Wrong FTBFS in F35?

[Евгений Пивнев]

As I found my package qpdfview cannot be build in F35.
Package marked as FTBFS:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1987904
<https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1987904>

Koji build says:
DEBUG util.py:444:  Error: 
DEBUG util.py:444:   Problem: package qt5-qttools-devel-5.15.2-6.fc35.x86_64 requires
qt5-doctools = 5.15.2-6.fc35, but none of the providers can be installed
DEBUG util.py:444:    - conflicting requests
DEBUG util.py:444:    - nothing provides libclang.so.12()(64bit) needed by
qt5-doctools-5.15.2-6.fc35.x86_64
DEBUG util.py:444:    - nothing provides libclang.so.12(LLVM_12)(64bit) needed by
qt5-doctools-5.15.2-6.fc35.x86_64
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=74013269
What to do?

[Nicolas Chauvet]

Le mar. 17 août 2021 à 17:21, Евгений Пивнев <ti.eugene(a)gmail.com&gt; a écrit :
>  As I found my package qpdfview cannot be build in F35.
>  Package marked as FTBFS:
>  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1987904
>
>  Koji build says:
>
>  DEBUG util.py:444:  Error:
>  DEBUG util.py:444:   Problem: package qt5-qttools-devel-5.15.2-6.fc35.x86_64 requires
> qt5-doctools = 5.15.2-6.fc35, but none of the providers can be installed
>  DEBUG util.py:444:    - conflicting requests
>  DEBUG util.py:444:    - nothing provides libclang.so.12()(64bit) needed by
> qt5-doctools-5.15.2-6.fc35.x86_64
>  DEBUG util.py:444:    - nothing provides libclang.so.12(LLVM_12)(64bit) needed by
> qt5-doctools-5.15.2-6.fc35.x86_64
>
>  https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=74013269
>
>  What to do? 
I've experienced the same issue with my build (onednn) on f35 (only,
not rawhide). It was related to an indirect dependency on clang
(needed by doxygen).
Seems like the clang12 compatibility package isn't in the buildroot yet.
I've used fedpkg build --target f35-build-side-43964

Now I wonder if doxygen (and many other packages) shouldn't be rebuilt
for clang-13 instead.
I'm especially worried that some packages will be rebuilt with
clang/llvm 13 and others kept as 12. There might be symbol versioning
with clang/llvm ?... but still it's annoying as a dependency mix...

So what's the plan ?

[Tom Stellard]

On 8/17/21 8:42 AM, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
>  Le mar. 17 août 2021 à 17:21, Евгений Пивнев
> <ti.eugene(a)gmail.com&gt; a écrit :
> >
> > As I found my package qpdfview cannot be build in F35.
> > Package marked as FTBFS:
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1987904
> >
> > Koji build says:
> >
> > DEBUG util.py:444:  Error:
> > DEBUG util.py:444:   Problem: package qt5-qttools-devel-5.15.2-6.fc35.x86_64 requires
> qt5-doctools = 5.15.2-6.fc35, but none of the providers can be installed
> > DEBUG util.py:444:    - conflicting requests
> > DEBUG util.py:444:    - nothing provides libclang.so.12()(64bit) needed by
> qt5-doctools-5.15.2-6.fc35.x86_64
> > DEBUG util.py:444:    - nothing provides libclang.so.12(LLVM_12)(64bit) needed by
> qt5-doctools-5.15.2-6.fc35.x86_64
> >
> > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=74013269
> >
> > What to do?
>  
>  I've experienced the same issue with my build (onednn) on f35 (only,
>  not rawhide). It was related to an indirect dependency on clang
>  (needed by doxygen).
>  Seems like the clang12 compatibility package isn't in the buildroot yet.
>  I've used fedpkg build --target f35-build-side-43964
>  
>  Now I wonder if doxygen (and many other packages) shouldn't be rebuilt
>  for clang-13 instead.
>  I'm especially worried that some packages will be rebuilt with
>  clang/llvm 13 and others kept as 12. There might be symbol versioning
>  with clang/llvm ?... but still it's annoying as a dependency mix...
>  
>  So what's the plan ?
>   
I think there was an issue with how the side-tag was merged, I'm
looking into this.

-Tom

[Björn 'besser82' Esser]

Am Dienstag, dem 17.08.2021 um 09:15 -0700 schrieb Tom Stellard:
>  On 8/17/21 8:42 AM, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
>  > Le mar. 17 août 2021 à 17:21, Евгений Пивнев <ti.eugene(a)gmail.com&gt; a
>  > écrit :
>  > > 
>  > > As I found my package qpdfview cannot be build in F35.
>  > > Package marked as FTBFS:
>  > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1987904
>  > > 
>  > > Koji build says:
>  > > 
>  > > DEBUG util.py:444:  Error:
>  > > DEBUG util.py:444:   Problem: package qt5-qttools-devel-5.15.2-
>  > > 6.fc35.x86_64 requires qt5-doctools = 5.15.2-6.fc35, but none of
>  > > the providers can be installed
>  > > DEBUG util.py:444:    - conflicting requests
>  > > DEBUG util.py:444:    - nothing provides libclang.so.12()(64bit)
>  > > needed by qt5-doctools-5.15.2-6.fc35.x86_64
>  > > DEBUG util.py:444:    - nothing provides
>  > > libclang.so.12(LLVM_12)(64bit) needed by qt5-doctools-5.15.2-
>  > > 6.fc35.x86_64
>  > > 
>  > > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=74013269
>  > > 
>  > > What to do?
>  > 
>  > I've experienced the same issue with my build (onednn) on f35 (only,
>  > not rawhide). It was related to an indirect dependency on clang
>  > (needed by doxygen).
>  > Seems like the clang12 compatibility package isn't in the buildroot
>  > yet.
>  > I've used fedpkg build --target f35-build-side-43964
>  > 
>  > Now I wonder if doxygen (and many other packages) shouldn't be
>  > rebuilt
>  > for clang-13 instead.
>  > I'm especially worried that some packages will be rebuilt with
>  > clang/llvm 13 and others kept as 12. There might be symbol
>  > versioning
>  > with clang/llvm ?... but still it's annoying as a dependency mix...
>  > 
>  > So what's the plan ?
>  > 
>  
>  I think there was an issue with how the side-tag was merged, I'm
>  looking into this. 

A simple rebuild of doxygen did the trick here.  F35 buildroot should be
fine for most packages again.

[Евгений Пивнев]

It works!
Thank you very much.

>  17 авг. 2021 г., в 21:14, Björn 'besser82' Esser
> <besser82(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; написал(а):
>  
>  Am Dienstag, dem 17.08.2021 um 09:15 -0700 schrieb Tom Stellard:
> > On 8/17/21 8:42 AM, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
> >> Le mar. 17 août 2021 à 17:21, Евгений Пивнев <ti.eugene(a)gmail.com&gt; a
> >> écrit :
> >> 
> > 
> > I think there was an issue with how the side-tag was merged, I'm
> > looking into this.
>