[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: fedora-devel-list
Subject: Re: F38 proposal: Rpmautospec by Default (System-Wide Change proposal)
From: Richard Shaw <hobbes1069 () gmail ! com>
Date: 2023-01-10 12:52:29
Message-ID: CAN3TeO1Gum11oYnG9e80i6fHTJD4mkxO9J1cSkTigQBRjot6cA () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
[Attachment #2 (multipart/alternative)]
On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 1:16 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <
zbyszek@in.waw.pl> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 09, 2023 at 09:37:44PM -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
> > Now I'm getting bit by the rpmautospec and COPR issue.
>
> Please be more precise. How are you building the rpms?
>
The SRPMS? I'm using "rpkg build <PROJECT>"
> If rpmautospec is used in COPR, and the build is started in a
> compatible way, the release field should be the same as in koji.
>
> > I'm trying to test rebuilds of all dependent packages for a new
> OpenColorIO
> > release, but usd uses rpmautospec and in Fedora it's usd-<version>-16 but
> > COPR is calculating it as usd-<version>-9 so the Fedora version has a
> > higher NEVR.
>
> First of all, if you e.g. want to test the rebuilt packages on your system,
> you can always install a lower version than the one currently released.
> Dnf allows both downgrades and installations of a specific package and
> a specific package version.
>
I don't want to test the packages per say, I just need COPR to pull in the
rebuilt package instead of the one in Fedora, otherwise I get dnf conflicts:
Problem: package usd-libs-22.05b-16.fc38.x86_64 requires
libOpenColorIO.so.2.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
- cannot install both OpenColorIO-2.1.2-5.fc38.1.x86_64 and
OpenColorIO-2.2.0-1.fc38.x86_64
- package usd-devel-22.05b-16.fc38.x86_64 requires usd-libs(x86-64)
= 22.05b-16.fc38, but none of the providers can be installed
- package OpenColorIO-devel-2.2.0-1.fc38.x86_64 requires
libOpenColorIO.so.2.2()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
- package OpenColorIO-devel-2.2.0-1.fc38.x86_64 requires
OpenColorIO(x86-64) = 2.2.0-1.fc38, but none of the providers can be
installed
- cannot install the best candidate for the job
> Second, how exactly are you building the package?
> Looking at [1], you used "Source Type: SRPM or .spec file upload".
> How was it generated?
>
> [1] https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/hobbes1069/OIIO/build/5210045/
>
> Both 'fedpkg srpm' and uploading that to copr, and letting copr build from
> dist-git should result in the expected release. (Though without other steps
> it'll still be the same as the version in Fedora release, so you'll need
> to tell dnf to install that specific build.)
>
Looks like the problem is using `rpkg` but that's the easiest method and
has worked great until now...
Thanks,
Richard
[Attachment #5 (text/html)]
<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 1:16 AM Zbigniew \
Jędrzejewski-Szmek <<a href="mailto:zbyszek@in.waw.pl">zbyszek@in.waw.pl</a>> \
wrote:<br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" \
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid \
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On Mon, Jan 09, 2023 at 09:37:44PM -0600, Richard \
Shaw wrote:<br> > Now I'm getting bit by the rpmautospec and COPR issue.<br>
<br>
Please be more precise. How are you building the \
rpms?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The SRPMS? I'm using "rpkg build \
<PROJECT>"</div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote \
class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid \
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">If rpmautospec is used in COPR, and the build is \
started in a<br> compatible way, the release field should be the same as in koji.<br>
<br>
> I'm trying to test rebuilds of all dependent packages for a new \
OpenColorIO<br> > release, but usd uses rpmautospec and in Fedora it's \
usd-<version>-16 but<br> > COPR is calculating it as usd-<version>-9 \
so the Fedora version has a<br> > higher NEVR.<br>
<br>
First of all, if you e.g. want to test the rebuilt packages on your system,<br>
you can always install a lower version than the one currently released.<br>
Dnf allows both downgrades and installations of a specific package and<br>
a specific package version.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I don't want to \
test the packages per say, I just need COPR to pull in the rebuilt package instead of \
the one in Fedora, otherwise I get dnf conflicts:</div><div><br></div><pre \
style="color:rgb(0,0,0);white-space:pre-wrap"> Problem: package \
usd-libs-22.05b-16.fc38.x86_64 requires libOpenColorIO.so.2.1()(64bit), but none of \
the providers can be installed
- cannot install both OpenColorIO-2.1.2-5.fc38.1.x86_64 and \
OpenColorIO-2.2.0-1.fc38.x86_64
- package usd-devel-22.05b-16.fc38.x86_64 requires usd-libs(x86-64) = \
22.05b-16.fc38, but none of the providers can be installed
- package OpenColorIO-devel-2.2.0-1.fc38.x86_64 requires \
libOpenColorIO.so.2.2()(64bit), but none of the providers can be \
installed
- package OpenColorIO-devel-2.2.0-1.fc38.x86_64 requires OpenColorIO(x86-64) = \
2.2.0-1.fc38, but none of the providers can be installed </pre><div><span \
style="color:rgb(0,0,0);white-space:pre-wrap"> - cannot install the best candidate \
for the job</span></div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" \
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid \
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Second, how exactly are you building the \
package?<br> Looking at [1], you used "Source Type: SRPM or .spec file \
upload".<br> How was it generated?<br>
<br>
[1] <a href="https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/hobbes1069/OIIO/build/5210045/" \
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/hobbes1069/OIIO/build/5210045/</a><br>
<br>
Both 'fedpkg srpm' and uploading that to copr, and letting copr build \
from<br> dist-git should result in the expected release. (Though without other \
steps<br> it'll still be the same as the version in Fedora release, so you'll \
need<br> to tell dnf to install that specific \
build.)<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Looks like the problem is using `rpkg` \
but that's the easiest method and has worked great until \
now...</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>Richard </div></div></div>
[Attachment #6 (text/plain)]
_______________________________________________
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
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic