August 2019 - rel-eng - Fedora Mailing-Lists

[pungi-fedora] Issue #740: composeinfo file in Fedora Rawhid

by Mike Boswell

mboswell reported a new issue against the project: `pungi-fedora` that you are following: `` We started having Beaker import issues around July 17th. There seems to be a mismatch in the .composeinfo file and the compose. I was able to successfully import secondary Rawhide w/ the following edit: [variant-Everything] -arches = ppc64le,s390x +arches = ppc64le,i386,s390x id = Everything name = Everything type = variant Below was the error prior to manual edit of composeinfo. [root@fedmsg fedmsg]# beaker-import --dry-run --lab-controller=http://lab-02.rhts.eng.bos.redhat.com:8000 http://download.eng.bos.redhat.com/fedmsg/dumpdata/secondary/Fedora-Rawhi... ftp://download. eng.bos.redhat.com/fedmsg/dumpdata/secondary/Fedora-Rawhide-20190725.n.0 nfs://aoe-cluster.lab.bos.redhat.com:/ibm/exports/fedmsg/dumpdata/secondary/Fedora-Rawhide-20190725.n.0 2019-07-26 15:29:27,072 root INFO Dry Run only, no data will be sent to beaker 2019-07-26 15:29:27,205 root INFO Attempting to import: http://download.eng.bos.redhat.com/fedmsg/dumpdata/secondary/Fedora-Rawhi... 2019-07-26 15:29:27,226 root INFO Attempting to import: http://download.eng.bos.redhat.com/fedmsg/dumpdata/secondary/Fedora-Rawhi... 2019-07-26 15:29:27,273 root INFO Fedora-Rawhide-20190725.n.0 Everything ppc64le added to beaker. 2019-07-26 15:29:27,293 root INFO Attempting to import: http://download.eng.bos.redhat.com/fedmsg/dumpdata/secondary/Fedora-Rawhi... 2019-07-26 15:29:27,367 root CRITICAL No section: 'images-i386' `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/issue/740

5 days, 16 hours

3
7
0 / 0

[pungi-fedora] Issue #738: Replace build_composeinfo with compose-create-legacy-composeinfo

by Martin Styk

martstyk reported a new issue against the project: `pungi-fedora` that you are following: `` I suggest replacing build_composeinfo with compose-create-legacy-composeinfo (compose-utils package). build_composeinfo is not providing enough information to distinguish between 2 composes. For example Beta & GOLD. F29 GOLD https://paste.fedoraproject.org/paste/kfRpr5QYWq64vrQZlp2Kqg F29 Beta https://paste.fedoraproject.org/paste/HjE6dcKJFWRKJf4iZ5XQEA This can lead to consider GOLD & Beta as same compose which is obviously wrong. On other hands .composeinfo generated by compose-create-legacy-composeinfo looks like this: F29 GOLD https://paste.fedoraproject.org/paste/pyJhX1qlWy-S2CWZDO-xKQ F29 Beta https://paste.fedoraproject.org/paste/7OcbcowriGvk7wKX3r8hQw `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/issue/738

1 month

5
4
0 / 0

[pungi-fedora] PR #731: cloud: remove s390x from image builds

by Dusty Mabe

dustymabe opened a new pull-request against the project: `pungi-fedora` that you are following: `` cloud: remove s390x from image builds `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/pungi-fedora/pull-request/731

2 months

4
9
0 / 0

[releng] Issue #8569: Side tag for llvm rebase in Rawhide

by Tom Stellard

tstellar reported a new issue against the project: `releng` that you are following: `` * Describe the issue We need a side tag (f31-llvm) for the upcoming llvm rebase in Fedora * When do you need this? (YYYY/MM/DD) 07/29/2019 * When is this no longer needed or useful? (YYYY/MM/DD) 08/29/2019 * If we cannot complete your request, what is the impact? Temporary breakage in rawhide when the LLVM rebase occurs. `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8569

2 months, 3 weeks

3
7
0 / 0

[releng] Issue #7793: Implement new Fedora Security policy for retiring packages with security bugs

by Huzaifa Sidhpurwala

huzaifas reported a new issue against the project: `releng` that you are following: `` We need to implement the new Fedora Security policy as per: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel-announce@lists.fedora... "If a CRITICAL or IMPORTANT security issue is currently open against a package, or a security issue of lower severity has been open for at least 6 months, four weeks before the branch point a procedure similar to long-standing FTBFS will be triggered immediately, with 8 weeks of weekly notifications to maintainers and subsequent orphaning and then subsequent removal from distribution. This applies to all packages, not just leaf." So before 4 weeks before the branch point, we need to ensure that: 1. Packages which have any pending critical or important security flaws open ie: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_severity=urgent&bug_severity=... are marked for FTBS and not built. 2. Packages which have any <important flaws open for atleast 6 months or more ie: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_severity=urgent&bug_severity=... are marked for FTBS and not build. * When do you need this? 2019-01-01 - Much before the last branch point. * If we cannot complete your request, what is the impact? Fedora 30 will ship lot of insecure packages. Major issue for the release. `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7793

2 months, 3 weeks

5
12
0 / 0

[releng] Issue #8624: Unretire mingw-libsoup

by Kalev Lember

kalev reported a new issue against the project: `releng` that you are following: `` mingw-libsoup got retired in the recent FTBFS cleanup. Please unretire it and unblock in f31. I'll take care of fixing the FTBFS. `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8624

2 months, 3 weeks

3
7
0 / 0

[releng] Issue #8664: Module mass-rebuild for F32 Rawhide needed

by Stephen Gallagher

sgallagh reported a new issue against the project: `releng` that you are following: `` * Describe the issue At the Branch point, we need to perform a mass-rebuild of modular content so that they can be rebuilt against the new base module (in this case `platform:f32`). This does not seem to have happened during the F31 Branch from Rawhide, as https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/compose/rawhide/Fedora-Rawhide-2019082... shows only those modules whose maintainers have done a manual rebuild since the Branch. * When do you need this? (YYYY/MM/DD) Immediately (2019-08-21) * When is this no longer needed or useful? (YYYY/MM/DD) When F32 goes EOL * If we cannot complete your request, what is the impact? Upgrade path on Rawhide will be broken for anyone with modules enabled. (That means pretty much everyone at this point). CC @kevin `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8664

2 months, 3 weeks

4
11
0 / 0

[releng] Issue #8702: F31 stable push requests

by Adam Williamson

adamwill reported a new issue against the project: `releng` that you are following: `` This ticket will be used for requesting pushes of tested blocker / freeze exception fixes during F31 release freezes. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process and https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_freeze_exception_bug_process . Similar to candidate compose request tickets, this ticket can be closed by releng after each push and re-opened by QA each time a new push is needed. `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8702

2 months, 3 weeks

3
35
0 / 0

[releng] Issue #8684: Create F32FTBFS and F32FailsToInstall Bugzilla trackers

by Miro Hrončok

churchyard reported a new issue against the project: `releng` that you are following: `` * Describe the issue According to the Fails to build and Fails to install policy, we need new Buzgilla trackers for Fedora 32. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Fails_to_build_from_source_Fai... * When do you need this? After Fedora 31 was branched (already happened). * When is this no longer needed or useful? When Fedora 32 goes EOL. * If we cannot complete your request, what is the impact? We cannot properly track F32 install and build failures. ---- I know I can create the bugizllas myself, but last time i did, it created confusion during teh mass rebuild. So I'd prefer if releng creates them. It also looks better if the trackers are created by the releng account. Thanks `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8684

2 months, 4 weeks

1
3
0 / 0

[releng] Issue #8468: fedora-scm-requests new repository procedure repeatedly keeps the repo owned by the releng person

by Miro Hrončok

churchyard reported a new issue against the project: `releng` that you are following: `` 1. I've create a new repository request, where something was wrong 2. @limb processed the request, closed as invalid 3. I fixed the thing and reopened the issue 4. @limb processed the request, closed as invalid again (already exists) 5. as a result, the repo was created, but owned by @limb This is probably broken in some script that @limb runs, it probably creates the repo, checks some constraints and assigns the repo to me. When the constraints fail, the repo exists, but is not assigned to me. I cannot provide more details, because I have no idea what happens "on the other side". This already happened twice to me: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/10716 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/13178 In both cases, the branch was set to epel7 and initial_commit to false, if that makes any difference. `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8468

2 months, 4 weeks

2
4
0 / 0

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

rel-eng August 2019