On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 4:00 PM Tom Stellard <[email protected]> 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 _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] 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/[email protected]
