On Sat, Jul 24, 2021 at 01:08:12PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 02:46:19PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >
> > I don't see email notifications about successful and failed builds,
> > even though they seem to be happening in Koji and from the above
> > lists. Is it bein
On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 02:46:19PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> I don't see email notifications about successful and failed builds,
> even though they seem to be happening in Koji and from the above
> lists. Is it being slow or broken?
Yeah, it got stuck. I restarted it this morning and
On Fri, 23 Jul 2021, Scott Talbert wrote:
Per the Fedora 35 schedule[1] we will start a mass rebuild for Fedora 35
on Jul 21st, 2021. We will run a mass rebuild for Fedora 35 for the
changes listed in:
https://pagure.io/releng/issues?status=Open&tags=mass+rebuild
The mass rebuild will be done
On Fri, 23 Jul 2021, Fabio Valentini wrote:
Per the Fedora 35 schedule[1] we will start a mass rebuild for Fedora 35
on Jul 21st, 2021. We will run a mass rebuild for Fedora 35 for the
changes listed in:
https://pagure.io/releng/issues?status=Open&tags=mass+rebuild
The mass rebuild will be don
On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 2:43 PM Tomas Hrcka wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Per the Fedora 35 schedule[1] we will start a mass rebuild for Fedora 35
> on Jul 21st, 2021. We will run a mass rebuild for Fedora 35 for the
> changes listed in:
>
> https://pagure.io/releng/issues?status=Open&tags=mass+rebuild
>
On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 01:27:59PM +0200, Tomas Hrcka wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Per the Fedora 35 schedule[1] we will start a mass rebuild for Fedora 35
> on Jul 21st, 2021. We will run a mass rebuild for Fedora 35 for the
> changes listed in:
>
> https://pagure.io/releng/issues?status=Open&tags=mass+
Hi all,
sorry for the empty commit messages, we have migrated the script from
fedpkg to plain git command to allows empty commits for rmpautospec enabled
packages.
The bug is now fixed and the script re-run, some packages will have one
empty commit followed by the actual mass rebuild commit.
Sorr
On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 09:35:37AM -0600, Jerry James wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 9:30 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
> wrote:
> > On 21/07/2021 17:15, Jerry James wrote:
> > > In fact, the ones I've looked at are empty commits. There is a commit
> > > message, but no changes of any kind to the
On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 9:30 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
> On 21/07/2021 17:15, Jerry James wrote:
> > In fact, the ones I've looked at are empty commits. There is a commit
> > message, but no changes of any kind to the spec file: no release bump,
> > no changelog entry.
>
> Yes, I can con
On 21/07/2021 17:15, Jerry James wrote:
In fact, the ones I've looked at are empty commits. There is a commit
message, but no changes of any kind to the spec file: no release bump,
no changelog entry.
Yes, I can confirm[1]:
Authored and Committed by releng 3 hours ago
0 file changed. 0 lines
On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 9:01 AM Scott Talbert wrote:
> It doesn't look like the mass rebuild is committing any changelog changes
> to the specfiles it's rebuilding. Is that expected?
In fact, the ones I've looked at are empty commits. There is a commit
message, but no changes of any kind to the
On Wed, 21 Jul 2021, Tomas Hrcka wrote:
Hi all,
Per the Fedora 35 schedule[1] we will start a mass rebuild for Fedora 35
on Jul 21st, 2021. We will run a mass rebuild for Fedora 35 for the
changes listed in:
https://pagure.io/releng/issues?status=Open&tags=mass+rebuild
The mass rebuild will b
Hi all,
Per the Fedora 35 schedule[1] we will start a mass rebuild for Fedora 35
on Jul 21st, 2021. We will run a mass rebuild for Fedora 35 for the
changes listed in:
https://pagure.io/releng/issues?status=Open&tags=mass+rebuild
The mass rebuild will be done in a side tag (f35-rebuild) and move
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 10:02:47PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> I fired off blind rebuilds of all R packages on the tracker bug.
> I looked attached logs for the first few, and they all failed because
> R-core failed on the libgfortran.so.3 dep. Since R was built a few
> days ago, ch
I fired off blind rebuilds of all R packages on the tracker bug.
I looked attached logs for the first few, and they all failed because
R-core failed on the libgfortran.so.3 dep. Since R was built a few
days ago, chances are that many of the dependent packages will now build
fine. Let's see how that
Hi all,
Status update on the mass rebuild, at this time the releng side of things has
been completed, all FTBFS bugs have been filed and can be tracked at
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1423041
The current full list of failures can be found at
http://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/mass
On 06/09/2014 09:03 PM, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
> On 06/09/2014 08:31 PM, Jerry James wrote:
>> Another source of Java build failures may be that the
>> javapackages-tools package is not self-consistent about where maven
>> dep fragments should live; see
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?
* Adam Jackson [2014-06-09 12:01]:
> In the xorg-x11-docs case it's explicitly BuildRequires:
> java-1.7.0-openjdk;
Okay. Please don't do that. Use java-devel. Otherwise, this will break
on future updates to Java 8, 9 an later ones.
> changing it to plain java-devel actually fixes the
> build, p
* Peter Robinson [2014-06-09 11:35]:
> That's likely because both OpenJDK7 and OpenJDK8 both provide
> java-devel (based on a the repo as it stood at yesterday's compose so
> it doesn't include the mass rebuild packages):
>
> # repoquery --whatprovides java-devel
> java-1.7.0-openjdk-devel-1:1.7.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 23:49:05 +0100
Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Ter, 2014-06-10 at 17:40 -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 23:24:41 +0100
> > Sérgio Basto wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Sáb, 2014-06-07 at 08:51 -0500, Dennis
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 11:49 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Ter, 2014-06-10 at 17:40 -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 23:24:41 +0100
>> Sérgio Basto wrote:
>>
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > On Sáb, 2014-06-07 at 08:51 -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
>> > > [2] http://ausil.fedorapeople.org/f21
On Ter, 2014-06-10 at 17:40 -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 23:24:41 +0100
> Sérgio Basto wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Sáb, 2014-06-07 at 08:51 -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> > > [2] http://ausil.fedorapeople.org/f21-need-rebuild.html
> >
> > Mass rebuild stopped ? or script
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 23:24:41 +0100
Sérgio Basto wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sáb, 2014-06-07 at 08:51 -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> > [2] http://ausil.fedorapeople.org/f21-need-rebuild.html
>
> Mass rebuild stopped ? or script stopped ?
Not sure what ex
Hi,
On Sáb, 2014-06-07 at 08:51 -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> [2] http://ausil.fedorapeople.org/f21-need-rebuild.html
Mass rebuild stopped ? or script stopped ?
--
Sérgio M. B.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedor
On 06/09/2014 08:31 PM, Jerry James wrote:
> Another source of Java build failures may be that the
> javapackages-tools package is not self-consistent about where maven
> dep fragments should live; see
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1106919.
I believe that this is a documentation bu
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> xorg-x11-docs apparently fails to rebuild because something is horribly
> wrong in java land:
>
> Exception in thread "main" java.lang.UnsupportedClassVersionError:
> org/apache/avalon/framework/configuration/ConfigurationException :
> Unsuppor
On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 07:34:51AM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Mon, 9 Jun 2014 07:13:27 -0400
> Neil Horman wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Dennis, I've been considering retiring the coda package here soon.
> > If I do so sooner rather than later,
On Mon, 2014-06-09 at 16:35 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
> That's likely because both OpenJDK7 and OpenJDK8 both provide
> java-devel (based on a the repo as it stood at yesterday's compose so
> it doesn't include the mass rebuild packages):
>
> # repoquery --whatprovides java-devel
> java-1.7.0-
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Adam Jackson"
>> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
>> Sent: Monday, June 9, 2014 6:02:08 PM
>> Subject: Re: Fedora 21 Mass rebuild update
>>
>>
- Original Message -
> From: "Adam Jackson"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Monday, June 9, 2014 6:02:08 PM
> Subject: Re: Fedora 21 Mass rebuild update
>
> On Sat, 2014-06-07 at 08:51 -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
>
On Sat, 2014-06-07 at 08:51 -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> We merged in the side tags on May 27, and on June 6 kicked off the
> mass rebuild. we are currently about 1/3rd of the way through.
xorg-x11-docs apparently fails to rebuild because something is horribly
wrong in java land:
E
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 9 Jun 2014 07:13:27 -0400
Neil Horman wrote:
>
>
> Dennis, I've been considering retiring the coda package here soon.
> If I do so sooner rather than later, would that clear the coda FTBFS,
> or is it too late to remove the package from F21
On Sat, Jun 07, 2014 at 08:51:06AM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi all,
>
> We merged in the side tags on May 27, and on June 6 kicked off the
> mass rebuild. we are currently about 1/3rd of the way through.
>
> You can see the current list o
Dne 8.6.2014 19:50, Dennis Gilmore napsal(a):
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi All,
I am in the process of tagging the mass rebuild into f21 it will land
in the next rawhide which due to the size will take some time to
compose, and sync out to the mirrors
The tagging script tel
The srpm buildroot was still broken, this time by rpkg.
There was a rpkg build 2014-03-24 10:05:16 with a upstream version bump,
but it was untagged before going out in a rawhide compose and wasn't
ever fixed. Then the mass rebuild built it and landed it in the
buildroot.
If you commit things t
On Sun, 8 Jun 2014 12:37:00 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> lvm2's spec isn't very friendly to the rpmdev-bumpspec script that the
> mass rebuild uses, so it is a bit messed up. They seem to redefine
> 'release' for every subpackage and the bumpspec script tries to
> increment all of them and the vers
On Sun, 08 Jun 2014 20:20:32 +0200
"punto...@libero.it" wrote:
> hi
> thanks for your work!
>
> now i have some problems for rebuild my packages
>
> DEBUG util.py:331: Executing command: ['/usr/bin/yum',
> '--installroot', '/var/lib/mock/f21-build-2154600-393050/root/',
> 'groupinstall', 'srpm
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I am in the process of tagging the mass rebuild into f21 it will land
>> in the next rawhide which due to the size will take some time to
>> compose, and sync out to the mirrors
>>
>> The tagging script tells me it is "Checking 13923 builds..." there is a
>> very large number of fa
Il 08/06/2014 20:20, punto...@libero.it ha scritto:
Il 08/06/2014 19:50, Dennis Gilmore ha scritto:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi All,
I am in the process of tagging the mass rebuild into f21 it will land
in the next rawhide which due to the size will take some time to
compo
Il 08/06/2014 19:50, Dennis Gilmore ha scritto:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi All,
I am in the process of tagging the mass rebuild into f21 it will land
in the next rawhide which due to the size will take some time to
compose, and sync out to the mirrors
The tagging script t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi All,
I am in the process of tagging the mass rebuild into f21 it will land
in the next rawhide which due to the size will take some time to
compose, and sync out to the mirrors
The tagging script tells me it is "Checking 13923 builds..." there is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi all,
We merged in the side tags on May 27, and on June 6 kicked off the
mass rebuild. we are currently about 1/3rd of the way through.
You can see the current list of failures[1] and list to be built[2].
Both lists are updated every 5 minutes. at
On 08/19/2013 02:25 PM, drago01 wrote:
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
- Original Message -
On 08/19/2013 01:32 PM, drago01 wrote:
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Jaroslav Reznik
wrote:
- Original Message -
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: S
On 08/19/2013 02:21 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
- Original Message -
On 08/19/2013 01:32 PM, drago01 wrote:
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Jaroslav Reznik
wrote:
- Original Message -
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi all,
I have merged perl info f20 and star
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> On 08/19/2013 01:32 PM, drago01 wrote:
>> > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Jaroslav Reznik
>> > wrote:
>> >> - Original Message -
>> >>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> >>> Hash: SHA1
>> >>>
- Original Message -
> On 08/19/2013 01:32 PM, drago01 wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Jaroslav Reznik
> > wrote:
> >> - Original Message -
> >>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> >>> Hash: SHA1
> >>>
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> I have merged perl info f20 and started
在 2013-8-19 PM7:49，"Ralf Corsepius" 写道：
> Please postpone this. IMO, this is much too early.
>
> Also take into account what time of year it is: Summer Holidays (at least
in Europe).
>
> Many people have been on vacation and some still are (Around here, summer
holidays end early/mid September).
+1
On 08/19/2013 01:32 PM, drago01 wrote:
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
- Original Message -
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi all,
I have merged perl info f20 and started the mass rebuild.
Hi!
A friendly reminder - "Branch Fedora 20 from Rawhi
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have merged perl info f20 and started the mass rebuild.
>
> Hi!
> A friendly reminder - "Branch Fedora 20 from Rawhide" is planned
> tomo
- Original Message -
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi all,
>
> I have merged perl info f20 and started the mass rebuild.
Hi!
A friendly reminder - "Branch Fedora 20 from Rawhide" is planned
tomorrow (2013-08-20) and "Alpha Change Deadline" is also pretty soon
as
Peter Robinson writes:
> Maybe we need to put a "mass rebuild starts" point in the Schedule in
> the future so that people are more aware of this and have the sorts of
> features like a perl rebase done in reasonable time.
That would be useful.
Thanks,
PM
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedo
On 2013-08-05 17:16, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Aug 2013 10:50:18 +0200
> Dan Horák wrote:
>
>> are there any tracker bugs created for eg. the %doc change and for Lua
>> changes so the mass created bugs can be properly classified before
>> they are resolved?
>
> Not that i know of, it wou
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 5 Aug 2013 10:50:18 +0200
Dan Horák wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Aug 2013 21:35:19 -0500
> Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> > we did make some changes on the x86 builders post f19 mass rebuild
> > which helped disk IO on them. but this is by far the fastest ma
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 05 Aug 2013 10:44:06 +0200
Tadej Janež wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Sun, 2013-08-04 at 21:35 -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> > There is a large number of failures[1] that need to be
> > addressed.
>
> I don't know if this is just a coincidence, but
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/05/2013 10:06 AM, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 02:14:55AM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
>
>> going forward we need to work out how to do the perl builds
>> quicker. there really is no reason why it needs to take as long
>> as it do
On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 02:14:55AM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> going forward we need to work out how to do the
> perl builds quicker. there really is no reason why it needs to take as
> long as it does.
Maybe only rebuild things that have a buildrequires on perl ?
None of the rebuild notifi
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Tadej Janež
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Sun, 2013-08-04 at 21:35 -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> > There is a large number of failures[1] that need to be
> > addressed.
>
> I don't know if this is just a coincidence, but the links to log files
> in the filled FTBFS bug
On Mon, 2013-08-05 at 11:37 +0200, Johannes Lips wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Peter Robinson
> wrote:
> Why don't you just go to koji and have a look at it directly
> there.
> Of course one could do that, but then if you put the links there, they
> should w
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > On Sun, 2013-08-04 at 21:35 -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> >> There is a large number of failures[1] that need to be
> >> addressed.
> >
> > I don't know if this is just a coincidence, but the links to log files
> > in the filled FTBFS bug
> On Sun, 2013-08-04 at 21:35 -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
>> There is a large number of failures[1] that need to be
>> addressed.
>
> I don't know if this is just a coincidence, but the links to log files
> in the filled FTBFS bug reports don't work.
>
> Here are two examples (from my FTBFS bugs):
On Sun, 4 Aug 2013 21:35:19 -0500
Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> we did make some changes on the x86 builders post f19 mass rebuild
> which helped disk IO on them. but this is by far the fastest mass
> rebuild to date. There is a large number of failures[1] that need to
> be addressed.
are there any tra
Hi!
On Sun, 2013-08-04 at 21:35 -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> There is a large number of failures[1] that need to be
> addressed.
I don't know if this is just a coincidence, but the links to log files
in the filled FTBFS bug reports don't work.
Here are two examples (from my FTBFS bugs):
https
- Original Message -
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 7:44 AM, Marcela Mašláňová
> wrote:
> > On 08/05/2013 04:35 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> >>
> >> There is a large number of failures[1] that need to be
> >> addressed.
> >>
> >> Dennis
> >
> >
> > Do you have also numbers how many FTBFS we had
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 05 Aug 2013 08:44:23 +0200
Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
> On 08/05/2013 04:35 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> > There is a large number of failures[1] that need to be
> > addressed.
> >
> > Dennis
>
> Do you have also numbers how many FTBFS we had
On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 7:44 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
> On 08/05/2013 04:35 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
>>
>> There is a large number of failures[1] that need to be
>> addressed.
>>
>> Dennis
>
>
> Do you have also numbers how many FTBFS we had in F19 and F20? It might be
> good for post mortem
On 08/05/2013 04:35 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
There is a large number of failures[1] that need to be
addressed.
Dennis
Do you have also numbers how many FTBFS we had in F19 and F20? It might
be good for post mortem of Fedora rebuilds.
I thought the rebuild should start after all tasks wer
Many Perl packages has wrong Requires of 5.16, and because of this I
cannot update installed perl on my system to 5.18.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thanks to the addition of arm and its 48 builders the releng pass
though on the mass rebuild is done.
for a comparison to f19
f19:
Feb 13: 1096
Feb 14: 1445
Feb 15: 1548
Feb 16: 2175
Feb 17: 1168
Feb 18: 1476
Feb 19: 2
f20:
Aug 02:1261
Aug 03:70
Il 03/08/2013 07:07, Dennis Gilmore ha scritto:
Hi all,
I have merged perl info f20 and started the mass rebuild.
You can see the current list of failures[1] and list to be built[2].
Both lists are updated every 5 minutes. at the end of the initial run
though we will file bugs for all FTBFS. Pl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi all,
I have merged perl info f20 and started the mass rebuild.
You can see the current list of failures[1] and list to be built[2].
Both lists are updated every 5 minutes. at the end of the initial run
though we will file bugs for all FTBFS. Pleas
70 matches
Mail list logo
