Hi,
We are going to be building clang-11.1.0 for rawhide, which changes the soname of libclang.so and libclang-cpp.so. This is unusual for clang, since the soname will change without bumping the major version number.
I will be rebuilding the affected packages, so no action is needed from package maintainers. Ideally, the rebuilds will be done in a side tag, however, depending on when the mass rebuild starts, they may have to be done immediately after the mass rebuild completes, which could result in a temporary break of these packages.
Here are are the packages that will be rebuilt:
Maintainers by package: bcc ersin jmarchan jolsa rdossant bpftrace acaringi ersin jmarchan jolsa rdossant castxml ellert ccls defolos clang airlied daveisfera sbergmann sergesanspaille siddharths tstellar clazy jgrulich cvise mpolacek doxygen than gnome-builder amigadave ignatenkobrain ispc luya slaanesh tstellar kdevelop dvratil jgrulich rdieter than lldb airlied daveisfera jankratochvil sergesanspaille siddharths tstellar mesa airlied ajax alexl bskeggs caillon caolanm glisse ignatenkobrain lyude rclark rhughes rstrode ssp tstellar openshadinglanguage luya slaanesh pocl besser82 fabiand ignatenkobrain sergesanspaille tstellar python-pyside2 hobbes1069 qt-creator heliocastro itamarjp jreznik rdieter smani qt5-qttools dvratil jgrulich jreznik rdieter than rust-bindgen ignatenkobrain scorep loveshack orion sourcetrail sergesanspaille tinygo qulogic
Packages by maintainer: acaringi bpftrace airlied clang lldb mesa ajax mesa alexl mesa amigadave gnome-builder besser82 pocl bskeggs mesa caillon mesa caolanm mesa daveisfera clang lldb defolos ccls dvratil kdevelop qt5-qttools ellert castxml ersin bcc bpftrace fabiand pocl glisse mesa heliocastro qt-creator hobbes1069 python-pyside2 ignatenkobrain gnome-builder mesa pocl rust-bindgen itamarjp qt-creator jankratochvil lldb jgrulich clazy kdevelop qt5-qttools jmarchan bcc bpftrace jolsa bcc bpftrace jreznik qt-creator qt5-qttools loveshack scorep luya ispc openshadinglanguage lyude mesa mpolacek cvise orion scorep qulogic tinygo rclark mesa rdieter kdevelop qt-creator qt5-qttools rdossant bcc bpftrace rhughes mesa rstrode mesa sbergmann clang sergesanspaille clang lldb pocl sourcetrail siddharths clang lldb slaanesh ispc openshadinglanguage smani qt-creator ssp mesa than doxygen kdevelop qt5-qttools tstellar clang ispc lldb mesa pocl
On 1/21/21 7:28 AM, Tom Stellard wrote:
Hi,
We are going to be building clang-11.1.0 for rawhide, which changes the soname of libclang.so and libclang-cpp.so. This is unusual for clang, since the soname will change without bumping the major version number.
I will be rebuilding the affected packages, so no action is needed from package maintainers. Ideally, the rebuilds will be done in a side tag, however, depending on when the mass rebuild starts, they may have to be done immediately after the mass rebuild completes, which could result in a temporary break of these packages.
The new clang builds are ready, and I've done test scratch builds, so I'm going to start building these packages in the side-tag now.
-Tom
Here are are the packages that will be rebuilt:
Maintainers by package: bcc ersin jmarchan jolsa rdossant bpftrace acaringi ersin jmarchan jolsa rdossant castxml ellert ccls defolos clang airlied daveisfera sbergmann sergesanspaille siddharths tstellar clazy jgrulich cvise mpolacek doxygen than gnome-builder amigadave ignatenkobrain ispc luya slaanesh tstellar kdevelop dvratil jgrulich rdieter than lldb airlied daveisfera jankratochvil sergesanspaille siddharths tstellar mesa airlied ajax alexl bskeggs caillon caolanm glisse ignatenkobrain lyude rclark rhughes rstrode ssp tstellar openshadinglanguage luya slaanesh pocl besser82 fabiand ignatenkobrain sergesanspaille tstellar python-pyside2 hobbes1069 qt-creator heliocastro itamarjp jreznik rdieter smani qt5-qttools dvratil jgrulich jreznik rdieter than rust-bindgen ignatenkobrain scorep loveshack orion sourcetrail sergesanspaille tinygo qulogic
Packages by maintainer: acaringi bpftrace airlied clang lldb mesa ajax mesa alexl mesa amigadave gnome-builder besser82 pocl bskeggs mesa caillon mesa caolanm mesa daveisfera clang lldb defolos ccls dvratil kdevelop qt5-qttools ellert castxml ersin bcc bpftrace fabiand pocl glisse mesa heliocastro qt-creator hobbes1069 python-pyside2 ignatenkobrain gnome-builder mesa pocl rust-bindgen itamarjp qt-creator jankratochvil lldb jgrulich clazy kdevelop qt5-qttools jmarchan bcc bpftrace jolsa bcc bpftrace jreznik qt-creator qt5-qttools loveshack scorep luya ispc openshadinglanguage lyude mesa mpolacek cvise orion scorep qulogic tinygo rclark mesa rdieter kdevelop qt-creator qt5-qttools rdossant bcc bpftrace rhughes mesa rstrode mesa sbergmann clang sergesanspaille clang lldb pocl sourcetrail siddharths clang lldb slaanesh ispc openshadinglanguage smani qt-creator ssp mesa than doxygen kdevelop qt5-qttools tstellar clang ispc lldb mesa pocl
On 23. 01. 21 2:18, Tom Stellard wrote:
On 1/21/21 7:28 AM, Tom Stellard wrote:
Hi,
We are going to be building clang-11.1.0 for rawhide, which changes the soname of libclang.so and libclang-cpp.so. This is unusual for clang, since the soname will change without bumping the major version number.
I will be rebuilding the affected packages, so no action is needed from package maintainers. Ideally, the rebuilds will be done in a side tag, however, depending on when the mass rebuild starts, they may have to be done immediately after the mass rebuild completes, which could result in a temporary break of these packages.
The new clang builds are ready, and I've done test scratch builds, so I'm going to start building these packages in the side-tag now.
Is this relevant?
nothing provides libclang-cpp.so.11()(64bit) needed by lldb-11.1.0-1.rc1.fc34.x86_64 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919667
nothing provides libclang.so.11()(64bit) needed by qt6-doctools-6.0.0-1.fc34.x86_64 nothing provides libclang.so.11(LLVM_11)(64bit) needed by qt6-doctools-6.0.0-1.fc34.x86_64 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919668
On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 4:42 PM Miro Hrončok mhroncok@redhat.com wrote:
On 23. 01. 21 2:18, Tom Stellard wrote:
On 1/21/21 7:28 AM, Tom Stellard wrote:
Hi,
We are going to be building clang-11.1.0 for rawhide, which changes the soname of libclang.so and libclang-cpp.so. This is unusual for clang, since the soname will change without bumping the major version number.
I will be rebuilding the affected packages, so no action is needed from package maintainers. Ideally, the rebuilds will be done in a side tag, however, depending on when the mass rebuild starts, they may have to be done immediately after the mass rebuild completes, which could result in a temporary break of these packages.
The new clang builds are ready, and I've done test scratch builds, so I'm going to start building these packages in the side-tag now.
Is this relevant?
nothing provides libclang-cpp.so.11()(64bit) needed by lldb-11.1.0-1.rc1.fc34.x86_64 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919667
nothing provides libclang.so.11()(64bit) needed by qt6-doctools-6.0.0-1.fc34.x86_64 nothing provides libclang.so.11(LLVM_11)(64bit) needed by qt6-doctools-6.0.0-1.fc34.x86_64 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919668
Looks like some builds were made for the side tag but are not contained in the update, for example lldb-11.1.0-2.rc2.fc34: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1672970
Maybe others were built without running koji wait-repo when necessary? Or the bodhi update was created while some builds were still running?
- lldb-11.1.0-1.rc1.fc34 was built against llvm-11.1.0-1.rc1.fc34, which was superseded by llvm-11.1.0-2.rc2.fc34, but was submitted to bodhi. - lldb-11.1.0-2.rc2.fc34 was built against llvm-11.1.0-2.rc2.fc34 in the side tag, but it was not part of the bodhi update, and is still sitting in the side tag.
I don't think many packages depend on lldb and qt6-doctools, but it would probably be good to clean this up before the mass rebuild starts nonetheless.
Fabio
On 1/24/21 7:42 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 23. 01. 21 2:18, Tom Stellard wrote:
On 1/21/21 7:28 AM, Tom Stellard wrote:
Hi,
We are going to be building clang-11.1.0 for rawhide, which changes the soname of libclang.so and libclang-cpp.so. This is unusual for clang, since the soname will change without bumping the major version number.
I will be rebuilding the affected packages, so no action is needed from package maintainers. Ideally, the rebuilds will be done in a side tag, however, depending on when the mass rebuild starts, they may have to be done immediately after the mass rebuild completes, which could result in a temporary break of these packages.
The new clang builds are ready, and I've done test scratch builds, so I'm going to start building these packages in the side-tag now.
Is this relevant?
nothing provides libclang-cpp.so.11()(64bit) needed by lldb-11.1.0-1.rc1.fc34.x86_64 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919667
nothing provides libclang.so.11()(64bit) needed by qt6-doctools-6.0.0-1.fc34.x86_64 nothing provides libclang.so.11(LLVM_11)(64bit) needed by qt6-doctools-6.0.0-1.fc34.x86_64 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919668
Yes, I missed those 2. I will rebuild them.
-Tom
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 4:00 PM Tom Stellard tstellar@redhat.com wrote:
On 1/24/21 7:42 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 23. 01. 21 2:18, Tom Stellard wrote:
On 1/21/21 7:28 AM, Tom Stellard wrote:
Hi,
We are going to be building clang-11.1.0 for rawhide, which changes the soname of libclang.so and libclang-cpp.so. This is unusual for clang, since the soname will change without bumping the major version number.
I will be rebuilding the affected packages, so no action is needed from package maintainers. Ideally, the rebuilds will be done in a side tag, however, depending on when the mass rebuild starts, they may have to be done immediately after the mass rebuild completes, which could result in a temporary break of these packages.
The new clang builds are ready, and I've done test scratch builds, so I'm going to start building these packages in the side-tag now.
Is this relevant?
nothing provides libclang-cpp.so.11()(64bit) needed by lldb-11.1.0-1.rc1.fc34.x86_64 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919667
nothing provides libclang.so.11()(64bit) needed by qt6-doctools-6.0.0-1.fc34.x86_64 nothing provides libclang.so.11(LLVM_11)(64bit) needed by qt6-doctools-6.0.0-1.fc34.x86_64 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919668
Yes, I missed those 2. I will rebuild them.
Looks like there are also "orphaned" builds in the side tag, which is also probably why it was not deleted when the bodhi update was pushed to stable. Maybe they were still running when the update was created?
Fabio
On 1/25/21 7:30 AM, Fabio Valentini wrote:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 4:00 PM Tom Stellard tstellar@redhat.com wrote:
On 1/24/21 7:42 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 23. 01. 21 2:18, Tom Stellard wrote:
On 1/21/21 7:28 AM, Tom Stellard wrote:
Hi,
We are going to be building clang-11.1.0 for rawhide, which changes the soname of libclang.so and libclang-cpp.so. This is unusual for clang, since the soname will change without bumping the major version number.
I will be rebuilding the affected packages, so no action is needed from package maintainers. Ideally, the rebuilds will be done in a side tag, however, depending on when the mass rebuild starts, they may have to be done immediately after the mass rebuild completes, which could result in a temporary break of these packages.
The new clang builds are ready, and I've done test scratch builds, so I'm going to start building these packages in the side-tag now.
Is this relevant?
nothing provides libclang-cpp.so.11()(64bit) needed by lldb-11.1.0-1.rc1.fc34.x86_64 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919667
nothing provides libclang.so.11()(64bit) needed by qt6-doctools-6.0.0-1.fc34.x86_64 nothing provides libclang.so.11(LLVM_11)(64bit) needed by qt6-doctools-6.0.0-1.fc34.x86_64 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919668
Yes, I missed those 2. I will rebuild them.
Looks like there are also "orphaned" builds in the side tag, which is also probably why it was not deleted when the bodhi update was pushed to stable. Maybe they were still running when the update was created?
This is true for the lldb package, and I've already tagged that package into rawhide.
For qt6-qttools, this package is a new package that was created after I ran my query for clang-libs dependencies, so there were no builds for it in the side-tag (but I'm doing one now).
-Tom
Fabio
On 1/25/21 7:00 AM, Tom Stellard wrote:
On 1/24/21 7:42 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 23. 01. 21 2:18, Tom Stellard wrote:
On 1/21/21 7:28 AM, Tom Stellard wrote:
Hi,
We are going to be building clang-11.1.0 for rawhide, which changes the soname of libclang.so and libclang-cpp.so. This is unusual for clang, since the soname will change without bumping the major version number.
I will be rebuilding the affected packages, so no action is needed from package maintainers. Ideally, the rebuilds will be done in a side tag, however, depending on when the mass rebuild starts, they may have to be done immediately after the mass rebuild completes, which could result in a temporary break of these packages.
The new clang builds are ready, and I've done test scratch builds, so I'm going to start building these packages in the side-tag now.
Is this relevant?
nothing provides libclang-cpp.so.11()(64bit) needed by lldb-11.1.0-1.rc1.fc34.x86_64 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919667
nothing provides libclang.so.11()(64bit) needed by qt6-doctools-6.0.0-1.fc34.x86_64 nothing provides libclang.so.11(LLVM_11)(64bit) needed by qt6-doctools-6.0.0-1.fc34.x86_64 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1919668
Yes, I missed those 2. I will rebuild them.
Both packages should be fixed now in rawhide. Sorry for the inconvenience.
-Tom
-Tom _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org