jpegxl soname bump

[Scott Talbert]

Hi @eclipseo,

Looks like jpegxl soname was bumped, breaking a bunch of stuff:

2021-11-21 20:20:51
Package resolution failed

     Problem: package gd-2.3.3-3.fc36.x86_64 requires 
libavif.so.12()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
     - package graphviz-2.49.3-2.fc36.x86_64 requires libgd.so.3()(64bit), 
but none of the providers can be installed
     - package libavif-0.9.2-2.fc35.x86_64 requires libaom.so.3()(64bit), 
but none of the providers can be installed
     - conflicting requests
     - nothing provides libjxl.so.0()(64bit) needed by 
libaom-3.1.2-1.fc35.x86_64
     - nothing provides libjxl.so.0(JXL_0)(64bit) needed by 
libaom-3.1.2-1.fc35.x86_64
     Problem: package graphviz-2.49.3-2.fc36.x86_64 requires 
libgd.so.3()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
     - package gd-2.3.3-3.fc36.x86_64 requires libavif.so.12()(64bit), but 
none of the providers can be installed
     - package doxygen-2:1.9.1-12.fc36.x86_64 requires graphviz, but none 
of the providers can be installed
     - package libavif-0.9.2-2.fc35.x86_64 requires libaom.so.3()(64bit), 
but none of the providers can be installed
     - conflicting requests
     - nothing provides libjxl.so.0()(64bit) needed by 
libaom-3.1.2-1.fc35.x86_64
     - nothing provides libjxl.so.0(JXL_0)(64bit) needed by 
libaom-3.1.2-1.fc35.x86_64

Thanks,
Scott

[Ahmed Almeleh]

yikes

On Sun, 21 Nov 2021, 20:40 Scott Talbert, <swt(a)techie.net&gt; wrote:

>  Hi @eclipseo,
>
>  Looks like jpegxl soname was bumped, breaking a bunch of stuff:
>
>  2021-11-21 20:20:51
>  Package resolution failed
>
>       Problem: package gd-2.3.3-3.fc36.x86_64 requires
>  libavif.so.12()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>       - package graphviz-2.49.3-2.fc36.x86_64 requires libgd.so.3()(64bit),
>  but none of the providers can be installed
>       - package libavif-0.9.2-2.fc35.x86_64 requires libaom.so.3()(64bit),
>  but none of the providers can be installed
>       - conflicting requests
>       - nothing provides libjxl.so.0()(64bit) needed by
>  libaom-3.1.2-1.fc35.x86_64
>       - nothing provides libjxl.so.0(JXL_0)(64bit) needed by
>  libaom-3.1.2-1.fc35.x86_64
>       Problem: package graphviz-2.49.3-2.fc36.x86_64 requires
>  libgd.so.3()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>       - package gd-2.3.3-3.fc36.x86_64 requires libavif.so.12()(64bit), but
>  none of the providers can be installed
>       - package doxygen-2:1.9.1-12.fc36.x86_64 requires graphviz, but none
>  of the providers can be installed
>       - package libavif-0.9.2-2.fc35.x86_64 requires libaom.so.3()(64bit),
>  but none of the providers can be installed
>       - conflicting requests
>       - nothing provides libjxl.so.0()(64bit) needed by
>  libaom-3.1.2-1.fc35.x86_64
>       - nothing provides libjxl.so.0(JXL_0)(64bit) needed by
>  libaom-3.1.2-1.fc35.x86_64
>
>  Thanks,
>  Scott
>  _______________________________________________
>  devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  Fedora Code of Conduct:
>  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
>  List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>  List Archives:
>  https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]
>  Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
>  https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
>

[Björn 'besser82' Esser]

Am Sonntag, dem 21.11.2021 um 15:40 -0500 schrieb Scott Talbert:
>  Hi @eclipseo,
>  
>  Looks like jpegxl soname was bumped, breaking a bunch of stuff:
>  
>  2021-11-21 20:20:51
>  Package resolution failed
>  
>       Problem: package gd-2.3.3-3.fc36.x86_64 requires 
>  libavif.so.12()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>       - package graphviz-2.49.3-2.fc36.x86_64 requires
>  libgd.so.3()(64bit), 
>  but none of the providers can be installed
>       - package libavif-0.9.2-2.fc35.x86_64 requires
>  libaom.so.3()(64bit), 
>  but none of the providers can be installed
>       - conflicting requests
>       - nothing provides libjxl.so.0()(64bit) needed by 
>  libaom-3.1.2-1.fc35.x86_64
>       - nothing provides libjxl.so.0(JXL_0)(64bit) needed by 
>  libaom-3.1.2-1.fc35.x86_64
>       Problem: package graphviz-2.49.3-2.fc36.x86_64 requires 
>  libgd.so.3()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>       - package gd-2.3.3-3.fc36.x86_64 requires libavif.so.12()(64bit),
>  but 
>  none of the providers can be installed
>       - package doxygen-2:1.9.1-12.fc36.x86_64 requires graphviz, but
>  none 
>  of the providers can be installed
>       - package libavif-0.9.2-2.fc35.x86_64 requires
>  libaom.so.3()(64bit), 
>  but none of the providers can be installed
>       - conflicting requests
>       - nothing provides libjxl.so.0()(64bit) needed by 
>  libaom-3.1.2-1.fc35.x86_64
>       - nothing provides libjxl.so.0(JXL_0)(64bit) needed by 
>  libaom-3.1.2-1.fc35.x86_64 

libaom is not rebuildable, as it requires the doxygen package for being
built.  I've requested the new jpegxl build to be untagged from Rawhide
[1], and expired the buildroot-overrides for F35 and F34.

This needs proper preparation and coordination for the rebuilds.  I will
take of that in a side-tag as soon as Rawhide is back to a usable state.

Björn


[1]  https://pagure.io/releng/issue/10397

[Michael J Gruber]

F35 updates has libaom-3.2.0-2 and libjxl-0.6.1-6 already - so did the buildroot go
through?
(This conflicts with heif from rpmfusion, which I can't complain about here, of
course.)

[Sérgio Basto]

On Fri, 2021-12-03 at 15:36 +0000, Michael J Gruber wrote:
>  F35 updates has libaom-3.2.0-2 and libjxl-0.6.1-6 already - so did
>  the buildroot go through?
>  (This conflicts with heif from rpmfusion, which I can't complain
>  about here, of course.) 
yes , buildroot go through , rpmfusion packages are fixed just need to
be published in repos 


-- 
Sérgio M. B.

[Nicolas Chauvet]

Le ven. 3 déc. 2021 à 17:17, Sérgio Basto <sergio(a)serjux.com&gt; a écrit :
>  On Fri, 2021-12-03 at 15:36 +0000, Michael J Gruber wrote:
>  > F35 updates has libaom-3.2.0-2 and libjxl-0.6.1-6 already - so did
>  > the buildroot go through?
>  > (This conflicts with heif from rpmfusion, which I can't complain
>  > about here, of course.)
>
>  yes , buildroot go through , rpmfusion packages are fixed just need to
>  be published in repos 
Problem was not only about rpmfusion packages rebuilt, but
also a lot
of missing fedora rebuilt.
To this date, there are still missing rebuilds, so was my -1 for this update.

@besser Can you clarify why you have pushed this update to stable
despite my notice ?
This is not the first time this problem occurs with aom and some
fedora rebuilds are not done.

Someone will have to fix the missing piece...