Suspicious downgrades when upgrading from F32 to F33: containers-common, fuse-overlayfs, strace, thunderbird

[Miro Hrončok]

Hello.

The following packages are downgrades when I attempt upgrade from Fedora 32 to 
Fedora 33:

- containers-common (skopeo) 1:1.1.1 -> 1:1.0.1
- fuse-overlayfs 1.1.2 -> 1.1.0
- strace 5.8 -> 5.7.0.6.7ab6
- thunderbird 668.11.0 -> 8.10.0

Is this expected?

[Fabio Valentini]

On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 1:01 PM Miro Hrončok  wrote:
> Hello.
>
> The following packages are downgrades when I attempt upgrade from Fedora 32 to
> Fedora 33:
> containers-common (skopeo) 1:1.1.1 -> 1:1.0.1
> fuse-overlayfs 1.1.2 -> 1.1.0
> strace 5.8 -> 5.7.0.6.7ab6
> thunderbird 668.11.0 -> 8.10.0
>
> Is this expected?
>
> --
> Miro Hrončok

Thanks to your reminder, I ran a small scripted analysis of repository
contents to compare 32 to 33:

Downgraded packages:
- R-data.table is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:1.13.0-1.fc32 > 0:1.12.8-4.fc33
- apcupsd is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:3.14.14-18.fc32 > 0:3.14.14-17.fc32
- apcupsd-cgi is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:3.14.14-18.fc32 > 0:3.14.14-17.fc32
- apcupsd-gui is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:3.14.14-18.fc32 > 0:3.14.14-17.fc32
- appliance-tools is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:010.1-1.fc32 > 0:010.0-3.fc33
- appstream-data is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:32-8.fc32 > 0:32-7.fc33
- blender is newer in 32 than in 33:
  1:2.83.1-1.fc32 > 1:2.82a-5.fc33
- blender-fonts is newer in 32 than in 33:
  1:2.83.1-1.fc32 > 1:2.82a-5.fc33
- blender-luxcorerender is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:2.4-1.fc32 > 0:2.3-3.fc33
- blender-rpm-macros is newer in 32 than in 33:
  1:2.83.1-1.fc32 > 1:2.82a-5.fc33
- bpytop is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:1.0.17-1.fc32 > 0:1.0.16-1.fc33
- buildah is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:1.15.1-1.fc32 > 0:1.15.0-0.68.dev.git2c46b4b.fc33
- buildah-tests is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:1.15.1-1.fc32 > 0:1.15.0-0.68.dev.git2c46b4b.fc33
- buildbot is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:2.8.3-2.fc32 > 0:2.5.1-4.fc33
- buildbot-master is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:2.8.3-2.fc32 > 0:2.5.1-4.fc33
- buildbot-worker is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:2.8.3-2.fc32 > 0:2.5.1-4.fc33
- buildbot-www is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:2.8.3-2.fc32 > 0:2.5.1-4.fc33
- ck is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:0.7.0-3.fc32 > 0:0.6.0-10.fc32
- ck-devel is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:0.7.0-3.fc32 > 0:0.6.0-10.fc32
- cockpit is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:226-1.fc32 > 0:225-1.fc33
- cockpit-bridge is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:226-1.fc32 > 0:225-1.fc33
- cockpit-dashboard is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:226-1.fc32 > 0:225-1.fc33
- cockpit-doc is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:226-1.fc32 > 0:225-1.fc33
- cockpit-kdump is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:226-1.fc32 > 0:225-1.fc33
- cockpit-machines is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:226-1.fc32 > 0:225-1.fc33
- cockpit-networkmanager is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:226-1.fc32 > 0:225-1.fc33
- cockpit-packagekit is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:226-1.fc32 > 0:225-1.fc33
- cockpit-pcp is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:226-1.fc32 > 0:225-1.fc33
- cockpit-podman is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:22-1.fc32 > 0:21-1.fc33
- cockpit-selinux is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:226-1.fc32 > 0:225-1.fc33
- cockpit-sosreport is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:226-1.fc32 > 0:225-1.fc33
- cockpit-storaged is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:226-1.fc32 > 0:225-1.fc33
- cockpit-system is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:226-1.fc32 > 0:225-1.fc33
- cockpit-tests is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:226-1.fc32 > 0:225-1.fc33
- cockpit-ws is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:226-1.fc32 > 0:225-1.fc33
- containers-common is newer in 32 than in 33:
  1:1.1.1-1.fc32 > 1:1.0.1-16.dev.git091f924.fc33
- darktable is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:3.2.1-1.fc32 > 0:3.0.0-3.fc32
- darktable-tools-noise is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:3.2.1-1.fc32 > 0:3.0.0-3.fc32
- dogtag-pki is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:10.9.2-2.fc32 > 0:10.9.2-1.fc33
- dogtag-pki-console-theme is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:10.9.2-2.fc32 > 0:10.9.2-1.fc33
- dogtag-pki-server-theme is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:10.9.2-2.fc32 > 0:10.9.2-1.fc33
- elementary-greeter is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:5.0.4-1.fc32 > 0:5.0.3-1.fc33
- fdupes is newer in 32 than in 33:
  1:2.1.1-1.fc32 > 1:2.1.0-2.fc33
- fedmsg is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:1.1.2-1.fc32 > 0:1.1.1-11.fc33
- fedmsg-base is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:1.1.2-1.fc32 > 0:1.1.1-11.fc33
- fedmsg-doc is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:1.1.2-1.fc32 > 0:1.1.1-11.fc33
- firefox is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:79.0-5.fc32 > 0:78.0.2-1.fc33
- firefox-pkcs11-loader is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:3.13.6-1.fc32 > 0:3.13.4-1.fc32
- firefox-wayland is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:79.0-5.fc32 > 0:78.0.2-1.fc33
- firefox-x11 is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:79.0-5.fc32 > 0:78.0.2-1.fc33
- fuse-overlayfs is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:1.1.2-1.fc32 > 0:1.1.0-11.dev.git800011b.fc33
- gala is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:3.3.2-1.fc32 > 0:3.3.1-1.fc33
- gala-devel is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:3.3.2-1.fc32 > 0:3.3.1-1.fc33
- gala-libs is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:3.3.2-1.fc32 > 0:3.3.1-1.fc33
- gnome-remote-desktop is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:0.1.8-2.fc32 > 0:0.1.7-5.fc33
- gnome-shell-extension-material-shell is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:3-2.fc32 > 0:3-1.fc33
- golang-github-willf-bitset-devel is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:1.1.11-1.fc32 > 0:1.1.10-5.fc33
- hyperscan is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:5.3.0-1.fc32 > 0:5.2.1-2.fc32
- hyperscan-devel is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:5.3.0-1.fc32 > 0:5.2.1-2.fc32
- kdevelop-python is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:5.5.2-1.fc32 > 0:5.5.1-1.fc33
- libdkimpp is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:2.0.0-6.fc32 > 0:2.0.0-3.fc32
- libdkimpp-devel is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:2.0.0-6.fc32 > 0:2.0.0-3.fc32
- libmediainfo is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:20.08-1.fc32 > 0:20.03-3.fc33
- libmediainfo-devel is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:20.08-1.fc32 > 0:20.03-3.fc33
- luxcorerender is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:2.4-1.fc32 > 0:2.3-3.fc33
- luxcorerender-core is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:2.4-1.fc32 > 0:2.3-3.fc33
- luxcorerender-devel is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:2.4-1.fc32 > 0:2.3-3.fc33
- mediainfo is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:20.08-1.fc32 > 0:20.03-3.fc33
- mediainfo-gui is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:20.08-1.fc32 > 0:20.03-3.fc33
- mediainfo-qt is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:20.08-1.fc32 > 0:20.03-3.fc33
- ncmpc is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:0.39-1.fc32 > 0:0.38-2.fc33
- neovim is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:0.4.4-1.fc32 > 0:0.4.3-5.fc33
- oci-seccomp-bpf-hook is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:1.2.0-1.fc32 > 0:0.0.1-0.6.gitba7bbb16.fc33
- pki-tests is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:10.9.2-2.fc32 > 0:10.9.2-1.fc33
- procps-ng is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:3.3.16-1.fc32 > 0:3.3.15-9.fc33
- procps-ng-devel is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:3.3.16-1.fc32 > 0:3.3.15-9.fc33
- procps-ng-i18n is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:3.3.16-1.fc32 > 0:3.3.15-9.fc33
- python3-certbot-dns-google is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:1.7.0-1.fc32 > 0:1.5.0-1.fc33
- python3-dask+array is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:2.23.0-1.fc32~bootstrap > 0:2.21.0-2.fc33~bootstrap
- python3-dask+bag is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:2.23.0-1.fc32~bootstrap > 0:2.21.0-2.fc33~bootstrap
- python3-dask+dataframe is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:2.23.0-1.fc32~bootstrap > 0:2.21.0-2.fc33~bootstrap
- python3-dask+delayed is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:2.23.0-1.fc32~bootstrap > 0:2.21.0-2.fc33~bootstrap
- python3-dask is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:2.23.0-1.fc32~bootstrap > 0:2.21.0-2.fc33~bootstrap
- python3-fedmsg is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:1.1.2-1.fc32 > 0:1.1.1-11.fc33
- python3-luxcorerender is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:2.4-1.fc32 > 0:2.3-3.fc33
- python3-magic is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:5.38-2.fc32 > 0:0.4.15-4.fc33
- python3-ogr is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:0.13.1-1.fc32 > 0:0.13.0-1.fc33
- python3-operator-courier is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:2.1.9-3.fc32 > 0:2.1.9-2.fc33
- python3-tmt is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:0.20-1.fc32 > 0:0.19-1.fc33
- radare2 is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:4.5.0-2.fc32 > 0:4.5.0-1.fc33.1
- radare2-common is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:4.5.0-2.fc32 > 0:4.5.0-1.fc33.1
- radare2-devel is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:4.5.0-2.fc32 > 0:4.5.0-1.fc33.1
- relval is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:2.5.1-1.fc32 > 0:2.5.0-3.fc33
- rpm-ostree is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:2020.4-1.fc32 > 0:2020.3-1.fc33
- rpm-ostree-devel is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:2020.4-1.fc32 > 0:2020.3-1.fc33
- rpm-ostree-libs is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:2020.4-1.fc32 > 0:2020.3-1.fc33
- skopeo is newer in 32 than in 33:
  1:1.1.1-1.fc32 > 1:1.0.1-16.dev.git091f924.fc33
- skopeo-tests is newer in 32 than in 33:
  1:1.1.1-1.fc32 > 1:1.0.1-16.dev.git091f924.fc33
- strace is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:5.8-1.fc32 > 0:5.7.0.6.7ab6-1.fc33
- swift-lang is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:5.2.5-1.fc32 > 0:5.2.4-3.fc33
- swtpm is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:0.3.4-1.20200811git80f0418.fc32 > 0:0.3.0-4.20200218git74ae43b.fc33
- swtpm-devel is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:0.3.4-1.20200811git80f0418.fc32 > 0:0.3.0-4.20200218git74ae43b.fc33
- swtpm-libs is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:0.3.4-1.20200811git80f0418.fc32 > 0:0.3.0-4.20200218git74ae43b.fc33
- swtpm-tools is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:0.3.4-1.20200811git80f0418.fc32 > 0:0.3.0-4.20200218git74ae43b.fc33
- texlive-arphic is newer in 32 than in 33:
  9:svn15878.0-21.fc32 > 9:svn15878-27.fc33
- texlive-babel-malay-doc is newer in 32 than in 33:
  9:svn43235-21.fc32 > 9:svn43234-27.fc33
- texlive-tudscr is newer in 32 than in 33:
  9:svn51675-21.fc32 > 9:LPPL-27.fc33
- tmt is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:0.20-1.fc32 > 0:0.19-1.fc33
- tmt-all is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:0.20-1.fc32 > 0:0.19-1.fc33
- tmt-provision-container is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:0.20-1.fc32 > 0:0.19-1.fc33
- tmt-provision-virtual is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:0.20-1.fc32 > 0:0.19-1.fc33
- wingpanel is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:2.3.2-1.fc32 > 0:2.3.1-2.fc33
- wingpanel-devel is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:2.3.2-1.fc32 > 0:2.3.1-2.fc33
- wingpanel-libs is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:2.3.2-1.fc32 > 0:2.3.1-2.fc33
- yoshimi is newer in 32 than in 33:
  0:1.7.2-1.fc32 > 0:1.7.1-2.fc33

While I can't confirm the thunderbird issue (which looks like it's
caused by F33FTBFS), your other downgrades are in this list.

Most other downgrades seem to be caused by packagers submitting
updates for f34 and f32 but forgetting f33.

Fabio

[Neal Gompa]

On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 8:42 AM Fabio Valentini  wrote:
>

[...]
> appliance-tools is newer in 32 than in 33:
> 0:010.1-1.fc32 > 0:010.0-3.fc33

Something is wrong here, as Bodhi automatically submitted it yesterday
to stable: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-1f6a9b16a4

[Fabio Valentini]

On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 2:45 PM Neal Gompa  wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 8:42 AM Fabio Valentini  wrote:
> >
>
> [...]
> > appliance-tools is newer in 32 than in 33:
> > 0:010.1-1.fc32 > 0:010.0-3.fc33
>
> Something is wrong here, as Bodhi automatically submitted it yesterday
> to stable: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-1f6a9b16a4

It's possible that the repo mirror I hit hasn't gotten this update push yet.
I'll re-run the script later (or the day after tomorrow, after the
beta freeze) and file bugs for the remaining downgrades.

Fabio

[Neal Gompa]

On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 8:52 AM Fabio Valentini  wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 2:45 PM Neal Gompa  wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 8:42 AM Fabio Valentini  wrote:
> > >
> >
> > [...]
> > > appliance-tools is newer in 32 than in 33:
> > > 0:010.1-1.fc32 > 0:010.0-3.fc33
> >
> > Something is wrong here, as Bodhi automatically submitted it yesterday
> > to stable: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-1f6a9b16a4
>
> It's possible that the repo mirror I hit hasn't gotten this update push yet.
> I'll re-run the script later (or the day after tomorrow, after the
> beta freeze) and file bugs for the remaining downgrades.

No, something is definitely wrong, because last night's F33 compose
also had the same problem. I literally released that to attempt to fix
image builds yesterday and it wasn't even used.

[Fabio Valentini]

On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 3:04 PM Neal Gompa  wrote:
> No, something is definitely wrong, because last night's F33 compose
> also had the same problem. I literally released that to attempt to fix
> image builds yesterday and it wasn't even used.

Oh. Yeah then something is *definitely* wrong with f33 composes.
See also: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/9683#comment-672206

Fabio

[Daniel Walsh]

On 8/24/20 07:00, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> Hello.
>
> The following packages are downgrades when I attempt upgrade from
> Fedora 32 to Fedora 33:
> containers-common (skopeo) 1:1.1.1 -> 1:1.0.1
> fuse-overlayfs 1.1.2 -> 1.1.0
> strace 5.8 -> 5.7.0.6.7ab6
> thunderbird 668.11.0 -> 8.10.0
>
> Is this expected?

Definitely not on the first two.  I have asked the maintainers to look
into it.  Looks like packages in rawhide are failing to build.

[Peter Robinson]

On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 1:32 PM Daniel Walsh  wrote:
> On 8/24/20 07:00, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > Hello.
> >
> > The following packages are downgrades when I attempt upgrade from
> > Fedora 32 to Fedora 33:
> > containers-common (skopeo) 1:1.1.1 -> 1:1.0.1
> > fuse-overlayfs 1.1.2 -> 1.1.0
> > strace 5.8 -> 5.7.0.6.7ab6
> > thunderbird 668.11.0 -> 8.10.0
> >
> > Is this expected?
>
> Definitely not on the first two.  I have asked the maintainers to look
> into it.  Looks like packages in rawhide are failing to build.

The container stack never seems to be dealt with well in the branching
stage of the release, this isn't the first time I've noticed that,
could it be added to a process or similar to ensure it's smooth, not
sure we want individual commit related builds once we've branched and
headed for beta.

Peter

[Fabio Valentini]

On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 3:13 PM Peter Robinson  wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 1:32 PM Daniel Walsh  wrote:
> > On 8/24/20 07:00, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > > Hello.
> > >
> > > The following packages are downgrades when I attempt upgrade from
> > > Fedora 32 to Fedora 33:
> > > containers-common (skopeo) 1:1.1.1 -> 1:1.0.1
> > > fuse-overlayfs 1.1.2 -> 1.1.0
> > > strace 5.8 -> 5.7.0.6.7ab6
> > > thunderbird 668.11.0 -> 8.10.0
> > >
> > > Is this expected?
> >
> > Definitely not on the first two.  I have asked the maintainers to look
> > into it.  Looks like packages in rawhide are failing to build.
>
> The container stack never seems to be dealt with well in the branching
> stage of the release, this isn't the first time I've noticed that,
> could it be added to a process or similar to ensure it's smooth, not
> sure we want individual commit related builds once we've branched and
> headed for beta.
>
> Peter

Do you think it would be a good idea to file bugs for those packages
where a build for f33 was "forgotten"?
Since I already have the "downgrade check" scripted [0] it's a simple task of:

- check if the package has attempted build for f33
- if yes, check if it's FTBFS, and don't report a bug
- if no build was attempted for f33, report a bug

I see ~100 downgraded *binary* packages going from fully updated f32
to fully updated f33.
The number of affected *source* packages is naturally lower than that.
The script also doesn't account for packages being renamed (but in
those cases, proper Obsoletes and Provides need to be present during
package review, so I don't think this is a problem).

Fabio

[0]: https://gist.github.com/decathorpe/9b8bf35404c11b4ebf73d06ff303bc88

[kevin]

On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 08:14:38PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> Do you think it would be a good idea to file bugs for those packages
> where a build for f33 was "forgotten"?
> Since I already have the "downgrade check" scripted [0] it's a simple task of:
> check if the package has attempted build for f33
> if yes, check if it's FTBFS, and don't report a bug
> if no build was attempted for f33, report a bug
>
> I see ~100 downgraded *binary* packages going from fully updated f32
> to fully updated f33.
> The number of affected *source* packages is naturally lower than that.
> The script also doesn't account for packages being renamed (but in
> those cases, proper Obsoletes and Provides need to be present during
> package review, so I don't think this is a problem).

Yes, I think that would be lovely.

kevin

[Fabio Valentini]

On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 9:33 PM kevin  wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 08:14:38PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > Do you think it would be a good idea to file bugs for those packages
> > where a build for f33 was "forgotten"?
> > Since I already have the "downgrade check" scripted [0] it's a simple task of:
> > check if the package has attempted build for f33
> > if yes, check if it's FTBFS, and don't report a bug
> > if no build was attempted for f33, report a bug
> >
> > I see ~100 downgraded *binary* packages going from fully updated f32
> > to fully updated f33.
> > The number of affected *source* packages is naturally lower than that.
> > The script also doesn't account for packages being renamed (but in
> > those cases, proper Obsoletes and Provides need to be present during
> > package review, so I don't think this is a problem).
>
> Yes, I think that would be lovely.
>
> kevin

I'm on it.

By the way, I'm finding some weird issues where packages are tagged
with f33 in koji for a few days but an *older* build is in the repos,
e.g. appliance-tools and ddgr.

Fabio

[kevin]

On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 11:45:48AM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 9:33 PM kevin  wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 08:14:38PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > > Do you think it would be a good idea to file bugs for those packages
> > > where a build for f33 was "forgotten"?
> > > Since I already have the "downgrade check" scripted [0] it's a simple task of:
> > > check if the package has attempted build for f33
> > > if yes, check if it's FTBFS, and don't report a bug
> > > if no build was attempted for f33, report a bug
> > >
> > > I see ~100 downgraded *binary* packages going from fully updated f32
> > > to fully updated f33.
> > > The number of affected *source* packages is naturally lower than that.
> > > The script also doesn't account for packages being renamed (but in
> > > those cases, proper Obsoletes and Provides need to be present during
> > > package review, so I don't think this is a problem).
> >
> > Yes, I think that would be lovely.
> >
> > kevin
>
> I'm on it.
>
> By the way, I'm finding some weird issues where packages are tagged
> with f33 in koji for a few days but an *older* build is in the repos,
> e.g. appliance-tools and ddgr.

I am not seeing that here. Could be a mirror issue?

I ran out check_latest_build script on f33 (which looks at each
package and tries to figure out if the last tagged one is the
'highest').

It gives:

containernetworking-plugins-0.8.6-1.fc33 < containernetworking-plugins-0.8.6-11.1.gitbd58999.fc33
        crun-0.14.1-1.fc33 < crun-0.14.1-2.fc33
        fabtests-1.11.0-1.fc33 < fabtests-1.11.0rc2-1.fc33
        igt-gpu-tools-1.25-1.20200818git4e5f76b.fc33 < igt-gpu-tools-1.25-2.20200719git9b964d7.fc33
        libfabric-1.11.0-1.fc33 < libfabric-1.11.0rc2-1.fc33
        slirp4netns-1.1.4-1.fc33 < slirp4netns-1.1.4-4.dev.giteecccdb.fc33
        stdair-1.00.10-5.fc33 < stdair-1.00.10-6.fc33
        sympa-6.2.56-2.fc33 < sympa-6.2.56-2.fc33.1

kevin

[Fabio Valentini]

On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 7:11 PM kevin  wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 11:45:48AM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 9:33 PM kevin  wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 08:14:38PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > > > Do you think it would be a good idea to file bugs for those packages
> > > > where a build for f33 was "forgotten"?
> > > > Since I already have the "downgrade check" scripted [0] it's a simple task of:
> > > > check if the package has attempted build for f33
> > > > if yes, check if it's FTBFS, and don't report a bug
> > > > if no build was attempted for f33, report a bug
> > > >
> > > > I see ~100 downgraded *binary* packages going from fully updated f32
> > > > to fully updated f33.
> > > > The number of affected *source* packages is naturally lower than that.
> > > > The script also doesn't account for packages being renamed (but in
> > > > those cases, proper Obsoletes and Provides need to be present during
> > > > package review, so I don't think this is a problem).
> > >
> > > Yes, I think that would be lovely.
> > >
> > > kevin
> >
> > I'm on it.
> >
> > By the way, I'm finding some weird issues where packages are tagged
> > with f33 in koji for a few days but an *older* build is in the repos,
> > e.g. appliance-tools and ddgr.
>
> I am not seeing that here. Could be a mirror issue?
>
> I ran out check_latest_build script on f33 (which looks at each
> package and tries to figure out if the last tagged one is the
> 'highest').
>
> It gives:
>     containernetworking-plugins-0.8.6-1.fc33 < containernetworking-plugins-0.8.6-11.1.gitbd58999.fc33
>     crun-0.14.1-1.fc33 < crun-0.14.1-2.fc33
>     fabtests-1.11.0-1.fc33 < fabtests-1.11.0rc2-1.fc33
>     igt-gpu-tools-1.25-1.20200818git4e5f76b.fc33 < igt-gpu-tools-1.25-2.20200719git9b964d7.fc33
>     libfabric-1.11.0-1.fc33 < libfabric-1.11.0rc2-1.fc33
>     slirp4netns-1.1.4-1.fc33 < slirp4netns-1.1.4-4.dev.giteecccdb.fc33
>     stdair-1.00.10-5.fc33 < stdair-1.00.10-6.fc33
>     sympa-6.2.56-2.fc33 < sympa-6.2.56-2.fc33.1
>
> kevin

Hrm. It looks like at least some of those issues were transient, yes.
However, two issues are still left:

- libdkimpp-2.0.0-6.fc33 is tagged with f33 and f34 but 2.0.0-3.fc32
is in the f33 repos
- swift-lang-5.2.5-1.fc33 is tagged with f33 and f34 but 5.2.4-3.fc33
is in the f33 repos

Both these packages were built ~two weeks ago, so maybe they were
screwed up by the mass branching somehow?

Fabio

[kevin]

On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 07:18:49PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> Hrm. It looks like at least some of those issues were transient, yes.
> However, two issues are still left:
> libdkimpp-2.0.0-6.fc33 is tagged with f33 and f34 but 2.0.0-3.fc32
>
> is in the f33 repos

f34 should have been fine... f33 the newer one was only tagged in this
morning:

Wed Aug 26 03:25:54 2020 libdkimpp-2.0.0-6.fc33 tagged into f33 by humaton [still active]

So it should be in today's f33 compose, but indeed I don't see it there. 
Odd.

oh. Man. I sure hate timezones. ;)

It was tagged after the f33 compose started.
> swift-lang-5.2.5-1.fc33 is tagged with f33 and f34 but 5.2.4-3.fc33
>
> is in the f33 repos

Same here. Tagged in this morning, should be fixed tomorrow.
> Both these packages were built ~two weeks ago, so maybe they were
> screwed up by the mass branching somehow?

Yeah, possibly so.

kevin

[Mohan Boddu]

On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 1:53 PM kevin  wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 07:18:49PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > Hrm. It looks like at least some of those issues were transient, yes.
> > However, two issues are still left:
> > libdkimpp-2.0.0-6.fc33 is tagged with f33 and f34 but 2.0.0-3.fc32
> >
> > is in the f33 repos
>
> f34 should have been fine... f33 the newer one was only tagged in this
> morning:
>
> Wed Aug 26 03:25:54 2020 libdkimpp-2.0.0-6.fc33 tagged into f33 by humaton [still active]
>
> So it should be in today's f33 compose, but indeed I don't see it there.
> Odd.
>
> oh. Man. I sure hate timezones. ;)
>
> It was tagged after the f33 compose started.
> > swift-lang-5.2.5-1.fc33 is tagged with f33 and f34 but 5.2.4-3.fc33
> >
> > is in the f33 repos
>
> Same here. Tagged in this morning, should be fixed tomorrow.

I untagged them since they are directly tagged to f33 tag without
getting right with fedora-33 key. I am tagging them to
f33-updates-candidate to let bodhi take care of the process flow since
we are in freeze now.
> > Both these packages were built ~two weeks ago, so maybe they were
> > screwed up by the mass branching somehow?
>
> Yeah, possibly so.
>
> kevin
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]

[Mohan Boddu]

On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 9:42 AM Mohan Boddu  wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 1:53 PM kevin  wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 07:18:49PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > > Hrm. It looks like at least some of those issues were transient, yes.
> > > However, two issues are still left:
> > > libdkimpp-2.0.0-6.fc33 is tagged with f33 and f34 but 2.0.0-3.fc32
> > >
> > > is in the f33 repos
> >
> > f34 should have been fine... f33 the newer one was only tagged in this
> > morning:
> >
> > Wed Aug 26 03:25:54 2020 libdkimpp-2.0.0-6.fc33 tagged into f33 by humaton [still active]
> >
> > So it should be in today's f33 compose, but indeed I don't see it there.
> > Odd.
> >
> > oh. Man. I sure hate timezones. ;)
> >
> > It was tagged after the f33 compose started.
> > > swift-lang-5.2.5-1.fc33 is tagged with f33 and f34 but 5.2.4-3.fc33
> > >
> > > is in the f33 repos
> >
> > Same here. Tagged in this morning, should be fixed tomorrow.
>
> I untagged them since they are directly tagged to f33 tag without
> getting right with fedora-33 key. I am tagging them to
> f33-updates-candidate to let bodhi take care of the process flow since
> we are in freeze now.

And its not possible, since there is a update with the same build that
got pushed to f34, sigh.

I will work with adamw in creating a FBR to push these updates
directly to the f33 tag.
> > > Both these packages were built ~two weeks ago, so maybe they were
> > > screwed up by the mass branching somehow?
> >
> > Yeah, possibly so.
> >
> > kevin
> > _______________________________________________
> > devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> > List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]

[Lokesh Mandvekar]

I fixed skopeo and fuse-overlayfs earlier today, so hopefully we should be good
on those soon.

On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 01:00:58PM +0200, Miro Hron??ok wrote:
> Hello.
>
> The following packages are downgrades when I attempt upgrade from Fedora 32
> to Fedora 33:
> containers-common (skopeo) 1:1.1.1 -> 1:1.0.1
> fuse-overlayfs 1.1.2 -> 1.1.0
> strace 5.8 -> 5.7.0.6.7ab6
> thunderbird 668.11.0 -> 8.10.0
>
> Is this expected?
>
> -- 
> Miro Hron??ok
> --
> Phone: [phone]
> IRC: mhroncok