On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Panu Matilainen
<pmatilai(a)laiskiainen.org>wrote:
On 11/20/2012 07:45 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 2:28 AM, Panu Matilainen
> <pmatilai(a)laiskiainen.org
<mailto:pmatilai@laiskiainen.**org<pmatilai@laiskiainen.org>>>
> wrote:
>
>
> Now that FESCo accepted
>
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/**__Features/RPM4.11<http://fedoraprojec...
>
<
http://fedoraproject.org/**wiki/Features/RPM4.11<http://fedoraproject....
> for F19... (in what
> might well be a record time - less than a minute in the meeting from
> proposal to acceptance :)
>
> Rpm 4.11 alpha (or actually post-alpha snapshot to pull in a few
> accumulated fixes + enhancements) will be hitting rawhide shortly.
> There's no soname bump involved this time, so no rebuilds required.
>
> There's one thing that does affect nearly every package: new
> warnings about bogus spec changelog dates. The most common cause is
> the day name not matching the given date, such as:
> warning: bogus date in %changelog: Tue Jun 03 2009 Panu Matilainen
> <pmatilai(a)redhat.com <mailto:pmatilai@redhat.com>> - 4.7.0-5
>
> Jun 03 2009 was Wednesday, not Tuesday, hence the warning. As rpm
> hasn't hasn't previously validated changelog dates make sense as a
> whole, nearly every spec has one or more of these mistakes. It's
> just a warning though and doesn't cause build failures.
>
> Other than that, chances are you wont notice much anything at all.
> Assuming all goes well that is. So its the usual drill: keep your
> eyes open on rawhide builds and report any new oddities found ASAP.
> I'm not expecting any major issues with this but you never really
> know.
>
> For further details see the draft release notes at
>
http://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/_**_4.11.0<http://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/_...
>
<
http://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/**4.11.0<http://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.1...
> >
>
> I can't build the latest wesnoth in rawhide, but I can in all older
> releases. Fails because some of the data is missing.
>
>
http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.**org//work/tasks/9837/4709837/**build.log&...
>
> Is this RPM related?
>
I would say no: if you compare the early parts of the build.log between
f19 and eg f18 build, in the successful build the translations directory
and its contents gets created in a big big pile of 'mo-update' calls:
-- Build files have been written to: /builddir/build/BUILD/wesnoth-**
1.10.5
Scanning dependencies of target mo-update
[ 0%] mo-update [zh_TW]: Creating locale directory.
[ 0%] mo-update [af]: Creating locale directory.
[ 0%] mo-update [ang]: Creating locale directory.
[ 0%] mo-update [ang@latin]: Creating locale directory.
[ 0%] mo-update [ar]: Creating locale directory.
[ 0%] Scanning dependencies of target wesnoth-lua
...but in the f19 build, no such thing occurs:
-- Build files have been written to: /builddir/build/BUILD/wesnoth-**
1.10.5
Scanning dependencies of target wesnoth-lua
[ 0%] Scanning dependencies of target wesnoth-core
[...]
I thought not, but wanted to be sure. It certainly f19-centric. Thanks!
------------------------------------------------
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love
-d. bowie