Re: Rawhide: where for art thou? (why no rawhide composes recently)
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 07:11:21AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > Greetings. > > Some folks may have noticed that there have been no completed rawhide > composes in a while (13 days as of today). > > This has been due to a variety of bugs and issues, along with pungi now > failing composes that don't have all required release blocking items. > > Here's a partial list: > > 2017-06-01 - lorax traceback, bug 1457055 > 2017-06-02 - another lorax issue, bug 1457906 > 2017-06-03 - cloud base failed in anaconda, bug 1458509 > 2017-06-04 - ditto > 2017-06-05 - ditto > 2017-06-06 - pungi bug - https://pagure.io/pungi/issue/641 > 2017-06-07 - ditto > 2017-06-08 - ditto > 2017-06-09 - ditto > 2017-06-10 - ditto > 2017-06-11 - ditto > 2017-06-12 - ditto > 2017-06-12.1 - pungi bug fixed, but hit libgtop2 broken deps in metacity > that failed the comppose. I fixed those (and control-center) last night. > 2017-06-13 - still running, cross your fingers. [snip] > Anyhow, hopefully we will have a rawhide compose today, and if not I > will keep poking it to get it going... Unfortunately while the latest compose succeeded, actually trying to use the installer resulted in a python traceback pretty much immediately https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1461469 Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o-https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o-https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org-o-https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| ___ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: F-21 Branched report: 20140828 changes
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 11:09:37AM +, Fedora Branched Report wrote: Broken deps for armhfp [libvirt] libvirt-lock-sanlock-1.2.7-2.fc21.armv7hl requires sanlock = 0:2.4 libvirt-lock-sanlock-1.2.7-2.fc21.armv7hl requires libsanlock_client.so.1 Broken deps for i386 -- [libvirt] libvirt-lock-sanlock-1.2.7-2.fc21.i686 requires sanlock = 0:2.4 libvirt-lock-sanlock-1.2.7-2.fc21.i686 requires libsanlock_client.so.1 A bogus ExclusiveArch restriction was added to the sanlock package preventing it building on armv7 and i686. Bug to request this be removed, which would fix libvirt deps: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1134861 Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o-http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: [Fedora-packaging] May I file 1000 bugs aka upstream test suite tracking
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 04:22:42PM +0200, Alexander Todorov wrote: Hi guys, (note: devel, packaging and test lists) previously I've done a little experiment and counted how many packages are likely to have upstream test suites and how many don't: http://atodorov.org/blog/2013/12/24/upstream-test-suite-status-of-fedora-20/ In general around 35% do have test suites, the rest don't. My goal is to bring down the number of packages which ship without any sort of test suite inside their code base. The first step is to identify them and track them in Bugzilla. My question is: **Is everyone, especially package maintainers OK with me filing 1000+ bugs ?** Last time I did so (around 100 bugs) it got a few people unhappy so better ask this time! If you have code that can fairly reliably detect whether a test suite exists in the source tar.gz, then I think you would be justified in filing bugs for spec files which have not enabled the test suite. What I wouldn't do is blindly mass file bugs against every package and ask the maintainer to investigate whether the test suite exists or not. Basically you want to minimize the risk of false bug reports against tests not being enabled, to avoid wasting maintainers time. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o-http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: rawhide report: 20130520 changes
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:44:33AM +, Fedora Rawhide Report wrote: Compose started at Mon May 20 08:15:03 UTC 2013 Broken deps for x86_64 -- [entangle] entangle-0.5.1-1.fc20.x86_64 requires libgexiv2.so.1()(64bit) ...snip... [shotwell] shotwell-0.14.1-1.fc20.x86_64 requires libgexiv2.so.1()(64bit) Urggh. Intentionale ABI breakage in libgexiv2 that the package maintainer knew about but did not announce / notify app maintainers about :-( I've triggered a rebuild of entangle in rawhide, but I don't have privileges to trigger rebuild of shotwell. Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o-http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: rawhide report: 20130520 changes
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 12:57:29PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Daniel P. Berrange berra...@redhat.com wrote: On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:44:33AM +, Fedora Rawhide Report wrote: Compose started at Mon May 20 08:15:03 UTC 2013 Broken deps for x86_64 -- [entangle] entangle-0.5.1-1.fc20.x86_64 requires libgexiv2.so.1()(64bit) ...snip... [shotwell] shotwell-0.14.1-1.fc20.x86_64 requires libgexiv2.so.1()(64bit) Urggh. Intentionale ABI breakage in libgexiv2 that the package maintainer knew about but did not announce / notify app maintainers about :-( I've triggered a rebuild of entangle in rawhide, but I don't have privileges to trigger rebuild of shotwell. Just kicked that off, was it just rawhide or F19 too? Just rawhide. Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o-http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: rawhide report: 20120416 changes
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 02:03:45PM +, Fedora Rawhide Report wrote: Compose started at Mon Apr 16 08:15:05 UTC 2012 Broken deps for x86_64 -- [vdsm] vdsm-4.9.3.2-0.fc17.x86_64 requires /usr/sbin/saslpasswd2 Jindrich Novy has updated cyrus-sasl to re-enable the saslpasswd2 binary, so this should be resolved in tomorrows dep-check. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o-http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: rawhide report: 20111113 changes
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 01:17:41PM +, Rawhide Report wrote: Compose started at Sun Nov 13 08:15:32 UTC 2011 Broken deps for x86_64 -- i3-4.0.1-1.fc17.x86_64 requires libyajl.so.1()(64bit) This simply requires a rebuild to pick up the new libyajl soname. I would have done it myself, but I'm not a proven packager I notified the maintainer but not hear back yet, so if any provenpackager can take care of it... perl-Module-CPANTS-Analyse-0.85-9.fc16.noarch requires perl(Test::YAML::Meta::Version) = 0:0.11 perl-Module-CPANTS-Analyse-0.85-9.fc16.noarch requires perl(Test::YAML::Meta::Version) I'll sort this out. Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o-http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: Why is avahi-daemon being started?
On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 09:38:15AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: [adding libvir-list] On 09/07/2010 07:42 AM, Tom Horsley wrote: On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 13:51:09 +0100 Adam Williamson wrote: I did find a Should-start: avahi-daemon comment in the libvirtd init script, so maybe that is the source. Shouldn't be. 'Should-start' means 'if this other service is enabled, it should be started before this one': it's not a strict dependency, 'this other service MUST be started before this one'. Yea, changing the comment there didn't fix anything, but it was a good hint since I finally found the mdns_adv setting in the libvirtd.conf file and uncommenting it did finally squash avahi-daemon :-). I'm wondering if this means that libvirt should change any of its policies about auto-starting avahi-daemon, or at the very least, if there is a documentation shortcoming on why libvirt defaults to enabling this and when you might want to change that default. libvirtd has never explicitly auto-started avahi. libvirtd uses the avahi client library and gives it a callback to be invoked whenever a connection to the avahi daemon is established. With the old init system, if avahi wasn't started on boot, the callback isn't invoked and so libvirt never registers its mdns service. The sysadmin can start avahi at any time later, and libvirt will automatically register with it. With system-d it sounds like creating the avahi client will always immediately activate the avahi service. I think there perhaps needs to be a way to prevent autostart by the avahi client library Regards, Daniel -- |: Red Hat, Engineering, London-o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://deltacloud.org :| |: http://autobuild.org-o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :| -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: perl-Sys-Virt-0.2.4 not in Fedora 14?
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 09:05:15PM +0100, Paul A. Crook wrote: Hi, One of the systems here has been tracking rawhide for a while and latterly 14 (after it branched) using yum updates. I've notice lots of perl updates are currently blocked by the package perl- Sys-Virt-0.2.4-1.f14 which is installed on the system and depends on perl-5.10. However looking in the fedora 14 repository I can only find perl- Sys-Virt-0.2.3-2.f14 (which appears to have been built against perl-5.12). Would I be right in thinking perl-Sys-Virt-0.2.4-1 been dropped from F14 and I need to somehow convince yum to install perl-Sys-Virt-0.2.3-2 instead? No, 0.2.4 should be used. It appears that Marcela re-built the 0.2.3-2 against perl 5.12 into a separate build target. When I did the 0.2.4 build, the 5.12 build hadn't been pushed into rawhide so I accidently got 5.10 again. I'll rebuild 0.2.4 again with 5.12 perl Daniel -- |: Red Hat, Engineering, London-o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://deltacloud.org :| |: http://autobuild.org-o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :| -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
