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

[Sam P.]

Hi James,

On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 4:34 pm James Cameron <quozl at laptop.org> wrote:

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.

I'm pretty sure it is.  But most of the maintainers disable broot and just
run in natively in Fedora.

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.  ;-)

Works fine if you disable broot.  Maybe we should change defaults (no broot
for Fedora ever).

Otherwise there is really nothing wrong with a bunch of build scripts and
package install scripts IMHO :)

Thanks,
Sam

> > 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/
_______________________________________________
Sugar-devel mailing list
Sugar-devel at lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/sugar-devel/attachments/20150903/d4392e5a/attachment.html>