Really delighted to see the new compat-libstdc++ today, but getting the
following attempting to yum them down:
=============================================================================
Install 0 Package(s)
Update 2 Package(s)
Remove 0 Package(s)
Total download size: 405 k
Downloading Packages:
(1/2): compat-libstdc++-2 100% |=========================| 174 kB
00:00
http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/core/development/i386/...:
[Errno -1] Package does not match checksum
Trying other mirror.
(2/2): compat-libstdc++-3 100% |=========================| 230 kB
00:00
http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/core/development/i386/...:
[Errno -1] Package does not
match checksum
Trying other mirror.
Error Downloading Packages:
compat-libstdc++-33 - 3.2.3-54.fc5.i386: failure:
Fedora/RPMS/compat-libstdc++-33-3.2.3-54.fc5.i386.rpm from development:
[Errno 256] No more mirrors to try.
compat-libstdc++-296 - 2.96-134.i386: failure:
Fedora/RPMS/compat-libstdc++-296-2.96-134.i386.rpm from development:
[Errno 256] No more mirrors to try.
Peter Robinson writes:
> > > > As you'll notice, there will be lots more
packages bumped for the rebase
> > > > to gcc. Most completed today, but we'll be working through a
list of
> > > > failures over the next couple days. Things will still be in a bit
of
> > > > flux, but we're working on it.
> > > >
> > > > Java is still being worked on too. Getting the java stack built
with
> > > > gcj is a great accomplishment and I really respect our java and gcj
team
> > > > for putting in the work to further the free java. Please bare with
us
> > > > as we finalize the development changes necessary to accomplish this
> > > > task.
> > >
> > > Does the new GCC introduce any run-time/ABI breakage which requires
> > > packages in Fedora Extras Development to be rebuilt? Or does it only
> > > reveal problematic source code?
> >
> > I think all the extras need to be rebuilt for this. I know seahorse
> > for one needs it (and may need some fixes).
>
> AFAIK, seahorse was affected by SONAME changes in some of its
> dependencies, which made a rebuild necessary. That was a change not
> related to the GCC upgrade. My question is not about ordinary breakage
> through upgrades of dependencies.
Yes, I think that's true but I also think there is some gcc41 rebuild
issues with it too (well there seems to be when I just try to rebuild
the srpm. I think the binaries produced by gcc 4 and 4.1 are
compatible so most things won't need to be rebuilt, but then its
probably good for them to be rebuilt too.
Pete
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
--
Janina Sajka Phone: +1.240.715.1272
Partner, Capital Accessibility LLC
http://www.CapitalAccessibility.Com
Marketing the Owasys 22C talking screenless cell phone in the U.S. and Canada--Go to
http://www.ScreenlessPhone.Com to learn more.
Chair, Accessibility Workgroup Free Standards Group (FSG)
janina(a)freestandards.org
http://a11y.org