Can you send newer openh264-2.4.0-2.fc40 build that just finished instead please?

@kalev can we get 38 & 39 builds as well please?

Sure, here you go:

openh264-2.4.0-2.fc40
openh264-2.4.0-2.fc39
openh264-2.4.0-2.fc38
openh264-2.4.0-2.el9

Update: 40 is done, now onto the others.

How long until the packages are visible at the repo? It's still empty:

https://codecs.fedoraproject.org/openh264/40/x86_64/os/

Update: 40 is done, now onto the others.

What does it mean that "40 is done"? Were the packages sent to Cisco for hosting? It would be good to wrap this up so that rawhide users can start using the packages - the F40 repository is empty since F39 branching.

Update: 40 is done, now onto the others.

What does it mean that "40 is done"? Were the packages sent to Cisco for hosting? It would be good to wrap this up so that rawhide users can start using the packages - the F40 repository is empty since F39 branching.

Yes, by "done" I meant that the packages were sent to Cisco on Dec 12th.
However, as of the time of writing I haven't received confirmation from Cisco that the rpms are updated on their CDN.

I tried to check via:
curl -I http://ciscobinary.openh264.org/openh264-2.4.0-2.fc40.x86_64.rpm
and I get:
HTTP/1.1 404 Not Found

Relevant SOP:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/infra/releng_misc_guide/sop_generating_openh264_composes/#_syncing_the_compose_to_sundries01

Thanks for the update, @patrikp! I wonder if you could send them a gentle ping over email? Maybe the first email just got lost somehow.

I've sent an email to @jdetiber and Stephen Augustus about it. Hopefully they can help.

Hello everyone,

I wanted to update you on a recent hiccup we encountered just before the holidays. We've been using email (I know, not the ideal method) to send binaries to CISCO, and unfortunately, one of the attachments didn't make it through. I made sure to resend it before taking time off, but, unsurprisingly, it encountered the same issues.

To resolve this, @patrikp divided the archives into smaller chunks and resent them today. I'm optimistic that they will be on the CDN by the end of this week.

Thank you for your understanding.

I just finished verifying that the binaries are now available.

They aren't, as far as I can tell.
https://codecs.fedoraproject.org/openh264/40/ is showing last modified date of Aug 16th, 2023 and is still empty.

Thanks a lot for the help with this, @jdetiber!

@rathann, jdetiber is saying that the rpms are now available on Cisco CDN. Fedora's side (codecs.fedoraproject.org) still needs updating to pick this up.

@humaton @patrikp When you roll this out, any chance you could do F40 first and wait a week or so before doing the rest? I'm starting to get a bit cold feet in case there are regressions and the possibility it might take months to get new replacement builds out in case something doesn't work right. (There's no other QA for this besides me since it doesn't go through Bodhi, which makes it all a bit more risky than other package updates.)

And maybe just in case make copies of the old repodata that's currently on codecs.fedoraproject.org before rolling things out, so that there's a way to roll the repodata updates back if needed?

@kalev I see the confirmation from Cisco and that the rpms are available there. Let me sync it on our side, I'll only do F40 for now and we can wait for a while.

Sounds good - thanks!

It should be synced now.
https://codecs.fedoraproject.org/openh264/40/

Excellent! Thank you for the help with this, @patrikp!

I haven't heard of any regressions and the 2.4.0 builds seem to work fine as much as I can tell. If you want to update the stable branches, I think it's good to go now.

However, in the mean time, openh264 2.4.1 has come out and F40 has branched, which once again means that the rawhide openh264 repo is empty and we need to get an initial build out, this time for F41. I've opened a new request for 2.4.1 and F41, https://pagure.io/releng/issue/11955 and I'd be fine if releng wants to skip updating to 2.4.0 in stable branches and go directly to 2.4.1 to avoid unnecessary extra work.

Up to you @patrikp, if you want to close this ticket or finish up the 2.4.0 builds :) Thanks for all the help in any case!