Re: Missing DRPMs for F26

[Rick Stevens]

On 08/25/2017 11:50 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On 08/25/2017 09:41 AM, Rick Stevens wrote:
>> Hi, guys.
>>
>> I don't know if this is the correct forum for this, but over on the
>> users' list people have been talking about the fact there haven't been
>> any delta RPMs released for F26 updates. For those of us who don't have
>> download limits, this isn't a problem. However, many people do have
>> these limits and this could present a big issue for them.
>>
>> As I said, I don't know if this is the correct place to mention this
>> or if it should be brought up on the infrastructure list.
> 
> As noted on infrastructure list:
> 
> Short answer: Yes. We know they are currently not working for f26.
> 
> Long answer: With the addition of alternative arches in f26, we cannot
> do drpms the same way as we used to, because some of the packages are
> under fedora-secondary and some are under fedora. We need a fix for
> https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues/1685 in order to get this
> working again.
> 
> Hopefully we will have a patch soon and they will be re-enabled.

Thanks for the response and the posting on the users' list. Much
appreciated!
--
- Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, AllDigitalri...@alldigital.com -
- AIM/Skype: therps2ICQ: 226437340   Yahoo: origrps2 -
--
-   NEWS FLASH! Intelligence of mankind decreasing!  Details at...   -
- uh, when, uh, the little hand is, uh, on the...  Aw, NUTS! -
--
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Missing DRPMs for F26

[Kevin Fenzi]

On 08/25/2017 09:41 AM, Rick Stevens wrote:
> Hi, guys.
> 
> I don't know if this is the correct forum for this, but over on the
> users' list people have been talking about the fact there haven't been
> any delta RPMs released for F26 updates. For those of us who don't have
> download limits, this isn't a problem. However, many people do have
> these limits and this could present a big issue for them.
> 
> As I said, I don't know if this is the correct place to mention this
> or if it should be brought up on the infrastructure list.

As noted on infrastructure list:

Short answer: Yes. We know they are currently not working for f26.

Long answer: With the addition of alternative arches in f26, we cannot
do drpms the same way as we used to, because some of the packages are
under fedora-secondary and some are under fedora. We need a fix for
https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues/1685 in order to get this
working again.

Hopefully we will have a patch soon and they will be re-enabled.

kevin



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Missing DRPMs for F26

[Rick Stevens]

Hi, guys.

I don't know if this is the correct forum for this, but over on the
users' list people have been talking about the fact there haven't been
any delta RPMs released for F26 updates. For those of us who don't have
download limits, this isn't a problem. However, many people do have
these limits and this could present a big issue for them.

As I said, I don't know if this is the correct place to mention this
or if it should be brought up on the infrastructure list.
--
- Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, AllDigitalri...@alldigital.com -
- AIM/Skype: therps2ICQ: 226437340   Yahoo: origrps2 -
--
- We have enough youth, how about a fountain of SMART?   -
--
___
test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: DRPMs

[Russel Winder]

On Tue, 2016-06-28 at 12:26 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> > […]
> 
> I don't believe drpms are generated for rawhide.  I'm not sure they
> ever
> have been.

DRPMs were generated in the past (not quite sure when they stopped,
possibly when f25 started). They make running updated Rawhide feasible
since it can be updated nightly. Without DRPM I can only sensible
update on a Saturday.

> RW> Does this mean that the DRPM system is being abandoned?
> 
> Do you not see drpms being generated for all of the release branches?
> (I certainly do.)  If so, how could you come to the conclusion that
> drpms are being abandoned?

I haven't really looked. I am not that interested in versioned systems
that undergo revolutionary change every n months, I want a rolling
release. Hence Rawhide and Sid. People keep telling me I should run
Arch but so far I have resisted.

-- 

Russel.
=
Dr Russel Winder  t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net
41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/test@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: DRPMs

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

> "KF" == Kevin Fenzi  writes:

KF> Right. They are not at all, no matter how much I might like it from
KF> the server side. ;)

You and me both.

If only we could get them broken up into subdirectories like the
packages are.  But then you have to fix two different createrepo
codebases.

 - J<
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/test@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: DRPMs

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Tue, 28 Jun 2016 12:26:38 -0500
Jason L Tibbitts III <ti...@math.uh.edu> wrote:

> >>>>> "RW" == Russel Winder <rus...@winder.org.uk> writes:  
> 
> RW> From what I can see DRPMs for Rawhide have not been picked up by
> RW> the mirrors for quite a long time now.  
> 
> I don't believe drpms are generated for rawhide.  I'm not sure they
> ever have been.

They have been in the past, but they appear to be broken since the move
to pungi4. 

I've filed: https://pagure.io/pungi/issue/344 for this.

> RW> Does this mean that the DRPM system is being abandoned?  
> 
> Do you not see drpms being generated for all of the release branches?
> (I certainly do.)  If so, how could you come to the conclusion that
> drpms are being abandoned?

Right. They are not at all, no matter how much I might like it from the
server side. ;) 

kevin


pgpXirWtOGQ7q.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/test@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: DRPMs

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

>>>>> "RW" == Russel Winder <rus...@winder.org.uk> writes:

RW> From what I can see DRPMs for Rawhide have not been picked up by the
RW> mirrors for quite a long time now.

I don't believe drpms are generated for rawhide.  I'm not sure they ever
have been.

RW> Does this mean that the DRPM system is being abandoned?

Do you not see drpms being generated for all of the release branches?
(I certainly do.)  If so, how could you come to the conclusion that
drpms are being abandoned?

 - J<
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/test@lists.fedoraproject.org

DRPMs

[Russel Winder]

From what I can see DRPMs for Rawhide have not been picked up by the
mirrors  for quite a long time now. Does this mean that the DRPM system
is being abandoned?

-- 

Russel.
=
Dr Russel Winder  t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net
41 Buckmaster Roadm: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk
London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/test@lists.fedoraproject.org

new xz in Rawhide and md5 mismatch of result errors in rebuilding drpms

[Andre Robatino]

A new version of xz (xz-4.999.9-0.3.beta.212.gacbc.fc15) was built and pushed to
Rawhide on October 16. Today, I saw several md5sum mismatch of result errors
in rebuilding drpms. In each case, the drpm rebuild failed if and only if the
corresponding new rpm was built before the xz update. (For example,
java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0-41.b18.fc13_1.6.0.0-44.1.9.1.fc14.x86_64.drpm failed
to rebuild, and java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0-44.1.9.1.fc14.x86_64 was built on
October 13.)

-- 
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe: 
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test