what about soname bumps and rebuilds

[Sérgio Basto]

On Ter, 2015-11-10 at 13:16 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
> 
> 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?


Means that RPMFusion is not operational 


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

initial mail is not a bug report, without a bug report the most likely
is not be fixed .

gstreamer ugly get rebuild 
http://download1.rpmfusion.org/free/fedora/updates/testing/23/SRPMS/gstreamer-plugins-ugly-0.10.19-18.fc23.src.rpm

> 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 at thelounge.net>
> Antwort an: RPM Fusion users discussion list 
> <rpmfusion-users at lists.rpmfusion.org>
> Organisation: the lounge interactive design
> An: Mailing-List rpmfusion <rpmfusion-users at lists.rpmfusion.org>
> 
> 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?
> 

-- 
Sérgio M. B.