March 2016 - rel-eng - Fedora Mailing-Lists

by Adam Williamson

On Wed, 2016-03-09 at 13:26 -0500, John Dulaney wrote: > . > > > > > > == 2. N indicates TC/RC, R indicates number == > > > > In this scheme, we'd build e.g. 'Alpha 1.1' (Alpha TC1), 'Alpha 1.2' > > (Alpha TC2), 'Alpha 2.1' (Alpha RC1), 'Alpha 2.2' (Alpha RC2). > > > > This seems like the closest possible way to map to our current system. > > Again it's a bit weird at Final because there is no 'Final' milestone, > > only 'RC', so 'RC1.1' would be 'TC1' and 'RC2.1' would be 'RC1', which > > is kinda strange; again we could add a 'Final' milestone to Pungi, I > > guess. > > > > I'm just not sure, as per 1), if we really *need* to maintain the TC/RC > > distinction at least in terms of how the composes are labelled and > > distributed. > > > I'm a fan of this approach, personally. With weirdly-named RCs, or by adding a 'Final' milestone to Pungi? -- Adam WilliamsonFedora QA Community MonkeyIRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . nethttp://www.happyassassin.net

8 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

Fedora Atomic Host Two Week Release Announcement

by noreply＠fedoraproject.org

A new update of Fedora Cloud Atomic Host has been released and can be downloaded at: Images can be found here: https://getfedora.org/en/cloud/download/atomic.html Respective signed CHECKSUM files can be found here: https://alt.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/atomic/stable/Cloud-Images/x86_64/I... https://alt.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/atomic/stable/Cloud_Atomic/x86_64/i... Thank you, Fedora Release Engineering

8 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

#6364: libsrtp exists in RHEL 7

by Fedora Release Engineering

#6364: libsrtp exists in RHEL 7 --------------------+------------------------ Reporter: ellert | Owner: rel-eng@… Type: task | Status: new Milestone: | Component: epel Keywords: | Blocked By: Blocking: | --------------------+------------------------ libsrtp exists in RHEL 7: https://git.centos.org/summary/?r=rpms/libsrtp.git It should therefore be retired from EPEL 7: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/libsrtp/ -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6364> Fedora Release Engineering <http://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng> Release Engineering for the Fedora Project

8 years, 1 month

1
1
0 / 0

#6365: "Broken dependencies" report does not understand rich dependencies

by Fedora Release Engineering

#6365: "Broken dependencies" report does not understand rich dependencies -----------------------------+------------------------ Reporter: ppisar | Owner: rel-eng@… Type: defect | Status: new Milestone: Fedora 24 Alpha | Component: mash Keywords: | Blocked By: Blocking: | -----------------------------+------------------------ I use rich (also called boolean) dependencies in pcre rawhide package. I receive false reports about broken dependencies now: {{{ pcre has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree: On x86_64: pcre-doc-8.38-13.fc25.noarch requires (pcre = 8.38-13.fc25 or pcre-utf16 = 8.38-13.fc25 or pcre-32 = 8.38-13.fc25) }}} Please add support for [http://www.rpm.org/wiki/PackagerDocs/BooleanDependencies]. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6365> Fedora Release Engineering <http://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng> Release Engineering for the Fedora Project

8 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

Re: #5886: need method for distributing urgent fixes... urgently

by Fedora Release Engineering

#5886: need method for distributing urgent fixes... urgently ------------------------------+------------------------------ Reporter: mattdm | Owner: rel-eng@… Type: enhancement | Status: new Milestone: Fedora 23 Alpha | Component: mash Resolution: | Keywords: meeting planning Blocked By: | Blocking: ------------------------------+------------------------------ Comment (by pfrields): dgilmore, lmacken, nirik, maxamillion and I met about this ticket earlier. We arrived at the consensus that if we can cut mash time down, we could have updates ready to push in less than an hour, possibly considerably less. There are some Koji fixes headed upstream that could help here, but we don't know how long they'll take. In the meantime though, we know what the problem is they address (file permissions that require cp versus hardlink), and lmacken is going to try those fixes this week in staging to compare performance. Both dgilmore and kevin will consult on ansible fixes, etc. to help out. We know there is also some time needed for MirrorManager to invalidate old cache, but there are a few things we can do there as well. May tweak mirrormanager to in specific cases to point everything to master mirrors + ibiblio for an hour or two, until more mirrors synced. This *might* obviate the need for a separate repo. We're keeping the separate repo on the table as an alternative. Everyone agreed we can and should have this fixed before F24 Beta. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5886#comment:37> Fedora Release Engineering <http://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng> Release Engineering for the Fedora Project

8 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

Re: #5846: move away from md5 for look-aside cache

by Fedora Release Engineering

#5846: move away from md5 for look-aside cache -------------------+----------------------- Reporter: till | Owner: rel-eng@… Type: task | Status: new Milestone: | Component: other Resolution: | Keywords: Blocked By: | Blocking: 6111 -------------------+----------------------- Comment (by bochecha): There doesn't seem to be notification emails sent when I edited the previous comment as things got done, so here's a new one to make sure interested folks receive an email and know where we stand. :-) As detailed in the previous comment, we are now at the point where we could just flip the switch in fedpkg to start using the new {{{sources}}} file format and sha512 hashes. At least all the client code is ready and in all Fedora/EPEL branches. The server code is ready as well and has been used for a few months already. Now all that remains is decide when we do that cert change (ticket #6111) and do this at the same time. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5846#comment:24> Fedora Release Engineering <http://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng> Release Engineering for the Fedora Project

8 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[Fedocal] Reminder meeting : Fedora Release Engineering

by Dennis Gilmore

Dear all, You are kindly invited to the meeting: Fedora Release Engineering on 2016-03-07 from 10:30:00 to 11:30:00 US/Central 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/

8 years, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

koji upload chunk size

by Dennis Gregorovic

https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/koji-devel@lists.fedorahoste... According to that thread, there is a strong possibility that slow upload speeds of images in koji (from client to hub) could be related to the chunk size. We're looking to get a patch soon that will make that value configurable. In the meantime, is there a test server set up where you could manually change the value and see if it makes a difference? It's not urgent. I'm just curious. :) -- Dennis

8 years, 1 month

2
1
0 / 0

#6342: Broken dependencies - stable release not in repository after 5 days

by Fedora Release Engineering

#6342: Broken dependencies - stable release not in repository after 5 days ---------------------+------------------------ Reporter: ondrejj | Owner: rel-eng@… Type: defect | Status: new Milestone: | Component: koji Keywords: | Blocked By: Blocking: | ---------------------+------------------------ According to bodhi, python-configargparse package should be in stable repository 2 days ago and has been released 5 days ago, but still not in testing and/or stable repositories for Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-291dc1c23f [root@work ~]# dnf --disablerepo=\* --enablerepo=updates --enablerepo =updates-testing list python2-configargparse Last metadata expiration check performed 0:31:50 ago on Wed Jan 27 09:19:09 2016. Installed Packages python2-configargparse.noarch 0.9.3-3.fc23 @updates [root@work ~]# Should be version 0.10. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6342> Fedora Release Engineering <http://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng> Release Engineering for the Fedora Project

8 years, 1 month

1
2
0 / 0

#6302: Please whitelist nosync for multilib

by Fedora Release Engineering

#6302: Please whitelist nosync for multilib ----------------------+------------------------ Reporter: msimacek | Owner: rel-eng@… Type: task | Status: new Milestone: | Component: mash Keywords: | Blocked By: Blocking: | ----------------------+------------------------ nosync is a small library used by mock. It is installed in /usr/lib/nosync/nosync.so, because it's supposed to be used only via LD_PRELOAD (mock first copies it to buildroot). It seems that mash doesn't recognize it as multilib, because it's not in standard library location. Could it be whitelisted for being multilib? See also: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1283736 -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6302> Fedora Release Engineering <http://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng> Release Engineering for the Fedora Project

8 years, 1 month

1
2
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

rel-eng March 2016