Re: what about soname bumps and rebuilds

Am 10.11.2015 um 12:16 schrieb Sérgio Basto: > On Ter, 2015-11-10 at 11:17 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: >> >> Am 02.11.2015 um 19:14 schrieb Reindl Harald: >>> Am 02.11.2015 um 19:03 schrieb Sérgio Basto: >>>> On Seg, 2015-11-02 at 15:35 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: >>>>> Fedora 23 >>>>> >>>>> * x264 so 148 >>>>> * avidemux requires so 142 >>>>> * the gstreamer ugly requires so 142 >>>>> >>>>> why does that happen *everytime* when somebody decides to bump x264 >>>>> without take care of rebuild depending packages? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Where you got x264 so 148 ? >>> >>> rpmfusion testing most likely? >>> >>>> it happens , hold your breath please >>> >>> for how long? >>> >>> 6 days and the few deps are not rebuilt >>> normally that should happen instantly if not automated at all >>> >>> [root@rh:~]$ ls /usr/lib64/libx264.so.148 >>> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1019K 2015-10-27 18:29 /usr/lib64/libx264.so.148 >> >> congratulations, avidemux dependencies are now broken in stable updates >> too even for Fedora 21 >> >> F21: >> Error: Package: avidemux-qt-2.6.10-1.fc21.x86_64 >> (rpmfusion-free-updates) Requires: libADM_render6_QT5.so()(64bit) >> >> F23: >> nothing provides libADM_render6_QT5.so()(64bit) needed by >> avidemux-qt-2.6.10-1.fc23.x86_64 >> nothing provides libx264.so.142 needed by avidemux-qt-2.6.8-3.fc22.i686 >> >> thanks god it can't solve i686 deps on a pure x86_64 machine where >> dnf/yum tries to fallback because the unsolveable deps.... > > https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3815 fine, don't apply to gstreamer ugly and honestly i don't understand why developers / maintainers not install their own dogfood to find out such major breaks weeks ago or just don't bump so-names shortly befor the Fedora version goes goldReindl Harald