rel-eng January 2016

rel-eng@lists.fedoraproject.org

8 participants
56 discussions

Content Generators
by Colin Walters 27 Jan '16

27 Jan '16

Is this the right list to discuss: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Koji/ContentGenerators I wonder, why not try an approach where "content generator" is a tool which: - Takes as input one of more upstream sources (git repositories ideally) - Plus some optional metadata in a dist-git style git repository - Generates a spec file (the key part, but there's *lots* of prior art here, such as what http://www.openembedded.org/wiki/Main_Page does via Bitbake, Clear Linux also generates spec files, plus there's the language-specific tools etc.) - Requires the generated RPMs are namespaced (e.g. cgen-rubygems-, cgen-jar) ? - Defines a tool to extract RPMs back to the target (rubygem, jar) My motivation here is I'd really like to do (at least partial) generation of specfiles myself in packages which are presently in Fedora.

2 1

#6341: A koji build does not finish overnight
by Fedora Release Engineering 26 Jan '16

26 Jan '16

#6341: A koji build does not finish overnight -----------------------------+------------------------ Reporter: cheeselee | Owner: rel-eng@… Type: task | Status: new Milestone: Fedora 24 Alpha | Component: koji Keywords: | Blocked By: Blocking: | -----------------------------+------------------------ http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=713512 This build does not finish overnight. All arch builds has been closed. Forwarded from: https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/5074 -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6341> Fedora Release Engineering <http://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng> Release Engineering for the Fedora Project

1 1

#6274: Enable keepcache in koji dnf conf
by Fedora Release Engineering 25 Jan '16

25 Jan '16

#6274: Enable keepcache in koji dnf conf --------------------+------------------------ Reporter: rjones | Owner: rel-eng@… Type: task | Status: new Milestone: | Component: koji Keywords: | Blocked By: Blocking: | --------------------+------------------------ Supermin needs access to the pristine RPMs from which the buildroot is installed, in order to grab the `/etc` (configuration) files into the libguestfs appliance (the binaries etc are not baked into the appliance for obvious security/maintainability reasons). For years we got these from the yum cache, but problem: dnf defaults to `keepcache=0` and so doesn't save these RPMs. Therefore please enable keepcache like yum. I believe the only way to do this is to patch koji, unfortunately: {{{ diff --git a/koji/__init__.py b/koji/__init__.py index 612bfd5..0665481 100644 --- a/koji/__init__.py +++ b/koji/__init__.py @@ -1324,6 +1324,7 @@ retries=20 obsoletes=1 gpgcheck=0 assumeyes=1 +keepcache=1 # repos }}} -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6274> Fedora Release Engineering <http://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng> Release Engineering for the Fedora Project

1 3

#6326: Unblock dist-tags for unretired package "mod_mono"
by Fedora Release Engineering 25 Jan '16

25 Jan '16

#6326: Unblock dist-tags for unretired package "mod_mono" -----------------------------+------------------------ Reporter: elsupergomez | Owner: rel-eng@… Type: task | Status: new Milestone: Fedora 24 Alpha | Component: koji Keywords: | Blocked By: Blocking: | -----------------------------+------------------------ I unretired package "mod_mono" Re-Review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1277161 Pkgdb is OK: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/mod_mono/ Push access to SCM is OK. fedpkg build fail with: 12465313 build (rawhide, /mod_mono:f984382c72191059696feb4fca5708545f482226): open (buildvm-22.phx2.fedoraproject.org) -> FAILED: BuildError: package mod_mono is blocked for tag f24 Please unblock Thanks! -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6326> Fedora Release Engineering <http://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng> Release Engineering for the Fedora Project

1 1

#6322: Request for f24-boost side tag
by Fedora Release Engineering 25 Jan '16

25 Jan '16

#6322: Request for f24-boost side tag -----------------------------+------------------------ Reporter: jwakely | Owner: rel-eng@… Type: task | Status: new Milestone: Fedora 24 Alpha | Component: koji Keywords: | Blocked By: Blocking: | -----------------------------+------------------------ Hi, Please could the f24-boost tag be recreated so I can build the new Boost 1.60 release and rebuild the packages that depend on it? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/F24Boost160 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1288078 There was an f24-boost side tag created for https://fedorahosted.org /rel-eng/ticket/6197 -- could I have that back again please? Thanks I will do all the required rebuilds in the next week. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6322> Fedora Release Engineering <http://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng> Release Engineering for the Fedora Project

1 5

#6268: Arm prevents F23+ builds of gcc
by Fedora Release Engineering 25 Jan '16

25 Jan '16

#6268: Arm prevents F23+ builds of gcc -----------------------------+------------------------ Reporter: jakub | Owner: rel-eng@… Type: task | Status: new Milestone: Fedora 23 Alpha | Component: koji Keywords: | Blocked By: Blocking: | -----------------------------+------------------------ I have not been able to successfully build gcc in Fedora 23+ since June, 19th, all the builds fail because on 32-bit arm we trigger the 24 hour timeout. Back in June, the Fedora 22 as well as Fedora 23 builds took both around 18 hours on 32-bit arm, which is terrible (compared to 3-8 hours for other architectures), but still it was possible for the builds to succeed. The Fedora 22 gcc builds (same source) always succeed even now, still around 18 hours build time. The only major difference between F22 and F23 gcc is the default libstdc++ ABI (gcc4-compatible vs. the new one), but that really shouldn't result in many hours of difference and in the past it didn't result in that. So, the question is, are F22 and F23/F24 gcc builds (eclipse build target) going to approximately same hw, or significantly different? Are the kernels in between those approximately the same? I've already tried to %undefine _hardened_build (which is desirable for gcc in any case, slowing down the compiler for the address randomization is undesirable), which didn't help, similarly am doing: %if 0%{?fedora} >= 23 %ifnarch %{arm} RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=unix/'{,-fstack-protector-strong}'" \ %endif %else RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=unix/'{,-fstack-protector-strong}'" \ %endif which should on arm F23+ significantly reduce the amount of gcc testing by not testing -fstack-protector-strong, only the default options, but it timed out anyway. So I'm afraid I'm out of ideas what it might be; note, the compiler is the same, and really should dominate the build time. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6268> Fedora Release Engineering <http://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng> Release Engineering for the Fedora Project

1 6

#6340: bzip2 got downgraded in F23 updates
by Fedora Release Engineering 25 Jan '16

25 Jan '16

#6340: bzip2 got downgraded in F23 updates -----------------------------+------------------------ Reporter: bochecha | Owner: rel-eng@… Type: task | Status: new Milestone: Fedora 24 Alpha | Component: other Keywords: | Blocked By: Blocking: | -----------------------------+------------------------ Same as usual, 2 Bodhi updates going out at roughly the same time, the older one being pushed **after** the newer one: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-4a9c774398 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-be3a6f6ed8 I guess bzip2-1.0.6-19.fc23 needs to be retagged as `f23-updates` ? -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6340> Fedora Release Engineering <http://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng> Release Engineering for the Fedora Project

1 3

[Fedocal] Reminder meeting : Fedora Release Engineering
by Dennis Gilmore 25 Jan '16

25 Jan '16

Dear all, You are kindly invited to the meeting: Fedora Release Engineering on 2016-01-25 from 15:30:00 to 16:30:00 UTC At fedora-meeting-1(a)irc.freenode.net The meeting will be about: Fedora Release Engineering weekly meeting Source: https://apps.fedoraproject.org/calendar/meeting/2026/

2 1

#6330: Koji should not install weak deps by default
by Fedora Release Engineering 25 Jan '16

25 Jan '16

#6330: Koji should not install weak deps by default -----------------------------+------------------------ Reporter: vondruch | Owner: rel-eng@… Type: task | Status: new Milestone: Fedora 24 Alpha | Component: koji Keywords: | Blocked By: Blocking: | -----------------------------+------------------------ Based on discussion [1] Mock is using "install_weak_deps=0" and Koji should behave the same. [1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel%40lists.fedoraproject.o… [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1254634 [3] https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/mock.git/commit/?id=7601fe2d985bce0f01d0e… -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6330> Fedora Release Engineering <http://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng> Release Engineering for the Fedora Project

1 3

#6337: Change "Main point of contact" on package mod_extract_forwarded branch el6
by Fedora Release Engineering 25 Jan '16

25 Jan '16

#6337: Change "Main point of contact" on package mod_extract_forwarded branch el6 -----------------------------+------------------------ Reporter: timj | Owner: rel-eng@… Type: task | Status: new Milestone: Fedora 24 Alpha | Component: other Keywords: | Blocked By: Blocking: | -----------------------------+------------------------ I am the main point of contact in PackageDB for EL5 and EL6 branches of mod_extract_forwarded. Using the PackageDB web interface, I tried to give away "main point of contact" on the EL6 branch to the user who should actually be the main point of contact, and was greeted by this message: user: timj changed point of contact of package: mod_extract_forwarded from: timj to: dmaphy on branch: el6 You are not allowed to update ACLs of someone else. (the latter in red) Please can this request be carried out manually? Additionally, should it be filed as a PackageDB bug? At best the error is not comprehensible, but fundamentally the "Give package" function seems to be broken if one can't actually give away (a branch of) the package. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6337> Fedora Release Engineering <http://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng> Release Engineering for the Fedora Project

1 6

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

rel-eng January 2016