runroot changing during the course of a rawhide pungi run

g why one failed when others didn't. Is my understanding correct? Dusty [1] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1048851 [2] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25243479 [3] https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/compose/rawhide/Fedora-Rawhide-20180222.n.1/

Re: Help needed with new segfaults in frame unwinding under gcc8

> "JR" == John Reiser writes: JR> Those one-line tracebacks, with no source file and no line number, JR> are a clue that valgrind could find no corresponding degbuginfo. JR> Please install the debuginfo for libcyrus_imap.so.0.0.0 and JR> libstdc++.so.6.0.25, then re-run valgrind. This is ver

Re: [ACTION NEEDED] Missing BuildRequires: gcc/gcc-c++

> "SJS" == Stephen John Smoogen writes: SJS> OK this is a problem on my part. I have taken sections which have SJS> MUST/WILL/SHOULD in them to be done and I have taken ones without SJS> that as general guidance. Unfortunately the guidelines simply do not consistently capitalize SHOULD/MUST

Re: Help needed with new segfaults in frame unwinding under gcc8

Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: "JR" == John Reiser writes: JR> Please create a bugzilla report, or other well-known tracking JR> instance. But where? I don't even know whose problem this is. It's taken me days of what little free time I have just to figure out how to get the backtrace I was ab

Re: [modularity] fedora/linux/modular 404

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 4:51 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On 02/22/2018 10:33 AM, milanisko k wrote: > > Folks, > > > > > > I've just encountered $Subj today, yesterday the same content URL > > < > http://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/modular/updates/testing/27/Server/x86_64/ > > > > worked ju

Schedule for Friday's FESCo Meeting (2018-02-23)

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo meeting Friday at 15:00UTC in #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net. Note that this is a change in time from the previous FESCo meeting time. To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UTCHowt

Re: Help needed with new segfaults in frame unwinding under gcc8

> "JR" == John Reiser writes: JR> Please create a bugzilla report, or other well-known tracking JR> instance. But where? I don't even know whose problem this is. It's taken me days of what little free time I have just to figure out how to get the backtrace I was able to provide. I am cert

Re: [modularity] fedora/linux/modular 404

On 02/22/2018 10:33 AM, milanisko k wrote: > Folks, > > > I've just encountered $Subj today, yesterday the same content URL > > worked just OK. Is this expected or rather an exception? In the former > case, w

Re: Help needed with new segfaults in frame unwinding under gcc8

I could really use some help from the gcc experts. Please create a bugzilla report, or other well-known tracking instance. In particular, bugzilla asks about repeatability, version numbers, etc. Non-repeatability due to unspecified or mismatched versions is frustrating. A package I maintain, c

Re: Fedora mass rebuild 2018

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 12:49 PM, Marek Polacek wrote: > As many of you know, every year we (the GCC team) rebuild all the Fedora > packages with the upcoming GCC, so as to reveal as many bugs as possible > before > we release the new version. As in the previous years, it is only performed on >

Help needed with new segfaults in frame unwinding under gcc8

I could really use some help from the gcc experts. A package I maintain, cyrus-imapd, contains two extensive test suites which we run at package build time. After the big flag day where we updated gcc and glibc and such in rawhide, one of the test suites now shows failures and produces 22 core du

[modularity] fedora/linux/modular 404

Folks, I've just encountered $Subj today, yesterday the same content URL worked just OK. Is this expected or rather an exception? In the former case, where can I get the modular content? Thanks! milan PS

"libcryptopp update to 6.1.0 with ABI change"

Hi, I plan to update cryptopp to 6.1.0 release for f28+ later today. This will not change the ABI number, because our package was previously patched with a forged SONAME to only use the one number convention (aka libcryptopp.so.6 instead of libcryptopp.so.6.0). The good news, is that upstream acc

Fedora mass rebuild 2018

As many of you know, every year we (the GCC team) rebuild all the Fedora packages with the upcoming GCC, so as to reveal as many bugs as possible before we release the new version. As in the previous years, it is only performed on x86_64 only; we unfortunately lack the resources to deal with other

Re: [ACTION NEEDED] Missing BuildRequires: gcc/gcc-c++

On 22 February 2018 at 10:47, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 09:53:25AM -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: >> I am trying to figure out the special cases here. Why are some >> packages more equal than others. >> >> In the end, I am just trying to figure out what the n

Re: [ACTION NEEDED] Missing BuildRequires: gcc/gcc-c++

On Sun, 18 Feb 2018 18:09:40 +0100 Igor Gnatenko wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > Over this weekend I've performed scratch-mass-rebuild without having > gcc and gcc-c++ in buildroot of all Fedora packages, many of which > failed due to random reasons and I grepped a

Re: [ACTION NEEDED] Missing BuildRequires: gcc/gcc-c++

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 09:53:25AM -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > I am trying to figure out the special cases here. Why are some > packages more equal than others. > > In the end, I am just trying to figure out what the new "Fedora > Project Packagers License" is. Something like: > > A pack

Re: Pull requests for compat-gcc-34

15.02.2018 12:02 Rafal Luzynski wrote: > > > 9.02.2018 11:34 Rafal Luzynski wrote: > > [...] > > Please: > > - backport the solution to F26 and F27 as well, this should be much > > easier than in F28 (my pull requests may be helpful), > > - mark my pull requests as merged/obsolete/whatever is app

Re: [ACTION NEEDED] Missing BuildRequires: gcc/gcc-c++

On 22 February 2018 at 02:41, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > On Wed, 2018-02-21 at 10:51 -0500, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: >> On 21 February 2018 at 09:53, Reindl Harald >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > it's pretty easy: >> > >> > when you don't list your Bu

Re: New "tests" namespace to share test code

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 05:28:20PM +0100, Petr Šplíchal wrote: > Hi! > > During the last days there have been concerns raised regarding > what is an appropriate content for the tests namespace. [1] My > original idea was to enable sharing tests even across branches of > the same component, not onl

Re: Fwd: Broken dependencies: rust-chan

On 02/22/2018 02:24 PM, Randy Barlow wrote: I've been receiving e-mails that say that one of my packages has broken dependencies, but I believe the dependencies are satisfied. Is the system that generates these e-mails unaware of rich rpm dependencies, perhaps? Yes: https://pagure.io/releng/iss

Fwd: Broken dependencies: rust-chan

I've been receiving e-mails that say that one of my packages has broken dependencies, but I believe the dependencies are satisfied. Is the system that generates these e-mails unaware of rich rpm dependencies, perhaps? Forwarded Message Subject: Broken dependencies: rust-chan Dat

Re: Package stops supporting python 2.7 in latest version, what to do now

On 21.2.2018 22:18, Sergio Pascual wrote: Hello all, python package astropy as ceased to support python 2.7 in its latest version, 3.0. It still provides a LTS version that supports both python 2 and 3. As astropy packagers, we seek advice on how to manage this situation. So the posibilities