ondrej Dubaj wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 11:43 AM Sérgio Basto > > > wrote: [snip] > > It is arguably better to

Re: #How_To_Test Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, 2021-04-14 at 12:29 +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > On Wednesday, 14 April 2021 at 11:57, Ondrej Dubaj wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 11:43 AM Sérgio Basto > > wrote: > > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Autoconf_271#How_To_Test > > > > > > As I think this

Re: #How_To_Test Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wednesday, 14 April 2021 at 11:57, Ondrej Dubaj wrote: > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 11:43 AM Sérgio Basto wrote: > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Autoconf_271#How_To_Test > > > > As I think this is not trivial we should add to How_To_Test paragraph : > > > > After: > > copr mock-confi

Re: #How_To_Test Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Added, thanks! On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 11:43 AM Sérgio Basto wrote: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Autoconf_271#How_To_Test > > As I think this is not trivial we should add to How_To_Test paragraph : > > After: > copr mock-config odubaj/autoconf-2.70 fedora-rawhide-x86_64 > > odubaj-a

#How_To_Test Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Autoconf_271#How_To_Test As I think this is not trivial we should add to How_To_Test paragraph : After: copr mock-config odubaj/autoconf-2.70 fedora-rawhide-x86_64 > odubaj-autoconf-2.70_fedora-34-x86_64.cfg mv odubaj-autoconf-2.70_fedora-34-x86_64.cfg /et

Re: What do we think about always autoreconfing? (was: Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal))

On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 at 11:27, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > Hijacking this thread originally about > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Autoconf_271 > > What is the current thinking in Fedora about always running > "autoreconf -i" during builds that use autotools? > 1) "autoreconf -i" is not e

Re: What do we think about always autoreconfing? (was: Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal))

On 4/13/21 12:26 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: Hijacking this thread originally about https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Autoconf_271 What is the current thinking in Fedora about always running "autoreconf -i" during builds that use autotools? IMO, it's naive wishful thinking, applicable t

What do we think about always autoreconfing? (was: Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal))

Hijacking this thread originally about https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Autoconf_271 What is the current thinking in Fedora about always running "autoreconf -i" during builds that use autotools? In Debian it's been recommended for a long time: https://wiki.debian.org/Autoreconf I maintain

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Currently, we are trying to stay away from the compat package and with the help of other package maintainers trying to fix the failures. We will give time to react accordingly and see other possible steps in a few weeks time. Currently multiple FTBFS bugs in bugzilla were created according to auto

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

I'd advocate strongly against a compat package. The whole point of the change is to push the move to the new autoconf upstream release. Not the availability of autoconf 2.71 to the end user. For that, we would do much better with providing the end users with a modular release, I think. As for the

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On 09/03/21 09:15 +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: Some time ago gcc, binutils IIRC received an update for ac 2.71 so at least those two should be by now off-the-table (Am I right?). No. GCC has a hard requirement on autoconf-2.69, but the Fedora package doesn't need to run autoconf for it (that ha

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > Issue is that sometimes people really don't want (first) to understand how > to use the exact tool (it starts from something like "I'm not going to > read anything because I want to just use it!!") or look at some already > working examples (those cases are even worse :)). >

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 01:51:42PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 03. 03. 21 13:47, Ondrej Dubaj wrote: On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 1:33 PM Miro Hrončok > wrote: On 03. 03. 21 12:49, Ondrej Dubaj wrote: > Compat package prepared. > > Package autoconf269-2

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Thu, 11 Mar 2021 at 12:04, Kevin Kofler via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: [..] > I really do not understand why so many upstreams are still using autotools. Because ItWorks(tm) A build system that fails so badly at backwards compatibility (This is not > the first time autocon

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > Really .. instead wasting time on packaging stuff which is ~7 years old it > would be better to use that time to fix one of those handful packages > which are still not ac 2.71 compliant So autoconf upstream dropped 7 years (!) of incompatible changes at us in one single u

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 3:26 AM Ondrej Dubaj wrote: > > Thanks for your advice. Already contacted maintainers of redhat-rpm-config to > discuss adding the appropriate command and see what their response is. > So are we coming back to the idea of (re)adding an %GNUconfigure or %autoreconfigure ma

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Thanks for your advice. Already contacted maintainers of redhat-rpm-config to discuss adding the appropriate command and see what their response is. Ondrej On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 8:06 PM Brian C. Lane wrote: > On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 09:15:23AM +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > > On Tue, 9 Mar 20

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 09:15:23AM +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 at 06:57, Ondrej Dubaj wrote: > > > If any concerns about the autoconf2.69-2.69 compat package ? If needed it > > can be implemented as non-parallelly instalable, > > > > Really .. instead wasting time on packag

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 at 09:28, Ondrej Dubaj wrote: > Hello, > > Thank you for your suggestions, but as you might understand, I do not have > the capacity to resolve problems of dependent packages when building with > autoconf-2.71. > As I wrote so far I found only two packages which are not ac 2.

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Thanks for advice guys, setting commitish to back rawhide in copr. Sorry for the bad advice to other maintainers. Please use pull-requests against rawhide as Miro mentioned. Ondrej. On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 11:01 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 10. 03. 21 10:47, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > On Wed, M

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On 10. 03. 21 10:47, Fabio Valentini wrote: On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 10:27 AM Ondrej Dubaj wrote: Hello, Thank you for your suggestions, but as you might understand, I do not have the capacity to resolve problems of dependent packages when building with autoconf-2.71. I can only prepare aut

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 10:27 AM Ondrej Dubaj wrote: > > Hello, > > Thank you for your suggestions, but as you might understand, I do not have > the capacity to resolve problems of dependent packages when building with > autoconf-2.71. > > I can only prepare autoconf-2.71 and compat package auto

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Hello, Thank you for your suggestions, but as you might understand, I do not have the capacity to resolve problems of dependent packages when building with autoconf-2.71. I can only prepare autoconf-2.71 and compat package autoconf2.69-2.69 for other maintainers, so they are able to make appropri

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 at 06:57, Ondrej Dubaj wrote: > If any concerns about the autoconf2.69-2.69 compat package ? If needed it > can be implemented as non-parallelly instalable, > Really .. instead wasting time on packaging stuff which is ~7 years old it would be better to use that time to fix one

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

If any concerns about the autoconf2.69-2.69 compat package ? If needed it can be implemented as non-parallelly instalable, Thanks. Regards, Ondrej On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 8:08 AM Ondrej Dubaj wrote: > Thanks for your notes. If wanted, the first version of autoconf2.69-2.69 > compat package is a

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Thanks for your notes. If wanted, the first version of autoconf2.69-2.69 compat package is available in copr for testing. This is a version which is parallelly installable with autoconf-2.71. Please check/update your packages and rebuild them. Thanks. Regards, Ondrej copr: https://copr.fedorainf

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Miro Hrončok wrote: > 1) Why 269 and not 2.69? I guess that this is a historical thing: past autoconf compatibility packages always had names such as autoconf213. Back then, dots in package names were considered unusual or harmful, standard practice was to omit them. The rule that the dot shoul

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Miro Hrončok wrote: > 2) Is the parallel installability worth the trouble of different names? IMHO, yes. Some projects require developers to run autoconf to pregenerate the scripts, so they will need to be able to work with more than one version. Past autoconf compatibility packages in Fedora h

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 1:51 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 03. 03. 21 13:47, Ondrej Dubaj wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 1:33 PM Miro Hrončok > > wrote: > > > > On 03. 03. 21 12:49, Ondrej Dubaj wrote: > > > Compat package prepared. > > > > >

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On 03. 03. 21 13:47, Ondrej Dubaj wrote: On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 1:33 PM Miro Hrončok > wrote: On 03. 03. 21 12:49, Ondrej Dubaj wrote: > Compat package prepared. > > Package autoconf269-2.69-1 provides: > > /usr/bin/autoconf269 > /

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 1:33 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 03. 03. 21 12:49, Ondrej Dubaj wrote: > > Compat package prepared. > > > > Package autoconf269-2.69-1 provides: > > > > /usr/bin/autoconf269 > > /usr/bin/autoheader269 > > /usr/bin/autom4te269 > > /usr/bin/autoreconf269 > > /usr/bin/autoscan

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On 03. 03. 21 12:49, Ondrej Dubaj wrote: Compat package prepared. Package autoconf269-2.69-1 provides: /usr/bin/autoconf269 /usr/bin/autoheader269 /usr/bin/autom4te269 /usr/bin/autoreconf269 /usr/bin/autoscan269 /usr/bin/autoupdate269 /usr/bin/ifnames269 ... Parallel installation successful.

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Compat package prepared. Package autoconf269-2.69-1 provides: /usr/bin/autoconf269 /usr/bin/autoheader269 /usr/bin/autom4te269 /usr/bin/autoreconf269 /usr/bin/autoscan269 /usr/bin/autoupdate269 /usr/bin/ifnames269 /usr/share/autoconf269 /usr/share/autoconf269/Autom4te /usr/share/autoconf269/Autom

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Actually yes, you are right. Currently all fedora prackages are buildable with autoconf-2.69 and there is a small part (~190), which are not buildable with autoconf-2.71 (will use compat package instead). Thanks for your advice, I didn't realize this at the moment. Ondrej On Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote on Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 08:25:30AM +: > On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 09:20:48AM +0100, Ondrej Dubaj wrote: > > Understand, starting to work on delivering autoconf-2.69 compat package. > > Have to investigate if it would be possible to install autoconf-2.69 and > > a

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 09:20:48AM +0100, Ondrej Dubaj wrote: > Understand, starting to work on delivering autoconf-2.69 compat package. > Have to investigate if it would be possible to install autoconf-2.69 and > autoconf-2.71 next to each other on the system. Will keep you updated. Actually, it

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Understand, starting to work on delivering autoconf-2.69 compat package. Have to investigate if it would be possible to install autoconf-2.69 and autoconf-2.71 next to each other on the system. Will keep you updated. Ondrej On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 7:35 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek < zbys...@in.w

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 12:47:25PM -0500, Ben Cotton wrote: > == Contingency Plan == > * Contingency mechanism: moving this change to Fedora 36, if not > successfully finished until Fedora 35 branching from Rawhide > * Contingency deadline: Fedora 35 branching from Rawhide (2021-08-10) > * Blocks r

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

I understand, thanks for the explanation. We will wait to see what other maintainers and upstreams will say. This explanation is exactly what we need to have as much information as we can. Hopefully other maintainers will soonly present their opinions as well. Thanks. Ondrej On Thu, Feb 25, 202

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 07:55:09AM +0100, Ondrej Dubaj wrote: > Brian, > > I understand, but as I already said, compat package can lead to > unwillingness to move forward to autoconf-2.71. For example, we can have a > compat package for f35 to have time to deal with the problems, but > certainly n

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Brian, I understand, but as I already said, compat package can lead to unwillingness to move forward to autoconf-2.71. For example, we can have a compat package for f35 to have time to deal with the problems, but certainly not for f36 or f37. After release of autoconf-2.71, I expect most of the up

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 08:14:17AM +0100, Ondrej Dubaj wrote: > Brian, > > you are right there are some changes which are now backward compatible. > That's the reason why we need cross-component cooperation from other > maintainers to detect these pieces and potentially report them to upstream > a

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Brian, you are right there are some changes which are now backward compatible. That's the reason why we need cross-component cooperation from other maintainers to detect these pieces and potentially report them to upstream and see if they are willing to fix them. Another option is also to create a

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On 2/23/21 4:54 PM, Jerry James wrote: > On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 4:52 PM Jeff Law wrote: >> On 2/23/21 4:39 PM, Brian C. Lane wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 11:37:42AM +0100, Ondrej Dubaj wrote: [2] http://torsion.usersys.redhat.com:8080/job/Fedora-autoconf/ >>> Doesn't work, with or wi

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 4:52 PM Jeff Law wrote: > On 2/23/21 4:39 PM, Brian C. Lane wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 11:37:42AM +0100, Ondrej Dubaj wrote: > >> [2] http://torsion.usersys.redhat.com:8080/job/Fedora-autoconf/ > > Doesn't work, with or without :8080 > Not sure what you're referring

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On 2/23/21 4:39 PM, Brian C. Lane wrote: > On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 11:37:42AM +0100, Ondrej Dubaj wrote: >> [2] http://torsion.usersys.redhat.com:8080/job/Fedora-autoconf/ > Doesn't work, with or without :8080 Not sure what you're referring to, it just worked fine for me. > > parted is failing w

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 11:37:42AM +0100, Ondrej Dubaj wrote: > [2] http://torsion.usersys.redhat.com:8080/job/Fedora-autoconf/ Doesn't work, with or without :8080 parted is failing with a pile of newly obsolete things, and one error (as far as I can tell) with a missing build-aux/compile I'm gu

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Thanks for your note, I will look at the dependent packages (they were selected ~1 month ago). But technically, it does not disturb us if some package does not require on autoconf and builds successfully. We have to focus on failed builds and investigate where the problem is. Ondrej On Tue, Feb 2

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 10:38 AM Ondrej Dubaj wrote: > Hello, > > please see attached rebuild of autoconf-dependencies [1]. I would like to > ask maintainers of the dependent packages to check if their packages are > buildable with autoconf-2.71. It seems that lots of packages are checking > for

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Hello, please see attached rebuild of autoconf-dependencies [1]. I would like to ask maintainers of the dependent packages to check if their packages are buildable with autoconf-2.71. It seems that lots of packages are checking for exactly version 2.69, which blocks the build and there might be no

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Sounds good. Just find me on IRC or by email and let me know what you would like help on. I can help run/monitor scripts of builds and help script reporting to BZ for things that fail. Thanks, On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 03:55:41PM +0100, Ondrej Dubaj wrote: Thank you for your advice and willingn

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Thank you for your advice and willingness to help with testing. There is a plan to create a side tag and test appropriate changes there. Changed category to system-wide change. Ondrej On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 3:42 PM David Cantrell wrote: > On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 12:30:20PM -0700, Jeff Law wro

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 12:30:20PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote: On 2/10/21 11:00 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 10. 02. 21 18:47, Ben Cotton wrote: == Upgrade/compatibility impact == Problems during build can appear in multiple packages what can lead to build failure, as multiple packages require autoc

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Jeff, thank you for your offer, I will gladly use your tester. What information/RPMs/SRPMs do you need from me? Miro, maybe it could be a system-wide change. If you think so, I can change it. About the absolute numbers, as you said, not all FTBFS are necessarily caused by autoconf, but I did not

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On 2/10/21 11:00 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 10. 02. 21 18:47, Ben Cotton wrote: >> == Upgrade/compatibility impact == >> Problems during build can appear in multiple packages what can lead to >> build failure, as multiple packages require autoconf-2.69 as their >> upstream dependency. These pro

Re: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On 10. 02. 21 18:47, Ben Cotton wrote: == Upgrade/compatibility impact == Problems during build can appear in multiple packages what can lead to build failure, as multiple packages require autoconf-2.69 as their upstream dependency. These problems have to be resolved before adding autoconf-2.71 i

Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Autoconf_271 == Summary == Autoconf upgrade from version 2.69 to the last upstream version 2.71 in Fedora. == Owner == * Name: [[User:odubaj| Ondrej Dubaj]] * Email: odu...@redhat.com == Detailed Description == Upgrading autoconf from version 2.69 to versio