Hi James, On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 4:34 pm James Cameron <<a href="mailto:quozl@laptop.org">quozl@laptop.org</a>> wrote: <blockquote>On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 01:21:19AM -0500, Jerry Vonau wrote: > > > > On September 3, 2015 at 12:38 AM James Cameron <<a href="mailto:quozl@laptop.org">quozl@laptop.org</a>> 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. </blockquote> I'm pretty sure it is. But most of the maintainers disable broot and just run in natively in Fedora. <blockquote> 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. ;-) </blockquote> 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 <blockquote> > > 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. </blockquote> <blockquote> -- James Cameron <a href="http://quozl.linux.org.au/">http://quozl.linux.org.au/</a> _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list <a href="mailto:Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org">Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org</a> <a href="http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel">http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel</a> </blockquote>