No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 3/189 (x86_64), 7/127 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-34-20210403.n.0):
ID: 842288 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_login
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/842288
ID: 842340 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 1/16 (x86_64), 2/15 (aarch64)
Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-IoT-34-20210331.0):
ID: 842540 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso base_services_start
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/842540
ID: 842546 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd
OLD: Fedora-34-20210403.n.0
NEW: Fedora-34-20210404.n.1
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 4
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 67
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 1.74 MiB
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size of
On Sun, Apr 4, 2021 at 5:40 AM Richard Shaw wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 3, 2021 at 11:40 PM Chris Murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 3, 2021 at 10:42 AM Richard Shaw wrote:
>> >
>> > Before I submit a BZ I figured maybe some discussion was in order.
>> >
>> > As the default fs is now btrfs and it's well
On Sun, 4 Apr 2021, 21:53 Germano Massullo,
wrote:
> Good day, I am creating a spec file [0] for memleax memory leaks
> analyzer [1], but during build [2] I am getting error "invalid option:
> --build=x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu.". Where can be the problem?
> Thank you
>
> [0]: https://pagure.io/meml
Good day, I am creating a spec file [0] for memleax memory leaks
analyzer [1], but during build [2] I am getting error "invalid option:
--build=x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu.". Where can be the problem?
Thank you
[0]: https://pagure.io/memleax/blob/master/f/memleax.spec
[1]: https://github.com/WuBingzhe
On Sun, Apr 4, 2021 at 11:19 AM Artur Frenszek-Iwicki
wrote:
>
> I thought about it some more and realised that using just the date allows me
> to stick everything in one package. Basically, the idea is:
>
> %global branch1_date 20210101
> %global branch2_date 20210202
> %global branch3_date 2021
Hi,
# worked in F31
# caused problems in F33
I upgraded a system from F31 to F33 via dnf distro-sync and it did boot
extrem slow.
A systemd.debug-shell=1 && strace of systemd-tmpfiles later, it looked
like a massive resolve problem,
as next to any step from the tmpfiles proc
Hi folks! I'm proposing we cancel the QA meeting tomorrow. We do have
things we could discuss, but I don't think they're quite urgent, and
tomorrow's a vacation day for me so I won't be around to run that
meeting (I am gonna do the blocker meeting).
If you really do want to have a meeting this wee
# F34 Blocker Review meeting
# Date: 2021-04-05
# Time: 16:00 UTC
# Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net
Hi folks! We have 2 proposed Final blockers to review (as of now), so
we'll have a Fedora 34 blocker review meeting tomorrow. Hopefully a
quick one!
If you have time today, you
Missing expected images:
Xfce raw-xz armhfp
Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check!
3 of 43 required tests failed
openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING**
below
Failed openQA tests: 14/189 (x86_64), 15/127 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed in
Missing expected images:
Iot dvd aarch64
Iot dvd x86_64
Failed openQA tests: 2/16 (x86_64), 6/15 (aarch64)
Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-IoT-35-20210403.0):
ID: 842139 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso base_services_start
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/842139
ID: 8421
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20210403.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20210404.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:1
Dropped images: 4
Added packages: 1
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 55
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 275.43 KiB
Size of dropped packages:0
On Sat, Apr 3, 2021 at 11:40 PM Chris Murphy
wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 3, 2021 at 10:42 AM Richard Shaw wrote:
> >
> > Before I submit a BZ I figured maybe some discussion was in order.
> >
> > As the default fs is now btrfs and it's well known to be bad for VMs,
> I'm surprised this wasn't already i
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/7 (x86_64), 1/7 (aarch64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-32-20210403.0):
ID: 841797 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://op
I thought about it some more and realised that using just the date allows me to
stick everything in one package. Basically, the idea is:
%global branch1_date 20210101
%global branch2_date 20210202
%global branch3_date 20210303
%global package_date %( bash scriptlet that picks max value from
%{b
16 matches
Mail list logo