In about a week (after mass rebuild before branching), I'll start with bumping libavif in rawhide from 0.11.x to 1.0.3 ( https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libavif/pull-request/2 , soname bump from 15 to 16). If I am not missing anything, it should mean ABI-only change, so all the dependencies that aren't FTBFS should rebuild fine. Should anything not build, I'll add a compat package not to cause any new FTIs.
This would affect the following packages: avif-pixbuf-loader celestia-common darktable efl gd kf5-kimageformats plasma-wallpapers-dynamic python-imagecodecs webkit2gtk4.0 webkit2gtk4.1 webkitgtk6.0 xpra
If any of the maintainers would prefer to do the rebuild themselves, please do feel free to speak up, I'll send the side-tag id here before the rebuild starts. Otherwise, I'll handle all the rebuilds.
I probably don't have to wait until the mass rebuild is finished, but doing so will leave me with a calmer sleep.
On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 11:14:04AM +0100, Frantisek Zatloukal wrote:
In about a week (after mass rebuild before branching), I'll start with bumping libavif in rawhide from 0.11.x to 1.0.3 ( https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ libavif/pull-request/2 , soname bump from 15 to 16).
I'm confused .. Wouldn't it be better to do this after branching? Otherwise you're introducing an SONAME bump into the stabilising Fedora 40.
If I am not missing anything, it should mean ABI-only change, so all the dependencies that aren't FTBFS should rebuild fine. Should anything not build, I'll add a compat package not to cause any new FTIs.
This would affect the following packages: avif-pixbuf-loader celestia-common darktable efl gd kf5-kimageformats plasma-wallpapers-dynamic python-imagecodecs webkit2gtk4.0 webkit2gtk4.1 webkitgtk6.0 xpra
If any of the maintainers would prefer to do the rebuild themselves, please do feel free to speak up, I'll send the side-tag id here before the rebuild starts. Otherwise, I'll handle all the rebuilds.
I probably don't have to wait until the mass rebuild is finished, but doing so will leave me with a calmer sleep.
Rich.
On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 11:23 AM Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 11:14:04AM +0100, Frantisek Zatloukal wrote:
In about a week (after mass rebuild before branching), I'll start with bumping libavif in rawhide from 0.11.x to 1.0.3 ( https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ libavif/pull-request/2 , soname bump from 15 to 16).
I'm confused .. Wouldn't it be better to do this after branching? Otherwise you're introducing an SONAME bump into the stabilising Fedora 40.
I would prefer to have this in F40 too (not to block gamescope rebases (which do require libavif >= 1.0) there for the lifetime of the F40 release), and, this isn't a big of a risky rebase in my opinion (there will be more impactful and riskier rebases coming far later in the cycle, such as LLVM rebase, again, in my opinion).
libavif-1.0.3 built in f40-build-side-82609. Proceeding with rebuilds...
On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 11:37 AM Frantisek Zatloukal fzatlouk@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 11:23 AM Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 11:14:04AM +0100, Frantisek Zatloukal wrote:
In about a week (after mass rebuild before branching), I'll start with bumping libavif in rawhide from 0.11.x to 1.0.3 ( https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ libavif/pull-request/2 , soname bump from 15 to 16).
I'm confused .. Wouldn't it be better to do this after branching? Otherwise you're introducing an SONAME bump into the stabilising Fedora 40.
I would prefer to have this in F40 too (not to block gamescope rebases (which do require libavif >= 1.0) there for the lifetime of the F40 release), and, this isn't a big of a risky rebase in my opinion (there will be more impactful and riskier rebases coming far later in the cycle, such as LLVM rebase, again, in my opinion).
--
Best regards / S pozdravem,
František Zatloukal Senior Quality Engineer Red Hat
-
Frantisek Zatloukal -
Richard W.M. Jones