On 17/02/17 13:21 -0500, Randy Barlow wrote:
On Fri, 2017-02-17 at 05:08 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
Filing bugs for transitive FTBFS during a mass rebuild isn't
particularly helpful as it is done now.
I think it is helpful, because even if it is not the fault of the
package that
On Fri, 2017-02-17 at 05:08 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> Filing bugs for transitive FTBFS during a mass rebuild isn't
> particularly helpful as it is done now.
I think it is helpful, because even if it is not the fault of the
package that failed to build, the package does still need
>> > I received a FTBFS[1] on one of my packages for the F26 rebuild only to
>> > find out the only reason it failed (that I know of thus far) is that not
>> > all the dependencies could be installed.
>> >
>> > The root cause seems to be that not all dependent packages were rebuilt
>> > when boost
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 12:32:54PM +0900, Mamoru TASAKA wrote:
>
>
> - 元のメッセージ -
> > 差出人: "Richard Shaw"
> > 宛先: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
> >
> > 送信済み: 2017年2月17日, 金曜日 12:21:07
> > 件名: GRIPE: A package is
- 元のメッセージ -
> 差出人: "Richard Shaw"
> 宛先: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> 送信済み: 2017年2月17日, 金曜日 12:21:07
> 件名: GRIPE: A package is not FTBFS if the dependencies can't be installed
>
> I received a FTBFS[1] on one of my packa
I received a FTBFS[1] on one of my packages for the F26 rebuild only to
find out the only reason it failed (that I know of thus far) is that not
all the dependencies could be installed.
The root cause seems to be that not all dependent packages were rebuilt
when boost was updated to 1.63. Since I
