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 ?

it happens , hold your breath please

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....

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

Am 10.11.2015 um 13:05 schrieb Sérgio Basto: >>> 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 > > You should understand that you are not helping with this kind of > comments , you are lucky have packages of RPMFusion for F23 , what do > you mean by "don't apply to gstreamer ugly" ? , developers / > maintainers don't have the access to infra, they can't commit anywhere, > because infra still being build , and noone knows how it will end. > where is the bug report? "they can't commit anywhere" and "noone knows how it will end" means what? how are the packages with broken deps built?

"what do you mean by "don't apply to gstreamer ugly" - the initial mail was pretty clear,

seems to be solved in the meantime, i had to REMOVE the requires from my metapackages to be able upgrade to F23 i simply expect that whoever is repsonsible for a package has the "updates-testing" repos enabled and verify that it is installable, not more and not less, that do not need bugreports at all -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- Betreff: what about soname bumps and rebuilds Datum: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 15:35:06 +0100 Von: Reindl Harald <h.reindl(a)thelounge.net&gt; Antwort an: RPM Fusion users discussion list <rpmfusion-users(a)lists.rpmfusion.org&gt; Organisation: the lounge interactive design An: Mailing-List rpmfusion <rpmfusion-users(a)lists.rpmfusion.org&gt; 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?