Re: Planning out Core Update 117

[Matthias Fischer <matthias.fischer@ipfire.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4186 bytes --]

Hi,

On 17.11.2017 22:25, Michael Tremer wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> and when you apply only a few? Are there any conflicts to expect?

Good question, I thought something like that. It's really a lot. But
sorry, my knowledge isn't good enough to be able to assess whether
conflicts will arise. BUILDING was ok, but BEHAVIOUR during productive
use? Don't know, sorry. Hopefully Marcel has tested this prior to
comitting? Any comments from him?

Surely I could test only with "only a few". Which ones would you have in
mind? For a start, I can't assess the 'packages' - I never used any of
these.

Best,
Matthias

> On Fri, 2017-11-17 at 20:37 +0100, Matthias Fischer wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> On 17.11.2017 13:59, Matthias Fischer wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> > 
>> > On 07.11.2017 11:44, Michael Tremer wrote:
>> > > ...
>> > > Could you also please review at least some of the patches that Marcel sent
>> > > last week?
>> > > ...
>> > 
>> > Done.
>> > 
>> > Applied all patches (19 commits) from '2017-10-31' against the current 'next':
>> > 
>> > ***SNIP***
>> > ...
>> > On branch next
>> > Changes not staged for commit:
>> >   (use "git add <file>..." to update what will be committed)
>> >   (use "git checkout -- <file>..." to discard changes in working directory)
>> > 
>> > 	modified:   config/rootfiles/common/boost
>> > 	modified:   config/rootfiles/common/cmake
>> > 	modified:   config/rootfiles/common/e2fsprogs
>> > 	modified:   config/rootfiles/common/expat
>> > 	modified:   config/rootfiles/common/gawk
>> > 	modified:   config/rootfiles/common/glib
>> > 	modified:   config/rootfiles/common/libarchive
>> > 	modified:   config/rootfiles/common/libupnp
>> > 	modified:   config/rootfiles/common/libxml2
>> > 	modified:   config/rootfiles/common/libxslt
>> > 	modified:   config/rootfiles/common/mpfr
>> > 	modified:   config/rootfiles/common/pciutils
>> > 	modified:   config/rootfiles/common/tcl
>> > 	modified:   config/rootfiles/common/texinfo
>> > 	modified:   config/rootfiles/common/xfsprogs
>> > 	modified:   config/rootfiles/packages/minidlna
>> > 	modified:   config/rootfiles/packages/nmap
>> > 	modified:   config/rootfiles/packages/stunnel
>> > 	modified:   lfs/boost
>> > 	modified:   lfs/cmake
>> > 	modified:   lfs/e2fsprogs
>> > 	modified:   lfs/expat
>> > 	modified:   lfs/gawk
>> > 	modified:   lfs/glib
>> > 	modified:   lfs/libarchive
>> > 	modified:   lfs/libupnp
>> > 	modified:   lfs/libxml2
>> > 	modified:   lfs/libxslt
>> > 	modified:   lfs/minidlna
>> > 	modified:   lfs/mpfr
>> > 	modified:   lfs/nmap
>> > 	modified:   lfs/pciutils
>> > 	modified:   lfs/rpcbind
>> > 	modified:   lfs/stunnel
>> > 	modified:   lfs/tcl
>> > 	modified:   lfs/texinfo
>> > 	modified:   lfs/xfsprogs
>> > 
>> > Untracked files:
>> >   (use "git add <file>..." to include in what will be committed)
>> > 
>> >         src/patches/rpcbind-0.2.4-vulnerability_fixes-1.patch
>> > ...
>> > ***SNAP***
>> > 
>> > Results:
>> > 
>> > Source for 'e2fsprogs 1.43.6' were missing, copied them to git.ipfire.org. No problem.
>> > Besides, in the meantime there's an update to '1.43.7', will test that with a clean build, too.
>> > 
>> > 'poppler 0.52.0' is complaining:
>> > 
>> > Changes in poppler-0.52.0 check rootfile! [see attachment]
>> > 
>> > Besides that, building was ok for now.
>> 
>> Final results:
>> 
>> All patches applied - 'poppler 0.52.0' needs rootfile fix.
>> 
>> The 'e2fsprogs'-update to 1.43.7 also applied - no further changes seem
>> to be necessary for this update so far.
>> 
>> @Marcel: would you do these changes or shall I?
>> 
>> Found by chance:
>> 
>> I found about 70 'configure: WARNING: unrecognized
>> options:'-notifications in '_build.base.log' and 'build.ipfire.log'.
>> 
>> These deal with '--enable-mpbsd', '--disable-nls' (gmp-6.1.2,
>> mpfr-3.1.6, e.g.), '--disable-evms', --enable-multibyte'
>> '--enable-zlib', '--disable-static' , '--disable-kernel-module' and so on.
>> 
>> I don't know why these option switches are still included or why they
>> exist, but: shouldn't we take a look at this?
>> 
>> Best,
>> Matthias
>