Overview
Request 1178150 declined
- Fix build error for Leap.
So slowly I have no more desire to contribute anything to openSUSE. Actually, everything is rejected.
It seems to me that you don't know your own guidelines.
At https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Build_Service_cross_distribution_howto
Distribution Variable Comment
openSUSE Tumbleweed %if 0%{?suse_version} > 1600
And gcc 8 is better than gcc 12?
That is absolutely incomprehensible.
The package has not been built for Leap for quite some time because no one is taking care of it. Then someone does. Fixes the problem. The package finally builds for Leap and Tumbleweed,
And then there are such strange reasons for a rejection.
Request History
ecsos created request
- Fix build error for Leap.
So slowly I have no more desire to contribute anything to openSUSE. Actually, everything is rejected.
It seems to me that you don't know your own guidelines.
At https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Build_Service_cross_distribution_howto
Distribution Variable Comment
openSUSE Tumbleweed %if 0%{?suse_version} > 1600
And gcc 8 is better than gcc 12?
That is absolutely incomprehensible.
The package has not been built for Leap for quite some time because no one is taking care of it. Then someone does. Fixes the problem. The package finally builds for Leap and Tumbleweed,
And then there are such strange reasons for a rejection.
dirkmueller declined request
merged my change as suggested above.
Hi Eric, sorry for this being frustrating to you. I do know our own guidelines. to quote, they say the following (from the page you quoted):
Check for Tumbleweed should be done by
%if 0%{?suse_version} > 1600. you are doing not what the page is recommending you to do, but something else, concretely%if 0%{?suse_version} <= 1600. this is not the same, because it "passes" (is true) if ?suse_version is unset, while the other condition "fails" when ?suse_version is unset (which is the behavior we want.the build error you're having can be fixed by this diff, which is easy to review, does not introduce the above problem and also uses the "correct" compiler:
--- spdlog.spec (revision ef9766057ce8ee37240907cca84db360) +++ spdlog.spec (working copy) @@ -30,9 +30,9 @@ #Patch0: https://patch-diff.githubusercontent.com/raw/gabime/spdlog/pull/2827.patch BuildRequires: cmake >= 3.10 %if 0%{?suse_version} > 1500 -BuildRequires: gcc-c++ >= 8 +BuildRequires: gcc-c++ >= 13 %else -BuildRequires: gcc8-c++ +BuildRequires: gcc13-c++ %endif BuildRequires: ninja BuildRequires: pkgconfig @@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ %build export CXX=g++ -test -x "$(type -p g++-8)" && export CXX=g++-8 +test -x "$(type -p g++-13)" && export CXX=g++-13 # spdlog embodies fmt ABI; add some symvers so both ld.so and rpm notice the change. v=v$(rpm -q --qf="%%{VERSION}" --whatprovides "pkgconfig(fmt)" | sed -e 's/\..*//')if it's too frustrating to you, I can submit that change myself.
@comrad: review reminder