Yes, builds in [1] were built with the `f38-build-side-60497` side tag. In
[1] there are two errors that were not here in time I hit the submit button
(maybe I should wait a bit longer):
* `nothing provides libqgpgme.so.7 needed by
kdepim-addons-22.08.3-1.fc38.i686` - this one was
caused by not building `kdepim-addons` on `i686` since missing
`libphonenumber` on `i686`.
`libphonenumber` is not built for `i686` anymore due to `ExclusiveArch:
%{java_arches}`. This
can be fixed by skipping building the Java binding for `i686` only.
* ```
Undeclared file conflicts:
kleopatra-*.i686 provides ... which is also provided by kleopatra-*.x86_64
...
kmail-*.i686 provides ... which is also provided by kmail-*.x86_64
...
```
These must have appeared also in the update before, but I cannot find
`rpmdeplint` tests
here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-e8d23a026e
I submitted [2] approx. 22h after [1] became stable. Have no idea why the
builds from pre-[1] rawhide were picked up. However, `rpmdeplint`
repoclosure failures are happening only on `i686` so maybe this is somehow
connected with `kdepim-addons` not built for `i686`.
Regards and sorry for the chaos,
Jiri
[1] https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-4c1b011b1b
[2] https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-603eea89a3
On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 11:54 AM Miro Hrončok <mhron...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 02. 12. 22 1:46, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2022-11-30 at 13:59 +0100, Jiri Kucera wrote:
> >> Thanks for the reminder Petr. I will do the rebase in rawhide only then.
> >
> > Thanks for taking care of these dependencies and announcing the bump.
> >
> > For extra bonus points :D, if it's not too much trouble, it would be
> > great if you could do this on a side tag in future - yes, even for
> > Rawhide. Without a side tag and combined update, the openQA tests for
> > the gpgme update fail:
> >
> https://openqa.stg.fedoraproject.org/tests/overview?version=38&groupid=2&build=Update-FEDORA-2022-603eea89a3&distri=fedora
> > if the gpgme bump and all dependent rebuilds were in the same update,
> > the tests would pass (assuming nothing's actually broken).
> >
> > Right now we're not gating Rawhide updates on test failures, but I do
> > check them all, so I had to make sure all the rebuilds had actually
> > been done, then add comments noting the tests need to be re-run after
> > the next Rawhide compose, then remember to re-run them so all that ugly
> > red ink goes away :D If/when we do start gating Rawhide on openQA
> > failures, this update would be blocked by gating.
>
> Interesting. I saw
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-4c1b011b1b where side
> tag
> was used.
>
> Later, there was
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-603eea89a3
> which only changed a small portion from the package.
>
> Why would the tests fails for the second update?
>
> --
> Miro Hrončok
> --
> Phone: +420777974800
> IRC: mhroncok
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Do not reply to spam, report it:
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
>
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
