Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 1905166 - F34FailsToInstall: florist
Summary: F34FailsToInstall: florist
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED WORKSFORME
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: florist
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Pavel Zhukov
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: F34FailsToInstall
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2020-12-07 16:44 UTC by Miro Hrončok
Modified: 2020-12-13 11:19 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2020-12-13 11:19:48 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Miro Hrončok 2020-12-07 16:44:04 UTC 
Hello,

Please note that this comment was generated automatically. If you feel that this output has mistakes, please contact me via email (mhroncok).

Your package (florist) Fails To Install in Fedora 34:

can't install florist:
  - nothing provides libgnat-10.so()(64bit) needed by florist-2017-7.fc33.x86_64
  - nothing provides libgnarl-10.so()(64bit) needed by florist-2017-7.fc33.x86_64
  
If you know about this problem and are planning on fixing it, please acknowledge so by setting the bug status to ASSIGNED. If you don't have time to maintain this package, consider orphaning it, so maintainers of dependent packages realize the problem.


If you don't react accordingly to the policy for FTBFS/FTI bugs (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Fails_to_build_from_source_Fails_to_install/), your package may be orphaned in 8+ weeks.

P.S. The data was generated solely from koji buildroot, so it might be newer than the latest compose or the content on mirrors.

P.P.S. If this bug has been reported in the middle of upgrading multiple dependent packages, please consider using side tags: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/rawhide-gating/multi-builds/

Thanks!
Comment 1 Pavel Zhukov 2020-12-07 17:16:00 UTC 
This is because gcc has been updated. Who is supposed to do mass-rebuild in case of gcc libraries soname bump? What's the point of mass bugs filling?
Comment 2 Miro Hrončok 2020-12-07 17:23:21 UTC 
> Who is supposed to do mass-rebuild in case of gcc libraries soname bump?

The GCC maintainer's I'd say. I'll start a thread about this on devel.


> What's the point of mass bugs filling?

Raising awareness to the issue.
Comment 3 Miro Hrončok 2020-12-07 17:30:23 UTC 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/CGIKHZYMYWFQU6UDW4PFLK2SEBNDVRST/
Comment 4 Pavel Zhukov 2020-12-07 17:35:00 UTC 
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #2)
> > Who is supposed to do mass-rebuild in case of gcc libraries soname bump?
> 
> The GCC maintainer's I'd say. I'll start a thread about this on devel.
It used to be mass-rebuilds triggered by gcc update in the past. Looks like it's not the case anymore https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/GNUToolchain#Detailed_Description

> 
> 
> > What's the point of mass bugs filling?
> 
> Raising awareness to the issue.

IMO it should be some kind of revdep test in gcc/ci/whatever. Not filling 200+ bugs instead but I don't have full picture here.
Comment 5 Miro Hrončok 2020-12-07 17:37:55 UTC 
Yes, the gcc update should have been coordinated wrt the soname bumps. It wasn't :(

I am sorry that the automation affected you by many bugzillas, however it's just a symptom of the above.

PS Once the packages are rebuilt, the buzilla is also automatically closed.
Comment 6 Pavel Zhukov 2020-12-07 17:44:07 UTC 
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #5)
> Yes, the gcc update should have been coordinated wrt the soname bumps. It
> wasn't :(
> 
> I am sorry that the automation affected you by many bugzillas, however it's
> just a symptom of the above.
> 
> PS Once the packages are rebuilt, the buzilla is also automatically closed.

Well I have to rebootstrap entire stack now. Thank you for heads-up.
Comment 7 Miro Hrončok 2020-12-07 17:49:03 UTC 
> Not filling 200+ bugs instead but I don't have full picture here.

BTW It's 17, not 200+.
Comment 8 Miro Hrončok 2020-12-13 11:19:48 UTC 
Hello,

Please note that this comment was generated automatically. If you feel that this output has mistakes, please contact me via email (mhroncok).

All subpackages of a package against which this bug was filled are now installable or removed from Fedora 34.

Thanks for taking care of it!
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.