FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 11-30-2010, 04:03 PM
Ivana Varekova
 
Default mpfr soname bump in rawhide

Hello,

mpfr-3.0.0 is now build to rawhide branch and soname is bumped to 4.0.0
there.
MPFR 3.0.0 is binary incompatible with previous versions and also is not
completely API compatible.
The most important changes from versions 2.4.* to version 3.0.0

* MPFR is now distributed under the GNU Lesser General Public
License version 3 or later (LGPL v3+).
* Rounding modes GMP_RNDx are now MPFR_RNDx (GMP_RNDx kept for
compatibility).
* A new rounding mode (MPFR_RNDA) is available to round away from zero.
* Functions mpfr_random and mpfr_random2 have been removed.
* mpfr_get_f and mpfr_get_z now return a ternary value.
* a lot of new functions
full list of changes is on:
http://www.mpfr.org/mpfr-current/#download

The packages which depends on mpfr should be rebuild against the new
versio. The list is:
avr-gcc
CGAL
gappa
gcc
genius
ghdl
gretl
libfplll
libmpc
Macaulay2
mingw32
rasqal
seed

Ivana Hutarova Varekova
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 11-30-2010, 05:57 PM
Adam Williamson
 
Default mpfr soname bump in rawhide

On Tue, 2010-11-30 at 18:03 +0100, Ivana Varekova wrote:
> Hello,
>
> mpfr-3.0.0 is now build to rawhide branch and soname is bumped to 4.0.0
> there.
> MPFR 3.0.0 is binary incompatible with previous versions and also is not
> completely API compatible.
> The most important changes from versions 2.4.* to version 3.0.0
>
> * MPFR is now distributed under the GNU Lesser General Public
> License version 3 or later (LGPL v3+).
> * Rounding modes GMP_RNDx are now MPFR_RNDx (GMP_RNDx kept for
> compatibility).
> * A new rounding mode (MPFR_RNDA) is available to round away from zero.
> * Functions mpfr_random and mpfr_random2 have been removed.
> * mpfr_get_f and mpfr_get_z now return a ternary value.
> * a lot of new functions
> full list of changes is on:
> http://www.mpfr.org/mpfr-current/#download
>
> The packages which depends on mpfr should be rebuild against the new
> versio. The list is:

It would be much better to either do the rebuilds yourself or arrange a
tag for the new soname and ask the packagers of the below packages to
rebuild them in the tag before merging the whole tag into rawhide. We
really need to get away from this method by which you dump a libmajor
bump into rawhide and then just hope for the necessary rebuilds to be
done.

> avr-gcc
> CGAL
> gappa
> gcc
> genius
> ghdl
> gretl
> libfplll
> libmpc
> Macaulay2
> mingw32
> rasqal
> seed
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 12-01-2010, 08:31 AM
Dodji Seketeli
 
Default mpfr soname bump in rawhide

Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com> writes:

[...]

>> The packages which depends on mpfr should be rebuild against the new
>> versio. The list is:
>
> It would be much better to either do the rebuilds yourself or arrange a
> tag for the new soname and ask the packagers of the below packages to
> rebuild them in the tag before merging the whole tag into rawhide.

Indeed. But just curious, how do one "arranges a tag"? Is this
documented somewhere? Or you just have to file a ticket?

Thanks.

--
Dodji
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 12-01-2010, 12:14 PM
Ivana Hutarova Varekova
 
Default mpfr soname bump in rawhide

On 11/30/2010 07:57 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-11-30 at 18:03 +0100, Ivana Varekova wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> mpfr-3.0.0 is now build to rawhide branch and soname is bumped to 4.0.0
>> there.
>> MPFR 3.0.0 is binary incompatible with previous versions and also is not
>> completely API compatible.
>> The most important changes from versions 2.4.* to version 3.0.0
>>
>> * MPFR is now distributed under the GNU Lesser General Public
>> License version 3 or later (LGPL v3+).
>> * Rounding modes GMP_RNDx are now MPFR_RNDx (GMP_RNDx kept for
>> compatibility).
>> * A new rounding mode (MPFR_RNDA) is available to round away from zero.
>> * Functions mpfr_random and mpfr_random2 have been removed.
>> * mpfr_get_f and mpfr_get_z now return a ternary value.
>> * a lot of new functions
>> full list of changes is on:
>> http://www.mpfr.org/mpfr-current/#download
>>
>> The packages which depends on mpfr should be rebuild against the new
>> versio. The list is:
> It would be much better to either do the rebuilds yourself or arrange a
> tag for the new soname and ask the packagers of the below packages to
> rebuild them in the tag before merging the whole tag into rawhide. We
> really need to get away from this method by which you dump a libmajor
> bump into rawhide and then just hope for the necessary rebuilds to be
> done.
>
Hello,
I'm not superuser thus I can't do the rebuild myself. But I cooperate
with the maintainers of major dependencies of mpfr - gcc and libmpc to
test the package against the new version. They were prepared to rebuild
their packages when I push 3.0.0 to rawhide and they maintainers rebuild
them in a while.
The process with the separate tag seems more systematic and thus better
to me (I'm not sure whether it is necessary if there is quite small
number of dependencies). Where can I find some info how to do it?
Ivana
>> avr-gcc
>> CGAL
>> gappa
>> gcc
>> genius
>> ghdl
>> gretl
>> libfplll
>> libmpc
>> Macaulay2
>> mingw32
>> rasqal
>> seed

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 12-01-2010, 02:13 PM
Bruno Wolff III
 
Default mpfr soname bump in rawhide

On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 10:31:59 +0100,
Dodji Seketeli <dodji@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Indeed. But just curious, how do one "arranges a tag"? Is this
> documented somewhere? Or you just have to file a ticket?

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/UpdatingPackageHowTo#Requesting_special_dist_tags
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 12-01-2010, 05:19 PM
Adam Williamson
 
Default mpfr soname bump in rawhide

On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 09:13 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 10:31:59 +0100,
> Dodji Seketeli <dodji@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > Indeed. But just curious, how do one "arranges a tag"? Is this
> > documented somewhere? Or you just have to file a ticket?
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/UpdatingPackageHowTo#Requesting_special_dist_tags

Thanks, Bruno! Reply goes for Ivana too. On the topic of Ivana not being
'superuser' (I guess you meant provenpackager?), does it make sense for
anyone who maintains a library that other packages build against to be
given provenpackager privileges, or at least automatic co-maintainer
status for those other packages?
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 12-02-2010, 02:30 AM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default mpfr soname bump in rawhide

On 12/01/2010 07:19 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 09:13 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 10:31:59 +0100,
>> Dodji Seketeli<dodji@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Indeed. But just curious, how do one "arranges a tag"? Is this
>>> documented somewhere? Or you just have to file a ticket?
>>
>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/UpdatingPackageHowTo#Requesting_special_dist_tags
>
> Thanks, Bruno! Reply goes for Ivana too. On the topic of Ivana not being
> 'superuser' (I guess you meant provenpackager?), does it make sense for
> anyone who maintains a library that other packages build against to be
> given provenpackager privileges, or at least automatic co-maintainer
> status for those other packages?
Definitely no - This would void the meaning of provenpackager.

Where is the problem in maintainers of packages like mpfr to add
themselves as comaintainers or simply to communicate with the
maintainers of the packages of their library's client.

IMO, you are trying to make a bureaucratic mountain of a mole hill of a
problem, which had not been a serious one ever since fedora is around:
SONAME breakages trigger a series of "breakage mails" and people usually
react upon in it.

Ralf



--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 12-02-2010, 10:49 AM
Marcela Mašláňová
 
Default mpfr soname bump in rawhide

On 12/01/2010 07:19 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 09:13 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 10:31:59 +0100,
>> Dodji Seketeli <dodji@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> Indeed. But just curious, how do one "arranges a tag"? Is this
>>> documented somewhere? Or you just have to file a ticket?
>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/UpdatingPackageHowTo#Requesting_special_dist_tags
> Thanks, Bruno! Reply goes for Ivana too. On the topic of Ivana not being
> 'superuser' (I guess you meant provenpackager?), does it make sense for
> anyone who maintains a library that other packages build against to be
> given provenpackager privileges, or at least automatic co-maintainer
> status for those other packages?
Usually people ask some provenpackager for rebuild of related
packages. It's not hard to ask.
Please do not add other strange rule.

--
Marcela Mašláňová
BaseOS team Brno

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 12-03-2010, 08:11 PM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default mpfr soname bump in rawhide

Adam Williamson wrote:
> Thanks, Bruno! Reply goes for Ivana too. On the topic of Ivana not being
> 'superuser' (I guess you meant provenpackager?), does it make sense for
> anyone who maintains a library that other packages build against to be
> given provenpackager privileges, or at least automatic co-maintainer
> status for those other packages?

Why not just do away with ACL restrictions entirely, opening all packages to
all packagers as in the good old Extras?

Kevin Kofler

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 12-03-2010, 08:45 PM
Adam Williamson
 
Default mpfr soname bump in rawhide

On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 22:11 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Thanks, Bruno! Reply goes for Ivana too. On the topic of Ivana not being
> > 'superuser' (I guess you meant provenpackager?), does it make sense for
> > anyone who maintains a library that other packages build against to be
> > given provenpackager privileges, or at least automatic co-maintainer
> > status for those other packages?
>
> Why not just do away with ACL restrictions entirely, opening all packages to
> all packagers as in the good old Extras?

well, I've already asked that question myself, but it doesn't seem to be
a flyer.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 05:45 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org