[Sugar-devel] Bug 1240354 - SoaS live x86_64 20150706 does not login from live system user
me at jvonau.ca
Thu Sep 3 03:45:45 EDT 2015
> On September 3, 2015 at 1:34 AM 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 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.
I know I agree, that is why I'm looking at the devel packages that are
installed there, make a change recompile and test, but a quick way to lose
track of a dependence... in which package or is that the lib package or...
You get the idea.
> sugar-build is not used when deploying, so it seems unwise to use it
> for development. ;-)
Yea but some improvements got written while using it.
> > > 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.
I wanted to poke around a bit because of Peter comment about s/b /usr/lib64
in bugzilla for info. That why I booted to the cmdline, filesystem looks
right /lib -> /usr/lib /lib64 -> /usr/lib64 with libsugarext and
More information about the Sugar-devel