the mass rebuild and i586 rpms?
Hi All, I thought with the mass rebuild the i586 rpms were suppose to be gone but it seems the F-12 repository still has quite a few of them. Are the old packages that should have been blocked, ones that's that weren't rebuilt for some reason or something that I've just missed? Peter -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: the mass rebuild and i586 rpms?
Hi, On 10/19/2009 09:20 PM, Peter Robinson wrote: Hi All, I thought with the mass rebuild the i586 rpms were suppose to be gone but it seems the F-12 repository still has quite a few of them. Are the old packages that should have been blocked, ones that's that weren't rebuilt for some reason or something that I've just missed? Peter Most probably those are the packages which failed during the mass rebuild...there are still plenty of them: http://mjakubicek.fedorapeople.org/need-rebuild.html Regards, Milos -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: the mass rebuild and i586 rpms?
On 10/20/2009 03:48 AM, Milos Jakubicek wrote: Hi, On 10/19/2009 09:20 PM, Peter Robinson wrote: Hi All, I thought with the mass rebuild the i586 rpms were suppose to be gone but it seems the F-12 repository still has quite a few of them. Are the old packages that should have been blocked, ones that's that weren't rebuilt for some reason or something that I've just missed? Peter Most probably those are the packages which failed during the mass rebuild...there are still plenty of them: http://mjakubicek.fedorapeople.org/need-rebuild.html I just rebuilt: itcl-3.4-5.fc12 - no changes from original failed rebuild irda-utils-0.9.18-10.fc12 - added a minor patch to fix install issue xfconf-4.6.1-4.fc12 - added missing BRs Does it make sense to tag them into F-12 at this point? -- Orion Poplawski Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222 NWRA/CoRA DivisionFAX: 303-415-9702 3380 Mitchell Lane or...@cora.nwra.com Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.cora.nwra.com -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: the mass rebuild and i586 rpms?
Orion Poplawski (or...@cora.nwra.com) said: > I just rebuilt: > > itcl-3.4-5.fc12 - no changes from original failed rebuild > irda-utils-0.9.18-10.fc12 - added a minor patch to fix install issue > xfconf-4.6.1-4.fc12 - added missing BRs > > Does it make sense to tag them into F-12 at this point? Wouldn't hurt - send tag requests. Bill -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: the mass rebuild and i586 rpms?
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:47:50 -0600 Orion Poplawski wrote: ...snip... > I just rebuilt: > ...snip... > xfconf-4.6.1-4.fc12 - added missing BRs Wow. I didn't know this was still an issue. I thought I fixed this long ago. ;( Thanks very much for fixing it! kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: the mass rebuild and i586 rpms?
Milos Jakubicek wrote: > Most probably those are the packages which failed during the mass > rebuild...there are still plenty of them: > > http://mjakubicek.fedorapeople.org/need-rebuild.html That list is out of date. I fixed clutter-gtkmm to build a while ago because it had broken dependencies, and the fixed build got tagged into dist-f12 already (and dist-f13 inherits it from there too). Kevin Kofler -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: the mass rebuild and i586 rpms?
On Mon, 2009-10-19 at 20:20 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: > Hi All, > > I thought with the mass rebuild the i586 rpms were suppose to be gone > but it seems the F-12 repository still has quite a few of them. Are > the old packages that should have been blocked, ones that's that > weren't rebuilt for some reason or something that I've just missed? > > Peter > I did some work a week or two ago to see what was behind some of the packages a couple of weeks ago, and it is summarised below. Not only is there an issue with the i586 packages, but also a number of noarch packages. Point 5 below categories the apparent reason for the packages not having been rebuilt, and it appears possible that out of the 185 packages that have not been rebuilt, 95 might build successfully if just submitted for rebuilding. I was looking at the need-rebuild.py script, and have a few comments/questions (apologies if my terminology is incorrect - this area is new to me). 1. Is the script that is run and produces the output at http://jkeating.fedorapeople.org/needed-f12-rebuilds.html actually the script referred to at the bottom of that page (https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/browser/scripts) ? The reason I ask is that when I run the script, I get Included Koji instances: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/kojihub http://sparc.koji.fedoraproject.org/kojihub http://s390.koji.fedoraproject.org/kojihub http://arm.koji.fedoraproject.org/kojihub whereas the posted output only has Included Koji instances: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/kojihub http://sparc.koji.fedoraproject.org/kojihub 2. If the script is run against just koji.fedoraproject,org/kojihub (i.e. without the sub arches), it says 185 packages need rebuilding (instead of the 175 listed in the report); the following 10 packages are omitted when the sparc koji hub is also included: gmpc HippoDraw itcl latex2rtf prtconf PyKDE python-igraph silo spicebird xorg-x11-drv-sunffb This is caused by line 117 of the script: unbuilt = unbuilt & unbuiltnew so if a package needs to be rebuilt on the primary arch, but not on the (in this case sparc) secondary arch, then it is dropped from needing to be rebuilt (it appears that a package will only be listed if it needs to be rebuild on every arch). There are several circumstances where this can happen (with the 10 missing packages listed): Built on sub arch but failed on primary arch gmpc - 0.18.0-1 build on sparc after epoch but 0.18.0-2 failed on koji HippoDraw itcl latex2rtf python-igraph Not a primary arch package (should the package be blocked in the primary arch kojihub?) == prtconf silo xorg-x11-drv-sunffb Blocked on secondary arch (so not included in unbuiltnew) = spicebird Built on sub arch but not submitted for rebuild on primary arch PyKDE Package does not exist in secondary arch (no example) = Would it be more relevant to list what needs to be rebuild separately for each arch (but see point 3 below)? 3. So far as I can see, there have not been mass rebuilds on the secondary arches, so is it relevant to search them for successful builds since the epoch? If it is relevant, they would appear to have different epochs in any case. 4. On the sparc (and other sub arches) kojihubs, there can be builds without a task, but the build itself can have a tag dist-f12 (see http://arm.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=19567 for example). Can that tag be safely used for checking if the build had a particular tag, rather than having to look at a task? Currrently the script can call getTaskInfo with a taskID of None, which is the cause of getTaskInfo returning a request with len > 1, since that response is an error message for requesting TaskInfo with a task id of None. 5. I have looked at the 185 packages that have not been rebuilt, and the reasons fall into the following categories (details for each package are listed later): 1. Not submitted for rebuild (65) 2. Mock exited with status 10 (7) 3. Mock exited with status 30 (23) 4. No build on dist-12/dist-f12-rebuild/dist-f12-updates-candidate (6) 5. Build cancelled (1) 6. Mock exited with status 1 (83) I'm wondering if (re)submitting the packages in categories 1, 3, 4 and 5 might result in the majority being successfully built, possibly halving the number of packages that would then still need to be rebuilt. I have made some changes to need-rebuild.py to produce some of the information above, and am happy to provide them if they are of any interest. Not submitted for rebuild (65) == OpenEXR_CTL OpenEXR_Viewers PerceptualDiff Perlbal Pixie Pound PyAmanith PyKDE PyQuante PySBIG PySolFC PySolFC-cardsets aboot ccss django-typepad eclipse-setools education-bookmarks elilo eqntott fonts-hebrew-fancy gdata-sharp gnome-globalmenu icouti
Re: the mass rebuild and i586 rpms?
Hi, On 22.10.2009 19:29, Quentin Armitage wrote: 1. Is the script that is run and produces the output at http://jkeating.fedorapeople.org/needed-f12-rebuilds.html actually the script referred to at the bottom of that page (https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/browser/scripts) ? The reason I ask is that when I run the script, I get Included Koji instances: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/kojihub http://sparc.koji.fedoraproject.org/kojihub http://s390.koji.fedoraproject.org/kojihub http://arm.koji.fedoraproject.org/kojihub whereas the posted output only has Included Koji instances: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/kojihub http://sparc.koji.fedoraproject.org/kojihub It is, but Jesse has disabled the other Koji hubs because sometimes they just time out, unfortunately. 2. If the script is run against just koji.fedoraproject,org/kojihub (i.e. without the sub arches), it says 185 packages need rebuilding (instead of the 175 listed in the report); the following 10 packages are omitted when the sparc koji hub is also included: gmpc HippoDraw itcl latex2rtf prtconf PyKDE python-igraph silo spicebird xorg-x11-drv-sunffb This is caused by line 117 of the script: unbuilt = unbuilt& unbuiltnew so if a package needs to be rebuilt on the primary arch, but not on the (in this case sparc) secondary arch, then it is dropped from needing to be rebuilt Yes, that's how I did it -- my primary goal was to clear the list off secondary-arch-only stuff. There might be of course some cases like if somebody rebuilds a package only for a secondary arch but not for the primary one, but I don't think this is much a problem (there won't be many compared to the -- increasing -- number of secondary-arch-only stuff which we won't need). (it appears that a package will only be listed if it needs to be rebuild on every arch). No, the package appears if there is no build after the specified date in any of the archs (to be clear: as soon as the package is built in at least one arch, it will get off the list). There are several circumstances where this can happen (with the 10 missing packages listed): Built on sub arch but failed on primary arch gmpc - 0.18.0-1 build on sparc after epoch but 0.18.0-2 failed on koji HippoDraw itcl latex2rtf python-igraph Yes, those are not caught by this script now and should be rebuilt in primary arch as well of course. Not a primary arch package (should the package be blocked in the primary arch kojihub?) == prtconf silo xorg-x11-drv-sunffb There are much more of them! I don't know whether it is possible to block a package in a single Koji hub and if our infrastructure team is willing to go in this way -- Jesse? Blocked on secondary arch (so not included in unbuiltnew) = spicebird Should be probably blocked in all hubs too. The blocking mechanism definitely doesn't serve instead of ExcludeArch, am I right? Built on sub arch but not submitted for rebuild on primary arch PyKDE Should be rebuilt (I just started the build). Package does not exist in secondary arch (no example) = Would it be more relevant to list what needs to be rebuild separately for each arch (but see point 3 below)? 3. So far as I can see, there have not been mass rebuilds on the secondary arches, so is it relevant to search them for successful builds since the epoch? If it is relevant, they would appear to have different epochs in any case. Well, when I got to modifying the script (about half a year ago), the main problem was that there was too much noise consisting in secondary-arch-only packages. At that time there were more than 100 of such builds which is quite a lot. Also, secondary archs (re)builds are completely in the hands of secondary arch maintainers, they're not bound to the primary archs mass rebuilds. 5. I have looked at the 185 packages that have not been rebuilt, and the reasons fall into the following categories (details for each package are listed later): 1. Not submitted for rebuild (65) Yeah, there were some problems during the mass rebuild, IIRC (esp. with packages starting with o*, p* and maybe others). They should be definitely rebuilt. Looking at your lists, when rebuilding packages you should be aware of: 1) secondary-arch-only packages (xorg-x11-drv-sun*) 2) dead packages not blocked in Koji (a package is dead iff there is a dead.package file in the CVS; if it is then not blocked in Koji, please report to Jesse). 3) packages not built yet because they've just passed the review. I have made some changes to need-rebuild.py to produce some of the information above, and am happy to provide them if they are of any interest. Great! The more people get involved, the better:) Regards, Milos -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-l
Re: the mass rebuild and i586 rpms?
On 22.10.2009 03:39, Kevin Kofler wrote: Milos Jakubicek wrote: Most probably those are the packages which failed during the mass rebuild...there are still plenty of them: http://mjakubicek.fedorapeople.org/need-rebuild.html That list is out of date. I fixed clutter-gtkmm to build a while ago because it had broken dependencies, and the fixed build got tagged into dist-f12 already (and dist-f13 inherits it from there too). Strange, I added dist-f12-updates-candidate (instead of dist-f12-openssl) to the list and the package got off the list... Milos -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: the mass rebuild and i586 rpms?
OK, I took the 3 hours today and went through the packages which have not been submitted at all for building: On 22.10.2009 19:29, Quentin Armitage wrote: Not submitted for rebuild (65) == I've successfully rebuilt (and requested tagging for dist-f12): - at first try: Perlbal PyAmanith PyKDE PyQuante PySBIG PySolFC PySolFC-cardsets - after some torturing (some packages had quite damaged F-12 and devel branches due to some weird errors during the mass rebuild, spec files and/or sources were not copied and/or not cvsadded and/or not tagged + trivial build failures): eclipse-setools eqntott icoutils olpc-kbdshim python-psyco snake unetbootin Rebuilt recently by sb else: OpenEXR_CTL OpenEXR_Viewers PerceptualDiff Pixie Pound django-typepad Newpackage (some of them even for months!): ccss education-bookmarks gdata-sharp gnome-globalmenu luci netplug perl-Tk-ProgressBar-Mac pyhton-utmp python-decorator3 python-typepad rubygem-extlib rubygem-mixlib-cli rubygem-mixlib-config rubygem-mixlib-log rubygem-systemu sblim-cim-client2 tomcatjss trac-tickettemplate-plugin vanessa_logger volpack x11vnc yum-plugin-download-order zikula-module-filterutil Alpha-only: aboot IA64-only: elilo prctl s390-only: libica openssl-ibmca sparc-only: piggyback prtconf silo xorg-x11-drv-sunbw2 xorg-x11-drv-suncg14 xorg-x11-drv-suncg3 xorg-x11-drv-suncg6 xorg-x11-drv-sunffb xorg-x11-drv-sunleo xorg-x11-drv-suntcx Failing: fonts-hebrew-fancy (https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/2680) libgtk-java (seems like skasal forgot to cvsadd his patch) perl-Perl-Critic (waiting for tagging perl-PPI) ssmtp (don't know why it is on the list, need to consult) Milos -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: the mass rebuild and i586 rpms?
On Sat, 2009-10-24 at 02:37 +0200, Milos Jakubicek wrote: > ssmtp > (don't know why it is on the list, need to consult) > ssmtp is on the list because the build target of the task in koji ( http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1634633 ) is dist-f12-openssl, which is not one of the targets that need-rebuild.py looks for. Quentin -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: the mass rebuild and i586 rpms?
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 02:37:57AM +0200, Milos Jakubicek wrote: > > Newpackage (some of them even for months!): > python-decorator3 Please do not rebuild this one. It's currently just a forwards compat package for EL-5. I'll dead.package the devel package soon. > zikula-module-filterutil > Please do not rebuild this one either. I imported and built it for EL-5 for someone I'm mentoring on packaging because we need it for Fedora Insight. I'll be using building of the package for F-12 as part of mentoring when we can both clear up some time. -Toshio pgpDjBYhum66a.pgp Description: PGP signature -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: the mass rebuild and i586 rpms?
Next bunch built, it's a complete set of those with mock exit status 30 (I'm curious what does this exit status mean, missing prerequisity is denoted by 10) and some others too: piggyback-2.6.26-4.fc12 (on sparc) perl-Perl-Critic-1.105-1.fc12 glglobe-0.2-8.fc12 libica-2.0.2-1.fc12 (on s390) openssl-ibmca-1.0.0-2.fc12 (on s390) python-polybori-0.5-6.fc12 python-igraph-0.5.2-4.fc12 perl-POE-Component-Client-Keepalive-0.2600-3.fc12 mathgl-1.9-7.fc12 artwiz-aleczapka-fonts-1.3-8.fc12 python-xkit-0.4.2-4.fc12 389-dsgw-1.1.4-1.fc12 perl-Apache2-SOAP-0.73-3.fc12 gds2pov-0.20080229-3.fc12 gdesklets-0.36.1-6.fc12 gedit-plugins-2.26.1-3.fc12 giggle-0.4.91-3.fc12 glabels-2.2.5-2.fc12 gl-117-1.3.2-9.fc12 glade2-2.12.2-7.fc12 glitz-0.5.6-8.fc12 gliv-1.9.6-5.fc12 glob2-0.9.4.1-2.fc12 gnome-applet-grandr-0.4.1-2.fc12 gnome-applet-bubblemon-2.0.14-2.fc12 ladspa-swh-plugins-0.4.15-16.fc12 libbtctl-0.11.1-3.fc12 pfscalibration-1.4-7.fc12 pfstools-1.7.0-8.fc12 klibido-0.2.5-12.fc12 pfqueue-0.5.6-10.fc12 petitboot-0.2-4.fc12 baekmuk-bdf-fonts-2.2-8.fc12 We're slowly narrowing to reasonable count of packages (which are really either "going to be dead" or need fixing, though a few false positives are still in the list), everybody is encouraged to take anything from http://mjakubicek.fedorapeople.org/need-rebuild.html and try to fix it!;) Regards, Milos -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: the mass rebuild and i586 rpms?
On Thursday 22 October 2009 07:29:49 pm Milos Jakubicek wrote: > Hi, > > Not a primary arch package (should the package be blocked in the primary > > arch kojihub?) > > == > > prtconf > > silo > > xorg-x11-drv-sunffb > > There are much more of them! I don't know whether it is possible to > block a package in a single Koji hub and if our infrastructure team is > willing to go in this way -- Jesse? blocking a package on the primary hub will result in the package also being blocked on the secodnary arch hubs. since one of the things we want to do is keep the arches in sync. it will also mean that a packges doesnt get branched in cvs since the branching tools will think its no longer needed. Dennis signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
