[fedora-websites] Issue #744: Urgent: No 32bit checksum files for F27 Beta
robyduck added a new comment to an issue you are following: `` I'm closing this as fixed for prerelease websites. Should be fixed for GA though. `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/fedora-websites/issue/744 ___ websites mailing list -- websites@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to websites-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[fedora-websites] Issue #744: Urgent: No 32bit checksum files for F27 Beta
The status of the issue: `Urgent: No 32bit checksum files for F27 Beta` of project: `fedora-websites` has been updated to: Closed as Fixed by robyduck. https://pagure.io/fedora-websites/issue/744 ___ websites mailing list -- websites@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to websites-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[fedora-websites] Issue #744: Urgent: No 32bit checksum files for F27 Beta
ausil added a new comment to an issue you are following: `` @smooge the real bug was listed in my comment https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1497458 `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/fedora-websites/issue/744 ___ websites mailing list -- websites@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to websites-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[fedora-websites] Issue #744: Urgent: No 32bit checksum files for F27 Beta
smooge added a new comment to an issue you are following: `` Is someone going to contact the x86 SIG on this? [And if that someone is me :smile: ] what do I need to say? I see that the upstream bug was fixed in pungi but not sure what the real problem is. `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/fedora-websites/issue/744 ___ websites mailing list -- websites@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to websites-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[fedora-websites] Issue #744: Urgent: No 32bit checksum files for F27 Beta
robyduck added a new comment to an issue you are following: `` Ok thank you, I'm going to drop all images from the websites and add a disclaimer on top explaining the reason. It would be good IMHO to add a line also to the release announcement. `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/fedora-websites/issue/744 ___ websites mailing list -- websites@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to websites-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[fedora-websites] Issue #744: Urgent: No 32bit checksum files for F27 Beta
ausil added a new comment to an issue you are following: `` Nightlies are all failing also. So no there is nothing to test until the bug I filed is fixed. `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/fedora-websites/issue/744 ___ websites mailing list -- websites@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to websites-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[fedora-websites] Issue #744: Urgent: No 32bit checksum files for F27 Beta
mattdm added a new comment to an issue you are following: `` So, remove them, and ask people interested in i686 to test the nightlies? `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/fedora-websites/issue/744 ___ websites mailing list -- websites@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to websites-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[fedora-websites] Issue #744: Urgent: No 32bit checksum files for F27 Beta
ausil added a new comment to an issue you are following: `` The checksums are not there because buildinstall failed to run successfully. Looking at the logs implantisomd5sum failed to run, after trying to reproduce, I filled https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1497458 there is already a fix for the bug in pungi that caused it to be copied over, there should not be any content there at all. https://pagure.io/pungi/c/fcbc3ed4aeeab81056fc5b18d4c4f4445009d915?branch=master is the fix. What should happen is that we remove all the install trees for the failed tasks which is [ausil@compose-x86-01 ~]$ grep "Failed buildinstall" /mnt/koji/compose/27/Fedora-27-20170927.1/logs/global/pungi.global.log 2017-09-28 02:15:51 [INFO] Failed buildinstall on variant , arch , subvariant . 2017-09-28 02:15:51 [INFO] Failed buildinstall on variant , arch , subvariant . 2017-09-28 02:15:51 [INFO] Failed buildinstall on variant , arch , subvariant . 2017-09-28 02:15:51 [INFO] Failed buildinstall on variant , arch , subvariant . 2017-09-28 02:15:51 [INFO] Failed buildinstall on variant , arch , subvariant . 2017-09-28 02:15:51 [INFO] Failed buildinstall on variant , arch , subvariant . 2017-09-28 02:15:51 [INFO] Failed buildinstall on variant , arch , subvariant . 2017-09-28 02:15:51 [INFO] Failed buildinstall on variant , arch , subvariant . 2017-09-28 02:15:51 [INFO] Failed buildinstall on variant , arch , subvariant . 2017-09-28 02:15:51 [INFO] Failed buildinstall on variant , arch , subvariant . as verification of the contents will not be possible for anaconda to do. the whole missing md5sum in there and all. `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/fedora-websites/issue/744 ___ websites mailing list -- websites@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to websites-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[fedora-websites] Issue #744: Urgent: No 32bit checksum files for F27 Beta
robyduck added a new comment to an issue you are following: `` > Either option (removing the images or adding checksums) involves mucking with > the compose output (rather than following the pure path of delivering it > directly), right? Same for websites, both not ideal 3 days before the release. > In that case, I think rel-eng adding the checksums seems like the best > approach, assuming rel-eng has the ability to manually do that. Hopefully this is possible, adding also @ausil for any comment about regenerating checksums ;) `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/fedora-websites/issue/744 ___ websites mailing list -- websites@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to websites-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[fedora-websites] Issue #744: Urgent: No 32bit checksum files for F27 Beta
mattdm added a new comment to an issue you are following: `` Either option (removing the images or adding checksums) involves mucking with the compose output (rather than following the pure path of delivering it directly), right? In that case, I think rel-eng adding the checksums seems like the best approach, assuming rel-eng has the ability to manually do that. `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/fedora-websites/issue/744 ___ websites mailing list -- websites@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to websites-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[fedora-websites] Issue #744: Urgent: No 32bit checksum files for F27 Beta
mohanboddu added a new comment to an issue you are following: `` I would like to go with either dropping everything from i386(even server since it has blockers) and letting people know that we were unable to produce i386 images due to technical reasons or generating the checksums for i386 and syncing them back to mirrors(for which I am not sure what's the policy is, can we generate them now?) `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/fedora-websites/issue/744 ___ websites mailing list -- websites@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to websites-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[fedora-websites] Issue #744: Urgent: No 32bit checksum files for F27 Beta
puiterwijk added a new comment to an issue you are following: `` I would like to point out that shipping the i386 images without checksum can *also* be a problem from marketing POV, since it would give the feeling that we don't care about the security of distributed distro components. `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/fedora-websites/issue/744 ___ websites mailing list -- websites@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to websites-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[fedora-websites] Issue #744: Urgent: No 32bit checksum files for F27 Beta
robyduck reported a new issue against the project: `fedora-websites` that you are following: `` Due to an [https://pagure.io/pungi/issue/744](issue in pungi) we don't have any checksum files for 32 bit images, except for Server. Looking at nearer, we saw that i686 ISO files have not been built at all, while the i686 netinstall images are there, but they are missing checksums. The fact that most 32bit images on our websites are normal i686 ISO files will already drop many of the links, specially in labs.fp.o and spins.fp.o. So, the question is: Do we want to keep 32bit netinst images on Beta pages even without checksums or do we want to drop them completely? * From a technical side, it makes totally sense to drop them, because we would have a security issue otherwise * From a marketing POV, we should consider that: a) F27 Beta is already special due to the missing F27 Beta Server image (Modular Server will come later) b) If we drop them totally, this could produce a message like "Did you drop 32 bit support?" Persoanlly I am fine with bot (it is a Beta release and just for a few weeks), but it is important for us to know which way we want to go for. So, I would like to have inputs from @mattdm or @pfrields before taking any decision here. Thanks! `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/fedora-websites/issue/744 ___ websites mailing list -- websites@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to websites-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
