-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Wed, 2018-01-31 at 14:53 +0100, Kamil Dudka wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 31, 2018 2:00:08 PM CET Florian Weimer wrote:
> > On 01/31/2018 01:54 PM, Kamil Dudka wrote:
> >
> > > See that libcurl.so.4 now points to libcurl.so.4.5.0.minimal by mist
On Wednesday, January 31, 2018 2:00:08 PM CET Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 01/31/2018 01:54 PM, Kamil Dudka wrote:
>
> > See that libcurl.so.4 now points to libcurl.so.4.5.0.minimal by mistake.
> >
> > What is the recommended way to make libcurl{-minimal} build properly
> > again?
>
> I think in t
On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 7:38 AM, Igor Gnatenko <
ignatenkobr...@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> > 2. Is the plan to update for all supported Fedora releases and not just
> > Rawhide? Otherwise we're back in conditional hell which I thought we were
> > trying to move away from. (Again, the suggested wo
On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 8:14 AM, Richard Shaw wrote:
> I re-skimmed the whole thread so I apologize if I missed it, but I have a
> couple of questions:
>
> 1. The packaging guidelines still require the explicit use of calling
> ldconfig, so even if it's not technically required, it would be agains
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Wed, 2018-01-31 at 07:14 -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
> I re-skimmed the whole thread so I apologize if I missed it, but I have a
> couple of questions:
>
> 1. The packaging guidelines still require the explicit use of calling
> ldconfig, so even i
I re-skimmed the whole thread so I apologize if I missed it, but I have a
couple of questions:
1. The packaging guidelines still require the explicit use of calling
ldconfig, so even if it's not technically required, it would be against the
guidelines to remove them, correct?
2. Is the plan to up
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Wed, 2018-01-31 at 14:00 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 01/31/2018 01:54 PM, Kamil Dudka wrote:
> > See that libcurl.so.4 now points to libcurl.so.4.5.0.minimal by mistake.
> >
> > What is the recommended way to make libcurl{-minimal} build pr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Wed, 2018-01-31 at 13:54 +0100, Kamil Dudka wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 9:57:39 AM CET Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> > brp-ldconfig simply calls `/sbin/ldconfig -N -r "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT"` and
> > there
> > is no /etc/ld.so.conf under $RPM_BUILD_R
On 01/31/2018 01:54 PM, Kamil Dudka wrote:
See that libcurl.so.4 now points to libcurl.so.4.5.0.minimal by mistake.
What is the recommended way to make libcurl{-minimal} build properly again?
I think in this situation, you need to disable this feature using:
%undefine __brp_ldconfig
Dependin
On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 9:57:39 AM CET Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> brp-ldconfig simply calls `/sbin/ldconfig -N -r "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT"` and there
> is no /etc/ld.so.conf under $RPM_BUILD_ROOT when you build... In theory we
> could supply one (empty), but I would ask Florian what would be the best to
On 30 January 2018 at 17:21, Tim Landscheidt wrote:
[..]
> You can help move this forward by publishing the script(s)
> you used (or the patches that still apply cleanly if you
> wrote them manually).
>
There is no any this kind script because ALL Fedora specs unstructured
formatting/indentation
Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> […]
> Who said that I'm demanding something?
> Look one more time on https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/736
> Igor took this tasks VOLUNTARILY and started working on necessary specs
> before I've delivered batch of patches.
> When I found that number of already
On 30 January 2018 at 12:32, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 03:07:22AM +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> > OK. So if I'll be nice, explicit and concise it will cause that Igor will
> > finish at least one mass change before start another one?
> > Igor could you pleas confirm above?
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 03:07:22AM +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> OK. So if I'll be nice, explicit and concise it will cause that Igor will
> finish at least one mass change before start another one?
> Igor could you pleas confirm above?
Seriously, quit it. Igor doesn't work for you. Igor doesn't
On 30/01/18 12:06, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 01/30/2018 01:01 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 30.1.2018 v 10:01 Florian Weimer napsal(a):
On 01/30/2018 09:57 AM, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
brp-ldconfig simply calls `/sbin/ldconfig -N -r "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT"`
and there is
no /etc/ld.so.conf under $RPM_BUILD
On 01/30/2018 01:01 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 30.1.2018 v 10:01 Florian Weimer napsal(a):
On 01/30/2018 09:57 AM, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
brp-ldconfig simply calls `/sbin/ldconfig -N -r "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT"`
and there is
no /etc/ld.so.conf under $RPM_BUILD_ROOT when you build... In theory
we could
Dne 30.1.2018 v 10:01 Florian Weimer napsal(a):
> On 01/30/2018 09:57 AM, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
>> brp-ldconfig simply calls `/sbin/ldconfig -N -r "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT"`
>> and there is
>> no /etc/ld.so.conf under $RPM_BUILD_ROOT when you build... In theory
>> we could
>> supply one (empty), but I wou
On 01/30/2018 09:57 AM, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
brp-ldconfig simply calls `/sbin/ldconfig -N -r "$RPM_BUILD_ROOT"` and there is
no /etc/ld.so.conf under $RPM_BUILD_ROOT when you build... In theory we could
supply one (empty), but I would ask Florian what would be the best to do.
But why does it pr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Tue, 2018-01-30 at 09:02 +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> ~~~
>
> + /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/brp-ldconfig
> /sbin/ldconfig: Warning: ignoring configuration file that cannot be
> opened: /etc/ld.so.conf: No such file or directory
>
> ~~~
>
>
> What is th
Dne 30.1.2018 v 09:15 Florian Weimer napsal(a):
> On 01/30/2018 09:02 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>> ~~~
>>
>> + /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/brp-ldconfig
>> /sbin/ldconfig: Warning: ignoring configuration file that cannot be
>> opened: /etc/ld.so.conf: No such file or directory
>>
>> ~~~
>>
>>
>> What is this
On 01/30/2018 09:02 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
~~~
+ /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/brp-ldconfig
/sbin/ldconfig: Warning: ignoring configuration file that cannot be
opened: /etc/ld.so.conf: No such file or directory
~~~
What is this ^^? Should I be worried about it?
Context? ldconfig definitely shouldn't
~~~
+ /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/brp-ldconfig
/sbin/ldconfig: Warning: ignoring configuration file that cannot be
opened: /etc/ld.so.conf: No such file or directory
~~~
What is this ^^? Should I be worried about it?
V.
Dne 29.1.2018 v 18:18 Florian Weimer napsal(a):
> Igor committed a change to gl
On 30 January 2018 at 02:11, Tim Landscheidt wrote:
[..]
> Unfortunately, progress in Fedora and similar projects is
> not made by telling people what they are doing wrong, but by
> doing The Right Thing™ yourself or in collaboration with
> others. And even if one is reporting a fault, there are
Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> […]
> This is like with with problems on taking care of the production issues or
> faults.
> Always needs to be someone who is controlling whole situation but this person
> does not need to to person doing all OS, HW, app, db related things which
> needs to be
> change
On 29 January 2018 at 19:06, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
[..]
> > As now with file trigger changes are committed and new glibc packages
> will
> > be in rawhide repo it should be mass change removing all ldconfig
> execution
> > from **ALL** Fedora specs.
>
> While I agree that this is needed, why do yo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Mon, 2018-01-29 at 18:49 +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> On 29 January 2018 at 17:18, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> > Igor committed a change to glibc so that from Fedora 28 going forward,
> > glibc will run ldconfig after the transaction if any of t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Mon, 2018-01-29 at 18:49 +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> On 29 January 2018 at 17:18, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> > Igor committed a change to glibc so that from Fedora 28 going forward,
> > glibc will run ldconfig after the transaction if any of t
On 29 January 2018 at 17:18, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Igor committed a change to glibc so that from Fedora 28 going forward,
> glibc will run ldconfig after the transaction if any of the library
> directory trees was modified.
>
> This means that libraries which package the lib*.so.* symbolic link
Igor committed a change to glibc so that from Fedora 28 going forward,
glibc will run ldconfig after the transaction if any of the library
directory trees was modified.
This means that libraries which package the lib*.so.* symbolic links
will no longer have to run ldconfig in %postin/%postun,
On 15 January 2018 at 12:42, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 01/15/2018 05:40 AM, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
>> Currently /sbin/ldconfig is part of the glibc package.
>> Depends which one package was installed/updated firs and which one
>> second system image end ups with 32 or 64 bits /sbin/ldconfig.
>> De
On 01/15/2018 05:40 AM, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
Currently /sbin/ldconfig is part of the glibc package.
Depends which one package was installed/updated firs and which one
second system image end ups with 32 or 64 bits /sbin/ldconfig.
Depends which one binary will be present ldconfig by default goes
On 14 January 2018 at 23:32, Neal Gompa wrote:
[..]
>> I think that at least someone in glibc team should start to consider
>> drop completely use ld.so.cache.
>> This "speedup" mechanism was invented more than two decades ago when
>> it was the problem with VFS layer caching.
>> The same "loading
On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 6:13 PM, Tomasz Kłoczko
wrote:
> On 14 January 2018 at 16:38, Igor Gnatenko
> wrote:
>> On Fri, 2018-01-12 at 15:00 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> The glibc team has received a request to change the way ldconfig
>>> invocations during package installations and deinstalla
On 14 January 2018 at 16:38, Igor Gnatenko
wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-01-12 at 15:00 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> The glibc team has received a request to change the way ldconfig
>> invocations during package installations and deinstallations are handled.
>>
>> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gli
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Fri, 2018-01-12 at 15:00 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> The glibc team has received a request to change the way ldconfig
> invocations during package installations and deinstallations are handled.
>
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/glibc/pul
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 9:00 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> The glibc team has received a request to change the way ldconfig invocations
> during package installations and deinstallations are handled.
>
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/glibc/pull-request/5
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.c
The glibc team has received a request to change the way ldconfig
invocations during package installations and deinstallations are handled.
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/glibc/pull-request/5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1380878
Some background: ldconfig serves several functio
37 matches
Mail list logo
