[Sugar-devel] Bug 1240354 - SoaS live x86_64 20150706 does not login from live system user

[James Cameron]

On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 01:21:19AM -0500, Jerry Vonau wrote:
> 
> 
> > On September 3, 2015 at 12:38 AM James Cameron <quozl at laptop.org> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 12:11:38AM -0500, Jerry Vonau wrote:
> > > F22 upgrades clean to 106, feels pretty zippy in a VM. Back to
> > > figuring out what is now different in the dependencies given the
> > > logs[1] for the builds look more or less the same F21 <-> F23. There
> > > has to be a rpm package with a library that was split somewhere,
> > > sugar's toolkit wants to use something but is left unsatisfied.
> > 
> > It might be interesting to see if the F23 build of 0.104.1 also has
> > the problem on F23.  As further proof that it isn't anything Sugar did.
> > 
> I can get to a cmdline via the bootprompt using the F23 iso, so I'll do the
> 104 on F23 test, just not tonight. 
> 
> It's not what sugar did, but didn't do yet, adapt to the new build
> environment for F23. Is the current recommended sugar development
> still sugar-build at EOL'd F20?

Good question.  Don't know.  Hopefully someone from Sugar Labs can
tell us.

Although sugar-build hides all these kinds of problems by building on
the target system instead of packaging.

sugar-build is not used when deploying, so it seems unwise to use it
for development.  ;-)

> > Comparing the logs of 0.104.1 build for x86_64 between F22 and F23,
> > the only interesting change that springs up is;
> > 
> > -LDFLAGS='-Wl,-z,relro '
> > +LDFLAGS='-Wl,-z,relro -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-ld'
> > 
> > Doesn't seem related to the reported problem, however.
> 
> I tend to agree, but I'm not sure of the full effect of the flag. I
> think there is a package that was split and a dependence needed by
> sugar/toolkit moved to a new sub-package and is not in what is
> declared as (Build)Requires anymore. If this is true then the new
> sub-package should now be used in the spec file somewhere, just
> finding the package.

Hmm, doesn't seem related to the sugarext library missing from the
expected directory.  Maybe I've misunderstood the problem.

-- 
James Cameron
http://quozl.linux.org.au/