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 1943070 - pacemaker: FTBFS with upcoming autoconf-2.71
Summary: pacemaker: FTBFS with upcoming autoconf-2.71
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: pacemaker
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Klaus Wenninger
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: 1942967
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2021-03-25 12:50 UTC by Ondrej Dubaj
Modified: 2021-07-06 08:48 UTC (History)
7 users (show)

Fixed In Version: pacemaker-2.1.0-6.fc33; pacemaker-2.1.0-6.fc34; pacemaker-2.1.0-6.fc35
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2021-07-06 08:48:11 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Ondrej Dubaj 2021-03-25 12:50:06 UTC 
Your package fails to build with the newest upcoming autoconf-2.71, which is part of a wide Fedora change. Please see the attached copr: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/odubaj/autoconf-2.70/packages/. More information about testing your package when building with autoconf available here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Autoconf_271#How_To_Test
Comment 1 Ondrej Dubaj 2021-04-12 07:16:46 UTC 
Gentle ping.
Comment 2 Klaus Wenninger 2021-04-12 11:51:57 UTC 
(In reply to Ondrej Dubaj from comment #1)
> Gentle ping.

Sry that I didn't immediately come back to you.
The issues comes from a couple of ... foo() prototypes instead of ... foo(void).
I'm a bit surprised that autoconf adds this additional moaning ... but maybe just compiler flag defaults changing slightly.
Anyway the issue is cleaned up with upstream/master and we are about to start an upstream release-cycle within the next 2 weeks.
To make giving feedback on the release-candidates easier we usually are doing a fedora-release with each of the release-candidates.
Thus question is if you would be fine with a release that is compatible to autoconf-271 within the next 2 weeks.
If not I've just created a quick patch we could put on top of the current fedora release that I've just successfully tested building against your copr-repo.

Regards
Klaus
Comment 3 Ondrej Dubaj 2021-04-12 11:58:06 UTC 
Release in two weeks is no problem for us, we are aiming autoconf-2.71 for f36, so we have plenty of time till then. Thanks for the clarification!
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.