Fedora Rawhide-20180714.n.0 compose check report

[Fedora compose checker]

No missing expected images.

Failed openQA tests: 44/138 (x86_64), 23/24 (i386), 1/2 (arm)

New failures (same test did not fail in Rawhide-20180711.n.0):

ID: 257505  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_default_upload
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/257505
ID: 257518  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_repository_nfs_variation
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/257518
ID: 257519  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_repository_nfs_graphical
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/257519
ID: 257526  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_updates_nfs
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/257526
ID: 257533  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_default_upload
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/257533
ID: 257534  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/257534
ID: 257545  Test: x86_64 Workstation-boot-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/257545
ID: 257552  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso install_default_upload
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/257552
ID: 257554  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso install_no_user
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/257554
ID: 257579  Test: x86_64 universal install_xfs
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/257579
ID: 257580  Test: x86_64 universal install_lvmthin
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/257580
ID: 257581  Test: x86_64 universal install_no_swap
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/257581
ID: 257582  Test: x86_64 universal install_blivet_ext3
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/257582
ID: 257591  Test: x86_64 universal install_updates_img_local
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/257591
ID: 257592  Test: x86_64 universal install_shrink_ext4
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/257592
ID: 257593  Test: x86_64 universal install_blivet_lvmthin
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/257593
ID: 257595  Test: x86_64 universal install_kickstart_firewall_configured
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/257595
ID: 257596  Test: x86_64 universal install_package_set_minimal
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/257596
ID: 257597  Test: x86_64 universal install_anaconda_text
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/257597
ID: 257598  Test: x86_64 universal install_repository_http_variation
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/257598
ID: 257599  Test: x86_64 universal install_package_set_kde
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/257599
ID: 257602  Test: x86_64 universal install_delete_pata
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/257602
ID: 257604  Test: x86_64 universal install_sata
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/257604
ID: 257607  Test: x86_64 universal install_scsi_updates_img
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/257607
ID: 257612  Test: x86_64 universal install_repository_http_graphical
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/257612
ID: 257618  Test: x86_64 universal install_software_raid@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/257618
ID: 257635  Test: x86_64 universal install_shrink_ntfs
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/257635
ID: 257636  Test: x86_64 universal install_european_language
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/257636
ID: 257637  Test: x86_64 universal install_cyrillic_language
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/257637
ID: 257638  Test: x86_64 universal install_arabic_language
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/257638
ID: 257639  Test: x86_64 universal install_asian_language
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/257639
ID: 257642  Test: x86_64 universal install_blivet_software_raid
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/257642
ID: 257643  Test: x86_64 universal install_multi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/257643
ID: 257645  Test: x86_64 universal install_simple_encrypted
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/257645
ID: 257646  Test: x86_64 universal install_simple_free_space
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/257646
ID: 257647  Test: x86_64 universal install_multi_empty
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/257647
ID: 257648  Test: x86_64 universal install_software_raid
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/257648
ID: 257649  Test: x86_64 universal install_delete_partial
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/257649
ID: 257650  Test: x86_64 universal install_btrfs
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/257650
ID: 257651  Test: x86_64 universal install_ext3
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/257651
ID: 257652  Test: x86_64 universal install_blivet_btrfs
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/257652
ID: 257653  Test: x86_64 universal install_blivet_no_swap
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/257653
ID: 257654  Test: x86_64 universal install_bl

Fedora updates-20180715.0 compose check report

[Fedora compose checker]

Missing expected images:

Atomichost qcow2 x86_64
Atomichost raw-xz x86_64

Passed openQA tests: 2/2 (x86_64)

New passes (same test did not pass in updates-20180713.0):

ID: 257682  Test: x86_64 AtomicHost-dvd_ostree-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/257682
ID: 257683  Test: x86_64 AtomicHost-dvd_ostree-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/257683
-- 
Mail generated by check-compose:
https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/JYNWGADS6JLE4NIAG2I5LJW7IW7Y722S/

Re: Fedora 29 Mass Rebuild

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

> "AL" == Avram Lubkin  writes:

AL> Makes sense, but is this documented anywhere?

It's in the EPEL FAQ:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/FAQ#Is_it_possible_to_get_a_package_only_into_EPEL_and_not_Fedora.3F

 - J<
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/RTO4J3AGNK7PT4LHICRSU2GIUWDOOXXR/

Re: Fedora 29 Mass Rebuild

[Avram Lubkin]

>
> Currently you should run this:
>   fedpkg retire "This is an EPEL only package"
> in both the master and f28 branches.
>

Makes sense, but is this documented anywhere?

On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 1:46 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III 
wrote:

> > "AL" == Avram Lubkin  writes:
>
> AL> We had issues, Bug 1600418, because python3-dns, which is intended
> AL> only for EPEL7, was included in the mass rebuild for 28 and had an
> AL> f28 branch created. Now it's been included in the f29 mass
> AL> rebuild. How do we keep this from happening?
>
> Well, it's not retired in rawhide, so it's going to keep getting built
> and branched.  If it's an EPEL-only package, you need to immediately
> retire the master branch when the repository is created.
>
> Currently you should run this:
>   fedpkg retire "This is an EPEL only package"
> in both the master and f28 branches.
>
> The buildsystem should then automatically block that package from future
> composes so it will disappear from the repositories, and it should not
> acquire an f29 branch when the branching happens.
>
>  - J<
>
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/7G5JJOMF7GE6FOQN55D5NLW7RUJTPVNQ/

Re: Fedora 29 Mass Rebuild

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

> "AL" == Avram Lubkin  writes:

AL> We had issues, Bug 1600418, because python3-dns, which is intended
AL> only for EPEL7, was included in the mass rebuild for 28 and had an
AL> f28 branch created. Now it's been included in the f29 mass
AL> rebuild. How do we keep this from happening?

Well, it's not retired in rawhide, so it's going to keep getting built
and branched.  If it's an EPEL-only package, you need to immediately
retire the master branch when the repository is created.

Currently you should run this:
  fedpkg retire "This is an EPEL only package"
in both the master and f28 branches.

The buildsystem should then automatically block that package from future
composes so it will disappear from the repositories, and it should not
acquire an f29 branch when the branching happens.

 - J<
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/QVLRNXFY3FM6B4R2BU4E3QEOXEH56CJQ/

Re: Fedora 29 Mass Rebuild

[Avram Lubkin]

We had issues, Bug 1600418, because python3-dns, which is intended only for
EPEL7, was included in the mass rebuild for 28 and had an f28 branch
created. Now it's been included in the f29 mass rebuild. How do we keep
this from happening?

Avram
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/NLUXR2TSZ2HERJZUWNHG5PWAWPMUJ6JE/

Koji (was: Re: F29 Self Contained Change: Deprecate YUM 3)

[Richard W.M. Jones]

On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 10:15:38AM +0200, Daniel Mach wrote:
> > koji
> >
> > koji is kinda important. I think this is meaning python2-koji?
> > I would hope python3-koji/koji stays around?
> >
> ditto

I don't understand, will Koji still work or not?

I was told (I don't know for sure) that this change will break Koji.
We're using Koji on top of Fedora 29 to build Fedora/RISC-V.

We'd love to use dnf instead of yum of course, but it seems like Koji
uses a bunch of yum APIs, rather than just using the yum command line
tool,so I've no idea how much work it's going to be to fix that.

Rich.

-- 
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com
virt-builder quickly builds VMs from scratch
http://libguestfs.org/virt-builder.1.html
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/BNTY2R7DVC3MWHHFDQDZN25CYA6WXQPD/

Re: Fedora 29 Mass Rebuild

[José Abílio Matos]

On Friday, 6 July 2018 14.29.40 WEST Mohan Boddu wrote:
>
> We will be running scripts to output failure stats.
> please be sure to let releng know if you see any bugs in the reporting.
> ...

I got this:
dist.abicheck FAILED for fftw2-2.1.5-35.fc29

https://taskotron.fedoraproject.org/artifacts/all/90f31b8a-86a6-11e8-8b63-525400fc9f92/
tests.yml/fftw2-2.1.5-35.fc29.log

That basically says:
=== changes of 'libfftw.so.2.0.7'===
  Functions changes summary: 0 Removed, 0 Changed (4 filtered out), 0 Added 
functions
  Variables changes summary: 0 Removed, 0 Changed, 0 Added variable
  Function symbols changes summary: 2 Removed, 0 Added function symbols not 
referenced by 
debug info
  Variable symbols changes summary: 0 Removed, 0 Added variable symbol not 
referenced by 
debug info

  2 Removed function symbols not referenced by debug info:

_fini
_init

 end of changes of 'libfftw.so.2.0.7'===

The same applying to other so variants.

Are these ABI changes real or harmless?

> Regards
> 
> Mohan Boddu

Regards, :-)
-- 
José Abílio
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/X22MQ63J63BIUBNOUVBHVHSM46J7AI6F/

Re: Self Introduction: Chris/BunnyApocalypse

[Matthew Miller]

On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 04:06:20PM -0400, BunnyApocalypse wrote:
> I look forward to meeting you and getting involved in the many
> amazing things happening in the Fedora community!

Hi Chris, and welcome!


-- 
Matthew Miller

Fedora Project Leader
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/NCC6BCL6RVE4W7UFCYYHU65W53NHCDTS/

Re: [HEADS UP] Removal of GCC from the buildroot

[Rolf Fokkens]

This bit the bcache-tools package too, which I fixed.

On 07/13/2018 12:39 PM, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 11:19 Miro Hrončok > wrote:


On 8.7.2018 20:46, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> As per Changes/Remove GCC from BuildRoot
>
,
I'm
> going to automatically add BuildRequires: gcc and/or BuildRequires:
> gcc-c++ to packages which fail to build with common messages
(like gcc:
> command not found, also autotools/cmake/meson are supported).
>
> I'm going to do this tomorrow.
>
> After which, I'm going to ask rel-eng to finally remove it from
> buildroot. This will happen before mass rebuild. Stay tuned.
> --

I've clicked randomly trough failures during the mass rebuild at [1].

I see quite a lot of commands not founds for gcc, cc, c++...

I think the maintainers should add them and that's fine, but it
seemed
that during this change you said you will add those. Did it happen?


Yes, I've pushed over 2k commits adding those, however regexp might 
have not catched all possible cases. Would appreciate if you would 
link such packages so that I can fix them. Or maintainers can do it 
themselves.


[1] https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/mass-rebuild/f29-failures.html

-- 
Miro Hrončok

--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok

--

-Igor Gnatenko



___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/INTODKJDI2NU36RBHKPYNLDOPSBRAPV6/



___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/3EI357BHP6LWUEJH7FM6R3KYX4RLHFZA/