Re: rawhide buildroot seems weird state, Child return code was: 255

On Sat, Sep 02, 2023 at 09:40:39AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Sat, Sep 02, 2023 at 05:00:37PM +0200, Sandro wrote: > > On 02-09-2023 14:07, Mamoru TASAKA wrote: > > > Then: > > > > > > DEBUG util.py:444:  Running transaction check > > > DEBUG util.py:444:  Transaction check succeeded. > > > DE

Re: rawhide buildroot seems weird state, Child return code was: 255

On Sat, Sep 02, 2023 at 05:00:37PM +0200, Sandro wrote: > On 02-09-2023 14:07, Mamoru TASAKA wrote: > > Then: > > > > DEBUG util.py:444:  Running transaction check > > DEBUG util.py:444:  Transaction check succeeded. > > DEBUG util.py:444:  Running transaction test > > DEBUG util.py:444:  Transact

Re: rawhide buildroot seems weird state, Child return code was: 255

On 02-09-2023 14:07, Mamoru TASAKA wrote: Then: DEBUG util.py:444:  Running transaction check DEBUG util.py:444:  Transaction check succeeded. DEBUG util.py:444:  Running transaction test DEBUG util.py:444:  Transaction test succeeded. DEBUG util.py:444:  Running transaction DEBUG util.py:595: 

Re: rawhide buildroot seems weird state, Child return code was: 255

On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 21:07:07 +0900 Mamoru TASAKA wrote: > Hello, all: > > Looks like currently rawhide buildroot seems weird state, mainly > on ppc64le, but sometimes also on other arches: > > e.g. > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=105650426 ^^^ noth

rawhide buildroot seems weird state, Child return code was: 255

Hello, all: Looks like currently rawhide buildroot seems weird state, mainly on ppc64le, but sometimes also on other arches: e.g. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=105650426 https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=105642860 https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji

Re: Strange build failures in rawhide buildroot (cont'd) - glibc 2.33 dev snapshot?

On Sat, 2020-08-15 at 12:57 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 12:50 PM Chris Murphy wrote: > > > > Anyone know if Anaconda chroots are nspawn based? I ask because I'm > > tracking a bug that only happens when a qemu-kvm VM uses io=io_uring > > instead of threads; but consistent

Re: Strange build failures in rawhide buildroot (cont'd) - glibc 2.33 dev snapshot?

On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 8:52 PM Chris Murphy wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 9:47 AM Fabio Valentini wrote: > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 5:30 PM Paul Howarth wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, 15 Aug 2020 16:28:47 +0200 > > > Fabio Valentini wrote: > > > > - autoreconf fails because %build needs

Re: Strange build failures in rawhide buildroot (cont'd) - glibc 2.33 dev snapshot?

On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 12:50 PM Chris Murphy wrote: > > Anyone know if Anaconda chroots are nspawn based? I ask because I'm > tracking a bug that only happens when a qemu-kvm VM uses io=io_uring > instead of threads; but consistently it isn't triggered until the > installation transitions from rs

Re: Strange build failures in rawhide buildroot (cont'd) - glibc 2.33 dev snapshot?

On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 9:47 AM Fabio Valentini wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 5:30 PM Paul Howarth wrote: > > > > On Sat, 15 Aug 2020 16:28:47 +0200 > > Fabio Valentini wrote: > > > - autoreconf fails because %build needs a newer shell (protobuf): > > > > > > /usr/bin/autoconf: This script

Re: Strange build failures in rawhide buildroot (cont'd) - glibc 2.33 dev snapshot?

On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 05:46:43PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 5:30 PM Paul Howarth wrote: > > It does! Running mock with --isolation=simple works around the issue. > Looks like the glibc 2.32.9000 snapshot broke systemd-nspawn based > chroots with this change: > - Lin

Re: Strange build failures in rawhide buildroot (cont'd) - glibc 2.33 dev snapshot?

On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 11:30 AM Paul Howarth wrote: > > On Sat, 15 Aug 2020 16:28:47 +0200 > Fabio Valentini wrote: > > - autoreconf fails because %build needs a newer shell (protobuf): > > > > /usr/bin/autoconf: This script requires a shell more modern than all > > /usr/bin/autoconf: the shells

Re: Strange build failures in rawhide buildroot (cont'd) - glibc 2.33 dev snapshot?

On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 5:30 PM Paul Howarth wrote: > > On Sat, 15 Aug 2020 16:28:47 +0200 > Fabio Valentini wrote: > > - autoreconf fails because %build needs a newer shell (protobuf): > > > > /usr/bin/autoconf: This script requires a shell more modern than all > > /usr/bin/autoconf: the shells

Re: Strange build failures in rawhide buildroot (cont'd) - glibc 2.33 dev snapshot?

On Sat, 15 Aug 2020 16:28:47 +0200 Fabio Valentini wrote: > - autoreconf fails because %build needs a newer shell (protobuf): > > /usr/bin/autoconf: This script requires a shell more modern than all > /usr/bin/autoconf: the shells that I found on your system. > /usr/bin/autoconf: Please tell bug-

Re: Strange build failures in rawhide buildroot (cont'd) - glibc 2.33 dev snapshot?

On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 10:00 PM Jerry James wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 1:29 PM Jerry James wrote: > > I added "exit 1" to the end of %install in one of the affected OCaml > > packages, so that I could inspect the contents of > > /builddir/build/BUILDROOT in the mock chroot. The files al

Re: Strange build failures in rawhide buildroot (cont'd) - glibc 2.33 dev snapshot?

On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 09:14:46PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > Sérgio, I have no idea what you're talking about here. Do you mean the > new policy to wait with a rawhide compose until the first "branched" > compose is successful and synced out? If I understand correctly, that > "policy" is e

Re: Strange build failures in rawhide buildroot (cont'd) - glibc 2.33 dev snapshot?

On Sat, 2020-08-15 at 00:46 +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > There's a difference between bodhi pushing a rawhide update to > "stable" and it being included in "rawhide" repositories. > Because bodhi does not compose rawhide. OK, didn't know that. thanks for the update -- Sérgio M. B. _

Re: Strange build failures in rawhide buildroot (cont'd) - glibc 2.33 dev snapshot?

On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 12:37 AM Sérgio Basto wrote: > > On Fri, 2020-08-14 at 21:14 +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 8:48 PM Sérgio Basto > > wrote: > > > On Fri, 2020-08-14 at 20:30 +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > > > So, I've been trying to figure out strange build f

Re: Strange build failures in rawhide buildroot (cont'd) - glibc 2.33 dev snapshot?

On Fri, 2020-08-14 at 21:14 +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 8:48 PM Sérgio Basto > wrote: > > On Fri, 2020-08-14 at 20:30 +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > > So, I've been trying to figure out strange build failures in my > > > Java > > > packages when running mock with `--

Re: Strange build failures in rawhide buildroot (cont'd) - glibc 2.33 dev snapshot?

On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 1:29 PM Jerry James wrote: > I added "exit 1" to the end of %install in one of the affected OCaml > packages, so that I could inspect the contents of > /builddir/build/BUILDROOT in the mock chroot. The files all have the > correct permissions. Yet when the binary RPM is g

Re: Strange build failures in rawhide buildroot (cont'd) - glibc 2.33 dev snapshot?

On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 1:15 PM Fabio Valentini wrote: > Sérgio, I have no idea what you're talking about here. Do you mean the > new policy to wait with a rawhide compose until the first "branched" > compose is successful and synced out? If I understand correctly, that > "policy" is enforced by b

Re: Strange build failures in rawhide buildroot (cont'd) - glibc 2.33 dev snapshot?

On Fri, Aug 14, 2020 at 8:48 PM Sérgio Basto wrote: > > On Fri, 2020-08-14 at 20:30 +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > So, I've been trying to figure out strange build failures in my Java > > packages when running mock with `--enablerepo local`. > > > > First I thought java-11-openjdk update might

Re: Strange build failures in rawhide buildroot (cont'd) - glibc 2.33 dev snapshot?

On Fri, 2020-08-14 at 20:30 +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > So, I've been trying to figure out strange build failures in my Java > packages when running mock with `--enablerepo local`. > > First I thought java-11-openjdk update might be to blame, but now I > found another "unrelated" issue: > > O

Strange build failures in rawhide buildroot (cont'd) - glibc 2.33 dev snapshot?

So, I've been trying to figure out strange build failures in my Java packages when running mock with `--enablerepo local`. First I thought java-11-openjdk update might be to blame, but now I found another "unrelated" issue: OCaml packages built with dune and `--enablerepo local` right now produce

Re: dnf & rpm-devel both seem to be uninstallable in the Rawhide buildroot

On 31. 07. 19 20:18, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 08:02:30PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 31. 07. 19 19:54, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 31. 07. 19 19:45, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: The error is: DEBUG util.py:585:  BUILDSTDERR: Error: DEBUG util.py:585:  BUILDSTDERR:  Problem

Re: dnf & rpm-devel both seem to be uninstallable in the Rawhide buildroot

> "MH" == Miro Hrončok writes: MH> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ima-evm-utils/c/5c9e2a91303d801bd828ad63bd8fe3ea2bab3e17?branch=master MH> This updated soname version from libimaevm.so.0 to libimaevm.so.1. Note that it also added a dependency on the tss2 package. That's small and do

Re: dnf & rpm-devel both seem to be uninstallable in the Rawhide buildroot

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 08:02:30PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 31. 07. 19 19:54, Miro Hrončok wrote: > >On 31. 07. 19 19:45, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > >>The error is: > >> > >>DEBUG util.py:585:  BUILDSTDERR: Error: > >>DEBUG util.py:585:  BUILDSTDERR:  Problem 1: package > >>rpm-devel-4.15.0

Re: dnf & rpm-devel both seem to be uninstallable in the Rawhide buildroot

On 31. 07. 19 19:54, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 31. 07. 19 19:45, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: The error is: DEBUG util.py:585:  BUILDSTDERR: Error: DEBUG util.py:585:  BUILDSTDERR:  Problem 1: package rpm-devel-4.15.0-0.beta.2.fc31.1.x86_64 requires librpmsign.so.9()(64bit), but none of the provide

Re: dnf & rpm-devel both seem to be uninstallable in the Rawhide buildroot

On 31. 07. 19 19:45, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: The error is: DEBUG util.py:585: BUILDSTDERR: Error: DEBUG util.py:585: BUILDSTDERR: Problem 1: package rpm-devel-4.15.0-0.beta.2.fc31.1.x86_64 requires librpmsign.so.9()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed DEBUG util.py:585: BU

dnf & rpm-devel both seem to be uninstallable in the Rawhide buildroot

The error is: DEBUG util.py:585: BUILDSTDERR: Error: DEBUG util.py:585: BUILDSTDERR: Problem 1: package rpm-devel-4.15.0-0.beta.2.fc31.1.x86_64 requires librpmsign.so.9()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed DEBUG util.py:585: BUILDSTDERR: - package rpm-devel-4.15.0-0.beta.

Re: [HEADS-UP] gcc(-c++) builds are broken in Rawhide buildroot

Am Montag, den 21.01.2019, 12:47 +0100 schrieb Björn 'besser82' Esser: > The update to GCC 9 broke the Rawhide buildroot for any package that > (Build)Requires: gcc{,-c++} and/or libtool. > > I've already successfully rebuilt annobin and the rebuilt of libtool > is &

Re: [HEADS-UP] gcc(-c++) builds are broken in Rawhide buildroot

On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 03:11:24PM +0300, Vascom wrote: > Why package gcc has version 9.0.0 but in changelog - 9.0.1? Fixed in my copy. 9.0.0 is the right version. Jakub ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe sen

Re: [HEADS-UP] gcc(-c++) builds are broken in Rawhide buildroot

Why package gcc has version 9.0.0 but in changelog - 9.0.1? пн, 21 янв. 2019 г. в 14:48, Björn 'besser82' Esser : > > The update to GCC 9 broke the Rawhide buildroot for any package that > (Build)Requires: gcc{,-c++} and/or libtool. > > I've already successfully rebu

[HEADS-UP] gcc(-c++) builds are broken in Rawhide buildroot

The update to GCC 9 broke the Rawhide buildroot for any package that (Build)Requires: gcc{,-c++} and/or libtool. I've already successfully rebuilt annobin and the rebuilt of libtool is currently running. [1] After the libtool build has finished, everything should be working again. I&#x

Re: [HEADS UP] Rawhide buildroot now has glibc-minimal-langpack instead

On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 04:21:12PM +, Petr Pisar wrote: > On 2018-11-28, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > the removal of glibc-all-langpacks from the buildroot[0] is done. > > Standard buildroot has decreased from 445 to 237 megabytes in > > installed size ;) > > > That's nice, but Koji builders have

Re: [HEADS UP] Rawhide buildroot now has glibc-minimal-langpack instead

> * Petr Pisar [2018-12-03 11:24]: > > On 2018-11-28, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > > the removal of glibc-all-langpacks from the buildroot[0] is done. > > > Standard buildroot has decreased from 445 to 237 megabytes in > > > installed size ;) > > > > > That's nice, but Koji builders have not been rec

Re: [HEADS UP] Rawhide buildroot now has glibc-minimal-langpack instead

* Petr Pisar [2018-12-03 11:24]: > On 2018-11-28, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > the removal of glibc-all-langpacks from the buildroot[0] is done. > > Standard buildroot has decreased from 445 to 237 megabytes in > > installed size ;) > > > That's nice, but Koji builders have not been reconfigured away

Re: [HEADS UP] Rawhide buildroot now has glibc-minimal-langpack instead

On 2018-11-28, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > the removal of glibc-all-langpacks from the buildroot[0] is done. > Standard buildroot has decreased from 445 to 237 megabytes in > installed size ;) > That's nice, but Koji builders have not been reconfigured away from LANG=en_US.UTF-8 and that means that all

Re: [HEADS UP] Rawhide buildroot now has glibc-minimal-langpack instead

That is huge. Thx a lot. Vít Dne 28. 11. 18 v 20:33 Igor Gnatenko napsal(a): > Hello, > > the removal of glibc-all-langpacks from the buildroot[0] is done. > Standard buildroot has decreased from 445 to 237 megabytes in > installed size ;) > > Before: > DEBUG util.py:439: Install 146 Package

Re: [HEADS UP] Rawhide buildroot now has glibc-minimal-langpack instead

On Wed, 2018-11-28 at 20:33 +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > the removal of glibc-all-langpacks from the buildroot[0] is done. > Standard buildroot has decreased from 445 to 237 megabytes in > installed size ; Nice! signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[HEADS UP] Rawhide buildroot now has glibc-minimal-langpack instead

Hello, the removal of glibc-all-langpacks from the buildroot[0] is done. Standard buildroot has decreased from 445 to 237 megabytes in installed size ;) Before: DEBUG util.py:439: Install 146 Packages DEBUG util.py:439: Total download size: 86 M DEBUG util.py:439: Installed size: 445 M After

Re: Rawhide buildroot broken by dnf or dnf-plugins-core

On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 01:14:18PM +0100, Jaroslav Mracek wrote: > Thanks for your offer, but builds have been finished. Hope that it solved > all of issues. Can confirm it's all working now, thanks. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones Read my

Re: Rawhide buildroot broken by dnf or dnf-plugins-core

Thanks for your offer, but builds have been finished. Hope that it solved all of issues. libdnf-0.22.3-1.fc30 dnf-4.0.9-1.fc30 dnf-plugins-core-4.0.2-1.fc30

Re: Rawhide buildroot broken by dnf or dnf-plugins-core

On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 6:25 AM Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 12:21:04PM +0100, Jaroslav Mracek wrote: > > The update of dnf-plugins-core and dnf-plugins-extras is ready for rawhide. > > But I cannot make fedpkg build due to error: > > Kerberos authentication fails: unable

Re: Rawhide buildroot broken by dnf or dnf-plugins-core

On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 12:21:04PM +0100, Jaroslav Mracek wrote: > The update of dnf-plugins-core and dnf-plugins-extras is ready for rawhide. > But I cannot make fedpkg build due to error: > Kerberos authentication fails: unable to obtain a session > Could not execute build: Could not login to > h

Re: Rawhide buildroot broken by dnf or dnf-plugins-core

The update of dnf-plugins-core and dnf-plugins-extras is ready for rawhide. But I cannot make fedpkg build due to error: Kerberos authentication fails: unable to obtain a session Could not execute build: Could not login to https://koji.fedoraproject.org/kojihub I will ask a college to do it for me

Rawhide buildroot broken by dnf or dnf-plugins-core

DEBUG util.py:439: Error: DEBUG util.py:439: Problem: package dnf-plugins-core-4.0.0-2.fc30.noarch requires python3-dnf-plugins-core = 4.0.0-2.fc30, but none of the providers can be installed DEBUG util.py:439:- package dnf-4.0.9-1.fc30.noarch conflicts with python3-dnf-plugins-core < 4

Re: Broken rawhide buildroot/tools?

On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 10:14 AM, Emmanuel Seyman wrote: > * Jan Synacek [13/03/2018 09:59] : >> >> [1] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25678436 > > From the root.log: > > DEBUG util.py:439: No matching package to install: > 'NetworkManager-glib-devel' Never mind, I'm blind.

Re: Broken rawhide buildroot/tools?

* Jan Synacek [13/03/2018 09:59] : > > [1] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25678436 From the root.log: DEBUG util.py:439: No matching package to install: 'NetworkManager-glib-devel' DEBUG util.py:439: Not all dependencies satisfied DEBUG util.py:439: Error: Some packages co

Re: Broken rawhide buildroot/tools?

On Tue, Mar 13, 2018, 10:00 Jan Synacek wrote: > Hi, > > I was trying to update pidgin, but the package doesn't build and it > doesn't seem to be a packaging problem to me [1]. What's happening? > > [1] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25678436 It looks like it's still refere

Broken rawhide buildroot/tools?

Hi, I was trying to update pidgin, but the package doesn't build and it doesn't seem to be a packaging problem to me [1]. What's happening? [1] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=25678436 -- Jan Synacek Software Engineer, Red Hat ___ d

Re: Rawhide buildroot broken?

me annobin: No such file or directory > > > > ... > > > So, where is the gcc plugin annobin? > > > > In my fresh Rawhide buildroot > > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildrootinfo?buildrootID=11315754 > > I got > > annobin-3.1-2.fc28.x

Re: Rawhide buildroot broken?

plugin annobin? > > In my fresh Rawhide buildroot > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildrootinfo?buildrootID=11315754 > I got > annobin-3.1-2.fc28.x86_64.rpm > which contains > /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/7/plugin/annobin.so.0.0.0 > while latest an

Re: Rawhide buildroot broken?

On Sun, 04 Feb 2018 22:14:47 +0100, Doug Ledford wrote: > cc1: fatal error: inaccessible plugin file plugin/annobin.so expanded > from short plugin name annobin: No such file or directory ... > So, where is the gcc plugin annobin? In my fresh Rawhide buildroot

Rawhide buildroot broken?

I'm having an issue, and as far as I can tell it's not in my package. The rdma-core package uses cmake and ninja-build to build itself, and the very first test in the CMakeLists.txt makefile is the TestCCompiler test that is shipped with CMake, not one of our own tests. And it's failing because i

Re: rawhide buildroot creation changes

On Sat, 10 Oct 2015 21:32:40 +0100 "Richard W.M. Jones" wrote: > Here you go: > > https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/4921 > > Wasn't sure what Component to use, so I guessed > 'SCM (Source Code Management)'. Thanks. We will get it sorted... kevin pgpM7F76XjcWP.pgp Descr

Re: rawhide buildroot creation changes

On Sat, 10 Oct 2015 16:27:30 -0400 Neal Gompa wrote: > ​What about createrepo_c? Are we using that now for Koji instead of > createrepo?​ No. kevin pgpMr0EAuYoCC.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mai

Re: rawhide buildroot creation changes

On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 02:28:21PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Sat, 10 Oct 2015 21:03:32 +0100 > "Richard W.M. Jones" wrote: > > > (BTW is anyone else disturbed by the relatively massive user icons > > that are now shown on git.fedorahosted.org? Seems to be a recent > > change). > > Odd. I'm

Re: rawhide buildroot creation changes

On Sat, 10 Oct 2015 21:03:32 +0100 "Richard W.M. Jones" wrote: > (BTW is anyone else disturbed by the relatively massive user icons > that are now shown on git.fedorahosted.org? Seems to be a recent > change). Odd. I'm not sure how that happened, it was definitely not intended. Can you file a

Re: rawhide buildroot creation changes

On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Sat, 10 Oct 2015 15:54:41 -0400 > Neal Gompa wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Richard W.M. Jones > > wrote: > > ...snip... > > > > So I was having a look at how to change this in the configuration, > > > but I don't understan

Re: rawhide buildroot creation changes

On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 09:58:39PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 10:47:22AM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > > as of this morning US time we have changed the way rawhide buildroots are > > created in koji. rawhide is now using dnf to install the packages into the > > b

Re: rawhide buildroot creation changes

On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 09:12:34PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 04:07:41PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Richard W.M. Jones > > wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 03:54:41PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 a

Re: rawhide buildroot creation changes

On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 04:07:41PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Richard W.M. Jones > wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 03:54:41PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Richard W.M. Jones > > > wrote: > > > > Are we using a branch of koj

Re: rawhide buildroot creation changes

On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 03:54:41PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Richard W.M. Jones > > wrote: > > > Are we using a branch of koji? > > > > ​Is this part of the mysterious Koji 2.0 codebase that I can't

Re: rawhide buildroot creation changes

On Sat, 10 Oct 2015 15:54:41 -0400 Neal Gompa wrote: > On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Richard W.M. Jones > wrote: ...snip... > > So I was having a look at how to change this in the configuration, > > but I don't understand how the dnf.conf is generated at all. There > > seems to be no refer

Re: rawhide buildroot creation changes

On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 03:54:41PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Richard W.M. Jones > wrote: > > Are we using a branch of koji? > > ​Is this part of the mysterious Koji 2.0 codebase that I can't seem to find > anywhere?​ I don't know - was that question directed to

Re: rawhide buildroot creation changes

On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 09:58:39PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 10:47:22AM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > > > as of this morning US time we have changed the way rawhide buildroots > are > > > created in k

Re: rawhide buildroot creation changes

On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 09:58:39PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 10:47:22AM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > > as of this morning US time we have changed the way rawhide buildroots are > > created in koji. rawhide is now using dnf to install the packages into the > > b

Re: rawhide buildroot creation changes

On 10/10/2015 04:24 AM, Rex Dieter wrote: Tom Hughes wrote: On 10/10/15 10:59, Rex Dieter wrote: Dennis Gilmore wrote: as of this morning US time we have changed the way rawhide buildroots are created in koji. rawhide is now using dnf to install the packages into the buildroot. this means t

Re: rawhide buildroot creation changes

Tom Hughes wrote: > On 10/10/15 10:59, Rex Dieter wrote: >> Dennis Gilmore wrote: >> >>> as of this morning US time we have changed the way rawhide buildroots >>> are >>> created in koji. rawhide is now using dnf to install the packages into >>> the buildroot. this means that in f24 and on dnf wi

Re: rawhide buildroot creation changes

On 10/10/15 10:59, Rex Dieter wrote: Dennis Gilmore wrote: as of this morning US time we have changed the way rawhide buildroots are created in koji. rawhide is now using dnf to install the packages into the buildroot. this means that in f24 and on dnf will be used to create the buildroot. as

Re: rawhide buildroot creation changes

Dennis Gilmore wrote: > as of this morning US time we have changed the way rawhide buildroots are > created in koji. rawhide is now using dnf to install the packages into > the buildroot. this means that in f24 and on dnf will be used to create > the buildroot. as well as manage the updates on yo

Re: rawhide buildroot creation changes

On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 10:47:22AM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > as of this morning US time we have changed the way rawhide buildroots are > created in koji. rawhide is now using dnf to install the packages into the > buildroot. this means that in f24 and on dnf will be used to create the > bu

rawhide buildroot creation changes

Hi all, as of this morning US time we have changed the way rawhide buildroots are created in koji. rawhide is now using dnf to install the packages into the buildroot. this means that in f24 and on dnf will be used to create the buildroot. as well as manage the updates on your system. We will

Re: Rawhide buildroot broken?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 10/04/2013 10:20 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On 10/04/2013 10:10 AM, Dan Mashal wrote: >> Seems to be working OK here. > >> Dan > >> On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 6:24 AM, Jon Ciesla >> wrote: >>> I'm seeing this too. >>> >>> http://koji.fedoraproje

Re: Rawhide buildroot broken?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 10/04/2013 10:10 AM, Dan Mashal wrote: > Seems to be working OK here. > > Dan > > On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 6:24 AM, Jon Ciesla > wrote: >> I'm seeing this too. >> >> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6024388 >> >> -J >> >> >> O

Re: Rawhide buildroot broken?

Seems to be working OK here. Dan On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 6:24 AM, Jon Ciesla wrote: > I'm seeing this too. > > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6024388 > > -J > > > On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Paul Howarth wrote: >> >> I'm seeing this in root.log for all Rawhide builds: >>

Re: Rawhide buildroot broken?

I'm seeing this too. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6024388 -J On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Paul Howarth wrote: > I'm seeing this in root.log for all Rawhide builds: > > DEBUG util.py:316: Executing command: ['fedpkg', 'sources'] with env > {'LANG': 'en_US.UTF-8', 'TER

Rawhide buildroot broken?

I'm seeing this in root.log for all Rawhide builds: DEBUG util.py:316: Executing command: ['fedpkg', 'sources'] with env {'LANG': 'en_US.UTF-8', 'TERM': 'vt100', 'SHELL': '/bin/bash', 'HOSTNAME': 'mock', 'PROMPT_COMMAND': 'echo -n ""', 'HOME': '/builddir', 'PATH': '/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sb

Re: Rawhide buildroot broken?

On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > It's broken. ;) > > I've already untagged it and mailed the maintainer who is looking into > it. > > Should be ready to build after the next newrepo finishes. Excellent! Thanks, Kevin. -- Jerry James http://www.jamezone.org/ -- devel mailing

Re: Rawhide buildroot broken?

On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 09:36:58 -0600 Jerry James wrote: > I just tried to do a Rawhide build > (http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5521135), and got > this in root.log: ...snip... > What's going on with the filesystem package? It's broken. ;) I've already untagged it and mailed

Rawhide buildroot broken?

I just tried to do a Rawhide build (http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5521135), and got this in root.log: ... DEBUG util.py:264: Transaction Summary DEBUG util.py:264: DEBUG util.py:264: Install

Re: rawhide buildroot broken: octave packages?

On 12/04/2012 07:39 AM, José Matos wrote: On 2012-12-04 02:08, Ankur Sinha wrote: Hi folks, I recently packaged octave-odepkg[1] reviewed and approved for fedora. I've been able to build it for both f18 and f17, but the rawhide builds keep failing because of what looks like a broken dep chain:

Re: rawhide buildroot broken: octave packages?

On 2012-12-04 02:08, Ankur Sinha wrote: > Hi folks, > > I recently packaged octave-odepkg[1] reviewed and approved for fedora. > I've been able to build it for both f18 and f17, but the rawhide builds > keep failing because of what looks like a broken dep chain: > > INFO: Results and/or logs in: /v

Re: rawhide buildroot broken: octave packages?

On Mon, 2012-12-03 at 21:52 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 13:08:13 +1100, >Ankur Sinha wrote: > >Hi folks, > > > >I recently packaged octave-odepkg[1] reviewed and approved for fedora. > >I've been able to build it for both f18 and f17, but the rawhide builds > >keep

Re: rawhide buildroot broken: octave packages?

On Tue, Dec 04, 2012 at 13:08:13 +1100, Ankur Sinha wrote: Hi folks, I recently packaged octave-odepkg[1] reviewed and approved for fedora. I've been able to build it for both f18 and f17, but the rawhide builds keep failing because of what looks like a broken dep chain: Probably you want t

rawhide buildroot broken: octave packages?

Hi folks, I recently packaged octave-odepkg[1] reviewed and approved for fedora. I've been able to build it for both f18 and f17, but the rawhide builds keep failing because of what looks like a broken dep chain: INFO: Results and/or logs in: /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result ERROR: Comm

Rawhide buildroot broken - I rebuilt libtool

DEBUG util.py:257: Error: Package: libtool-2.4.2-3.fc17.x86_64 (build) DEBUG util.py:257: Requires: gcc = 4.7.0 DEBUG util.py:257: Installed: gcc-4.7.1-1.fc18.x86_64 (@build/$releasever) DEBUG util.py:257: gcc = 4.7.1-1.fc18 DEBUG util.py:257: You could

Rawhide buildroot

Greetings. I've untagged GitPython-0.3.2-0.1.RC1.fc17 in rawhide. It was breaking the buildroot. ;( Things should start working soon. (Yes, I know that we don't want rawhide to go back after something has entered a compose, but here we have no choice, since we need a buildroot to build the fixed

Re: Problems with Rawhide Buildroot?

On 1/27/11 7:28 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Nalin Dahyabhai writes: >> So, yeah, this is confusing to me as well. > > I got assorted warnings this morning about perl, krb5, and Qt > dependencies being broken for different packages. I suspect they're all > bogus and the dependency checker just had some

Re: Problems with Rawhide Buildroot?

Nalin Dahyabhai writes: > So, yeah, this is confusing to me as well. I got assorted warnings this morning about perl, krb5, and Qt dependencies being broken for different packages. I suspect they're all bogus and the dependency checker just had some kind of indigestion today.

Re: Problems with Rawhide Buildroot?

On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 09:41:08AM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > I touched it last, and no, you did not. I pulled down the x86_64 builds > > from yesterday to have a look. RPM didn't complain when I applied them > > to my system manually, and the krb5-libs package still claims to provide >

Re: Problems with Rawhide Buildroot?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 01/27/2011 09:35 AM, Nalin Dahyabhai wrote: > On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 02:34:53PM +0100, Jan Safranek wrote: >> On related note, there seems to be something wrong with krb5, I've got >> following notice: >> >> wireshark has broken dependencies in th

Re: Problems with Rawhide Buildroot?

On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 02:34:53PM +0100, Jan Safranek wrote: > On related note, there seems to be something wrong with krb5, I've got > following notice: > > wireshark has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree: > On x86_64: > wireshark-1.4.3-2.fc15.x86_64 requires > libk5crypto.so.3(k5c

Re: Problems with Perl in Rawhide? (was: Re: Problems with Rawhide Buildroot?)

On 2011-01-27, Petr Pisar wrote: > On 2011-01-27, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >> >> So is Perl still broken? I'm getting lots of emails like: >> >> vhostmd-0.4-11.fc14.x86_64 requires /usr/bin/perl >> vhostmd-0.4-11.fc14.x86_64 requires perl(strict) >> > I've just got bunch of e-ma

Re: Problems with Rawhide Buildroot?

On 01/27/2011 02:19 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 01/26/2011 05:58 PM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote: >> Trying to build a new Asterisk package in rawhide this morning I'm getting >> this: ... >> Full info here: >> >> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2743524 >> >> I don't think it's just

Re: Problems with Rawhide Buildroot?

On 01/26/2011 05:58 PM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote: > Trying to build a new Asterisk package in rawhide this morning I'm getting > this: > > DEBUG backend.py:745: /usr/bin/yum --installroot > /var/lib/mock/dist-f15-build-966033-145591/root/ groupinstall build > DEBUG util.py:281: Executing command: /u

Re: Problems with Perl in Rawhide? (was: Re: Problems with Rawhide Buildroot?)

On 2011-01-27, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > So is Perl still broken? I'm getting lots of emails like: > > vhostmd-0.4-11.fc14.x86_64 requires /usr/bin/perl > vhostmd-0.4-11.fc14.x86_64 requires perl(strict) > I've just got bunch of e-mails perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.12.2) is not provi

Problems with Perl in Rawhide? (was: Re: Problems with Rawhide Buildroot?)

On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 10:04:45AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > Yes, perl was broken. I have untagged it and notified the maintainer > (who was already looking at it). > > Things should work again as soon as the buildroot rebuilds. So is Perl still broken? I'm getting lots of emails like:

Re: Problems with Rawhide Buildroot?

On Wed, 26 Jan 2011 10:58:52 -0600 Jeffrey Ollie wrote: > Trying to build a new Asterisk package in rawhide this morning I'm > getting this: > > DEBUG backend.py:745: /usr/bin/yum --installroot > /var/lib/mock/dist-f15-build-966033-145591/root/ groupinstall build > DEBUG util.py:281: Executin

Problems with Rawhide Buildroot?

Trying to build a new Asterisk package in rawhide this morning I'm getting this: DEBUG backend.py:745: /usr/bin/yum --installroot /var/lib/mock/dist-f15-build-966033-145591/root/ groupinstall build DEBUG util.py:281: Executing command: /usr/bin/yum --installroot /var/lib/mock/dist-f15-build-966

  1   2   >