On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 11:12:14AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-09-06 at 09:28 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2017-09-06 at 10:51 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> > > On 09/06/2017 10:23 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > > > Is there a fix for this?
> > >
> > > ImageM
On Wed, 2017-09-06 at 09:28 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-09-06 at 10:51 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> > On 09/06/2017 10:23 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > > Is there a fix for this?
> >
> > ImageMagick was downgraded from v7 to v6 today. A emacs rebuild will fix
> > it. I
On Wed, 2017-09-06 at 10:51 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> On 09/06/2017 10:23 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > Is there a fix for this?
>
> ImageMagick was downgraded from v7 to v6 today. A emacs rebuild will fix it.
> I've
> submitted one.
I am doing the rebuilds. Unfortunately, the f28
On 09/06/2017 10:23 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
Is there a fix for this?
ImageMagick was downgraded from v7 to v6 today. A emacs rebuild will fix it. I've
submitted one.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send a
I only skimmed this thread and didn't see any reference to this.
Currently emacs is uninstallable in Rawhide, resulting in any Koji
build that depends on emacs failing:
DEBUG util.py:439:- nothing provides
libMagickCore-7.Q16HDRI.so.3()(64bit) needed by emacs-1:25.2-9.fc28.x86_64
Is ther
On Tue, 2017-09-05 at 21:30 -0700, Moez Roy wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 4:11 PM, Adam Williamson
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2017-09-04 at 20:07 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > >
> > > That is the point, how many package fail to build with ImageMagick7 ?
> > > we "just" need change requires on FTB
On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 4:11 PM, Adam Williamson
wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-09-04 at 20:07 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> >
> > That is the point, how many package fail to build with ImageMagick7 ?
> > we "just" need change requires on FTBFS packages (with ImageMagick7)
>
> No it isn't the point. More th
On Mon, 2017-09-04 at 16:11 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-09-04 at 20:07 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> >
> > That is the point, how many package fail to build with ImageMagick7
> > ?
> > we "just" need change requires on FTBFS packages (with
> > ImageMagick7)
>
> No it isn't the p
On Mon, 2017-09-04 at 23:15 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
>
> We already have ImageMagick 6.9.3 ABI compatibility package.
>
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-20d59de2dc
I don't really see *why*. It doesn't seem to be very necessary. We've
already rebuilt everything in 25 and 26
On Mon, 2017-09-04 at 20:07 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
>
> That is the point, how many package fail to build with ImageMagick7 ?
> we "just" need change requires on FTBFS packages (with ImageMagick7)
No it isn't the point. More things actually use the ImageMagick *CLI*
than use the library, and
On Mon, 2017-09-04 at 20:07 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-09-04 at 11:01 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Mon, 2017-09-04 at 17:55 +, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > >
> > > We didn't specifically rule on the naming, FWIW. As far as IM7
> > > being the
> > > variant package, we mo
On Mon, 2017-09-04 at 11:01 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-09-04 at 17:55 +, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> >
> > We didn't specifically rule on the naming, FWIW. As far as IM7
> > being the
> > variant package, we mostly ruled that for F27, nothing using IM in
> > the
> > release bl
On Mon, 2017-09-04 at 17:55 +, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
> We didn't specifically rule on the naming, FWIW. As far as IM7 being the
> variant package, we mostly ruled that for F27, nothing using IM in the
> release blocking media may require IM7. I'm personally neutral on how the
> files and
On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 11:41 AM Adam Williamson
wrote:
> On Sun, 2017-09-03 at 16:13 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > On Sat, 2017-09-02 at 14:10 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> > > On Sep 2, 2017 11:36 AM, Adam Williamson
> > > wrote:
> > > So I'm gonna start working on the 6.9.9 downgrade in
On Sun, 2017-09-03 at 10:32 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
> This could makessome sense, if these are really used and if
> vulnerabilities can be reacted upon/fixed in the old versions.
>
> If the latter doesn't apply, it would be better to those remove package
> which requires these old libs f
On Sun, 2017-09-03 at 16:13 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Sat, 2017-09-02 at 14:10 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> > On Sep 2, 2017 11:36 AM, Adam Williamson
> > wrote:
> > So I'm gonna start working on the 6.9.9 downgrade in F27, and I'm
> > tempted to just downgrade Rawhide at the same ti
Michael , I move thread to here [1]
[1] https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1766
On Sun, 2017-09-03 at 16:13 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Sat, 2017-09-02 at 14:10 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> > On Sep 2, 2017 11:36 AM, Adam Williamson > g>
> > wrote:
> > So I'm gonna start working on the 6.
On Sat, 2017-09-02 at 14:10 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> On Sep 2, 2017 11:36 AM, Adam Williamson
> wrote:
> So I'm gonna start working on the 6.9.9 downgrade in F27, and I'm
> tempted to just downgrade Rawhide at the same time, and if we
> actually
> do decide to try 7 again, we can star
On 09/02/2017 12:14 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
On 09/01/2017 01:13 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
FESCo decided at today's meeting that 7 should not go to F27 (unless it
can be made parallel installable and not used by anything release-
blocking by default), and to go into F28 there must be a sy
On Sat, 2017-09-02 at 14:10 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> On Sep 2, 2017 11:36 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > So I'm gonna start working on the 6.9.9 downgrade in F27, and I'm
> > tempted to just downgrade Rawhide at the same time, and if we actually
> > do decide to try 7 again, we can st
On Sep 2, 2017 11:36 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:So I'm gonna start working on the 6.9.9 downgrade in F27, and I'm
tempted to just downgrade Rawhide at the same time, and if we actually
do decide to try 7 again, we can start over at that time. Do you agree
with that plan? Thanks! (It doesn't chan
On Sat, 2017-09-02 at 10:19 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> On 09/02/2017 10:06 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Well, the easy option is just to revert to 6.9.9 and not update to 7 at
> > all. It's not incumbent upon us to do so at least until upstream starts
> > making noises about killing the
On 09/02/2017 10:06 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Well, the easy option is just to revert to 6.9.9 and not update to 7 at
all. It's not incumbent upon us to do so at least until upstream starts
making noises about killing the 6 series, and there doesn't seem to be
any particularly strong*reason* to
On Sat, 2017-09-02 at 10:34 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 02, 2017 at 09:05:02AM -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> > > Would we be keeping these separate for a long time? Alternatives
> > > are
> > > really pretty ugly and I'd hate to see that introduced just for
> > > one
> > > rele
On Sat, 2017-09-02 at 09:59 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> On 09/02/2017 09:34 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > Ugh. How many of these are using the library and how many are shelling
> > out? Could we just tack a 6 on the end of all of the older binaries?
> >
>
> The rebuilds were for library l
On Sat, 2017-09-02 at 10:34 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 02, 2017 at 09:05:02AM -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> > > Would we be keeping these separate for a long time? Alternatives are
> > > really pretty ugly and I'd hate to see that introduced just for one
> > > release.
> >
>
On 09/02/2017 09:34 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
Ugh. How many of these are using the library and how many are shelling
out? Could we just tack a 6 on the end of all of the older binaries?
The rebuilds were for library linked packages. I have not touched any packages that
shell out. A reqpoquery
On Sat, Sep 02, 2017 at 09:05:02AM -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> >Would we be keeping these separate for a long time? Alternatives are
> >really pretty ugly and I'd hate to see that introduced just for one
> >release.
> After handling all the rebuilds for version 7, it is pretty rare for
> an
On 09/02/2017 08:10 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
Would we be keeping these separate for a long time? Alternatives are
really pretty ugly and I'd hate to see that introduced just for one
release.
After handling all the rebuilds for version 7, it is pretty rare for an upstream to
support version 7
On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 05:14:17PM -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> >FESCo decided at today's meeting that 7 should not go to F27 (unless it
> >can be made parallel installable and not used by anything release-
> >blocking by default), and to go into F28 there must be a system-wide
> >Change:
>
On 09/01/2017 01:13 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
FESCo decided at today's meeting that 7 should not go to F27 (unless it
can be made parallel installable and not used by anything release-
blocking by default), and to go into F28 there must be a system-wide
Change:
The libs are definitely parallel
On Mon, 2017-08-28 at 20:39 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> Rebuild status:
> * All F25/F26 packages have been rebuilt against ImageMagick 6.9.9.9
> * Most of the F27+ packages have been rebuilt with the following exceptions:
> - cuneiform
> FTBFS since Fedora 23, last upstream release is
Rebuild status:
* All F25/F26 packages have been rebuilt against ImageMagick 6.9.9.9
* Most of the F27+ packages have been rebuilt with the following exceptions:
- cuneiform
FTBFS since Fedora 23, last upstream release is from 2011
- imageinfo
Requires porting, upstream is alive. I may
On Fri, 2017-08-25 at 17:59 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> On 08/25/2017 05:51 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > That patch is at the least clearly not upstreamable, because it just
> > changes everything to 7-style, it would prevent emacs compiling against
> > 6. I don't think emacs would merge
On 08/25/2017 05:51 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
That patch is at the least clearly not upstreamable, because it just
changes everything to 7-style, it would prevent emacs compiling against
6. I don't think emacs would merge a patch which is*only* compatible
with 7, I think they're much more likel
On Fri, 2017-08-25 at 17:43 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> On 08/25/2017 05:19 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > I dunno what order the list you're using is in, but apparently you
> > > didn't do emacs?
> > >
> > > Igor Gnatenko tried, for Rawhide:
> > > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/bui
On 08/25/2017 05:19 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
I dunno what order the list you're using is in, but apparently you
didn't do emacs?
Igor Gnatenko tried, for Rawhide:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=961777
but in fact what happened with that build is ImageMagick support was
On Fri, 2017-08-25 at 14:48 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-08-25 at 11:51 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> > On 08/25/2017 12:55 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > Sure, sounds sensible (assuming we actually wind up sticking with 7.x
> > > in F27+; it does seem like quite a bit of wo
On Fri, 2017-08-25 at 11:51 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> On 08/25/2017 12:55 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Sure, sounds sensible (assuming we actually wind up sticking with 7.x
> > in F27+; it does seem like quite a bit of work will be needed for
> > that).
> >
>
> Thanks for your help, A
On Fri, 2017-08-25 at 11:51 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> On 08/25/2017 12:55 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Sure, sounds sensible (assuming we actually wind up sticking with 7.x
> > in F27+; it does seem like quite a bit of work will be needed for
> > that).
> >
>
> Thanks for your help, A
On 08/25/2017 12:55 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Sure, sounds sensible (assuming we actually wind up sticking with 7.x
in F27+; it does seem like quite a bit of work will be needed for
that).
Thanks for your help, Adam.
I've gotten down to inkscape on the list for F27+. I've had to apply small
On Fri, 2017-08-25 at 06:59 +0200, Remi Collet wrote:
> Le 25/08/2017 à 03:31, Adam Williamson a écrit :
> > On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 13:47 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> > > On 08/24/2017 11:36 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > > Sorry, of course we have to actually build 6.9.9-9. It looks like
>
Le 25/08/2017 à 03:31, Adam Williamson a écrit :
> On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 13:47 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
>> On 08/24/2017 11:36 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>> Sorry, of course we have to actually build 6.9.9-9. It looks like
>>> you're on this already, thanks.
>>
>> I've also created update
On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 13:47 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> On 08/24/2017 11:36 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Sorry, of course we have to actually build 6.9.9-9. It looks like
> > you're on this already, thanks.
>
> I've also created updates in Bodhi. Please feel free to attach your builds to
On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 10:43 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> On 08/24/2017 10:24 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > As Remi said, the changes in 6.9.9 are far less significant than those
> > in 7.0.6. As several people pointed out, sending 7.x to stable releases
> > is clearly against the updates po
On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 10:43 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
>
> I'll get an Epoch bump started... when it completes if you want to do
> rebuilds for
> F25/26 I'll work on F27+.
BTW, it occurred to me for F27+ it may be worth checking if each
project supports a less messy alternative, like Gra
On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 11:28 -0700, Moez Roy wrote:
>
> A rebuild of affected packages would be required regardless, so it made
> more sense to just update it directly to v7 which has High Dynamic Range
> Imaging by default and more Pixel channels.
The problem is that 7.x makes *more*, and more si
On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 13:47 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> On 08/24/2017 11:36 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Sorry, of course we have to actually build 6.9.9-9. It looks like
> > you're on this already, thanks.
>
> I've also created updates in Bodhi. Please feel free to attach your builds to
On 08/24/2017 11:36 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Sorry, of course we have to actually build 6.9.9-9. It looks like
you're on this already, thanks.
I've also created updates in Bodhi. Please feel free to attach your builds to
it.
F26: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-8f27031c8
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Michael Cronenworth
wrote:
> On 08/24/2017 11:36 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
>> Sorry, of course we have to actually build 6.9.9-9. It looks like
>> you're on this already, thanks.
>>
>
> The build override has landed.
>
> Thanks,
> Michael
>
I transferred own
On 08/24/2017 11:36 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Sorry, of course we have to actually build 6.9.9-9. It looks like
you're on this already, thanks.
The build override has landed.
Thanks,
Michael
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To
On 08/24/2017 11:36 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Sorry, of course we have to actually build 6.9.9-9. It looks like
you're on this already, thanks.
Yes, I've issued builds. Once the buildroot override is available I'll send another
email.
___
devel mai
On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 09:27 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 18:15 +0200, Dan Horák wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 10:54:12 -0500
> > Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> >
> > > On 08/24/2017 10:49 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > > > Epoch bump? Why? The f25/f26 packages never even got t
On 08/24/2017 06:27 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 18:15 +0200, Dan Horák wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 10:54:12 -0500
>> Michael Cronenworth wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/24/2017 10:49 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Epoch bump? Why? The f25/f26 packages never even got to testing...
Ju
On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 18:15 +0200, Dan Horák wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 10:54:12 -0500
> Michael Cronenworth wrote:
>
> > On 08/24/2017 10:49 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > > Epoch bump? Why? The f25/f26 packages never even got to testing...
> > > Just revert the commits, etc.
> >
> > I thought Ko
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 10:54:12 -0500
Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> On 08/24/2017 10:49 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > Epoch bump? Why? The f25/f26 packages never even got to testing...
> > Just revert the commits, etc.
>
> I thought Koji did an NVR check? Won't let a lower version or is it
> only when
On 08/24/2017 10:49 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Epoch bump? Why? The f25/f26 packages never even got to testing... Just
revert the commits, etc.
I thought Koji did an NVR check? Won't let a lower version or is it only when it's
been pushed?
___
devel mai
Le 24/08/2017 à 17:43, Michael Cronenworth a écrit :
> I'll get an Epoch bump started... when it completes if you want to do
> rebuilds for F25/26 I'll work on F27+.
I don't think epoch bump is needed
(package never go in the repo)
Remi
>
> Thanks,
> Michael
> _
On 08/24/2017 08:43 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> On 08/24/2017 10:24 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> As Remi said, the changes in 6.9.9 are far less significant than those
>> in 7.0.6. As several people pointed out, sending 7.x to stable releases
>> is clearly against the updates policy. I'd agre
On 08/24/2017 10:24 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
As Remi said, the changes in 6.9.9 are far less significant than those
in 7.0.6. As several people pointed out, sending 7.x to stable releases
is clearly against the updates policy. I'd agree we definitely must
revert to 6.x for F25 and F26 updates;
On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 09:47 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> On 08/24/2017 09:25 AM, Remi Collet wrote:
> > I really think we have to revert to 6 in stable branch
> > (and perhaps even in F27, which is very close to feature freeze)
> >
> > - soname bump
> > - lot of removed API
> > - HDRI enabl
Le 24/08/2017 à 16:47, Michael Cronenworth a écrit :
> On 08/24/2017 09:25 AM, Remi Collet wrote:
>> I really think we have to revert to 6 in stable branch
>> (and perhaps even in F27, which is very close to feature freeze)
>>
>> - soname bump
>> - lot of removed API
>> - HDRI enabled by default
>
On 08/24/2017 09:25 AM, Remi Collet wrote:
I really think we have to revert to 6 in stable branch
(and perhaps even in F27, which is very close to feature freeze)
- soname bump
- lot of removed API
- HDRI enabled by default
The SONAME is changing in 6.9 as well so I'm not sure reverting is gre
Le 24/08/2017 à 14:05, Dan Horák a écrit :
> so I've applied a workaround [1] to get ImageMagick built on all arches
> again until we have a proper fix, it's in Rawhide now, feel free to
> apply it to other branches as well
I really think we have to revert to 6 in stable branch
(and perhaps even
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 09:04:51 +0200
Dan Horák wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 22:16:40 -0500
> Michael Cronenworth wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > An ImageMagick update (6.9 => 7.0) with an SONAME bump and other
> > breakage has been pushed to F25 and higher.
> >
> > First, the update introduces reg
On Wed, 23 Aug 2017 22:16:40 -0500
Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> An ImageMagick update (6.9 => 7.0) with an SONAME bump and other
> breakage has been pushed to F25 and higher.
>
> First, the update introduces regressions on s390x and ppc64 arches.
> - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show
On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 08:40 +0200, Christian Dersch wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> afaik these updates should be unpushed in stable releases ASAP, left
> negative karma now. Maybe I should just press the unpush button?
It's been done by karma now.
It looks to me like a 6.9.9 was released at the same time
Hi all,
afaik these updates should be unpushed in stable releases ASAP, left
negative karma now. Maybe I should just press the unpush button?
Greetings,
Christian
On 08/24/2017 05:16 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> An ImageMagick update (6.9 => 7.0) with an SONAME bump and other
>
Hi all,
An ImageMagick update (6.9 => 7.0) with an SONAME bump and other breakage has been
pushed to F25 and higher.
First, the update introduces regressions on s390x and ppc64 arches.
- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1484578
- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1484579
69 matches
Mail list logo
