Heads up: rpm 4.11 alpha coming soon to rawhide near you

[Jon Ciesla]

On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Panu Matilainen
<pmatilai at 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 at laiskiainen.org <mailto:pmatilai at laiskiainen.**org<pmatilai at laiskiainen.org>>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>     Now that FESCo accepted
>>     http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/**__Features/RPM4.11<http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/__Features/RPM4.11>
>>     <http://fedoraproject.org/**wiki/Features/RPM4.11<http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/RPM4.11>>
>> 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 at redhat.com <mailto:pmatilai at 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/__4.11.0>
>>     <http://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/**4.11.0<http://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.11.0>
>> >
>>
>> 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<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 at 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!

And if anyone see something obvious here let me know.

-J


>         - Panu -
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.**org/mailman/listinfo/devel<https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel>




-- 
http://cecinestpasunefromage.wordpress.com/
------------------------------------------------
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love

-d. bowie
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20121120/c971b35b/attachment.html>