Re: Fedora rawhide FTBFS status 2011-06-16 x86_64

2011-06-27 Thread Matt Domsch
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 08:03:17AM +0200, V?t Ondruch wrote: > Hi Matt, > > I just want to note that your script is not listing the package owners > correctly. There should be listed only people who have commit access, > but there are listed also people who just watch bugzilla and commits, > [1

Re: Fedora rawhide FTBFS status 2011-06-16 x86_64

2011-06-26 Thread Vít Ondruch
Hi Matt, I just want to note that your script is not listing the package owners correctly. There should be listed only people who have commit access, but there are listed also people who just watch bugzilla and commits, [1] for example. Unfortunately nobody of listed owners: rubygem-rack-1.1.0

Re: Fedora rawhide FTBFS status 2011-06-16 x86_64

2011-06-25 Thread Toshio Kuratomi
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 08:38:15AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 07:17:45PM -0500, Matt Domsch wrote: > > virt-mem-0.3.1-9.fc12 (build/make) rjones,virtmaint > > This is a dead.package, or if it's not then it's supposed to be dead. > Please follow the steps on: http:/

Re: Fedora rawhide FTBFS status 2011-06-16 x86_64

2011-06-24 Thread Matt Domsch
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 01:33:49AM +, Ben Boeckel wrote: > Matt Domsch wrote: > > ghc-hinotify-0.3.1-9.fc16 (build/make) mathstuf,haskell-sig > > Jens opened another bug for this[1]. Should I mark as CLOSED DUPLICATE > or set a dependency? CLOSED DUPLICATE is right in this instance, as the b

Re: Fedora rawhide FTBFS status 2011-06-16 x86_64

2011-06-24 Thread Ben Boeckel
Matt Domsch wrote: > ghc-hinotify-0.3.1-9.fc16 (build/make) mathstuf,haskell-sig Jens opened another bug for this[1]. Should I mark as CLOSED DUPLICATE or set a dependency? > metapost-metauml-0.2.5-6.fc12 (build/make) mathstuf I can't spell. postnu -> postun. Fixed[2]. --Ben [1]https://bugzil

Re: Fedora rawhide FTBFS status 2011-06-16 x86_64

2011-06-24 Thread Matt Domsch
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 10:37:34AM -0400, David Malcolm wrote: > On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 19:17 -0500, Matt Domsch wrote: > > Fedora Fails To Build From Source Results for x86_64 > > using rawhide from 2011-06-16 > > > > Good hunting! > > > > Full logs at http://linux.dell.com/files/fedora/FixBuildR

Re: Fedora rawhide FTBFS status 2011-06-16 x86_64

2011-06-24 Thread Ville Skyttä
On 06/24/2011 05:15 PM, Matt Domsch wrote: > * Bug 716267 - mock 1.1.11 moves to build step even if buildroot had > depsolving problems. I'm looking into this. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Fedora rawhide FTBFS status 2011-06-16 x86_64

2011-06-24 Thread David Malcolm
On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 19:17 -0500, Matt Domsch wrote: > Fedora Fails To Build From Source Results for x86_64 > using rawhide from 2011-06-16 > > Good hunting! > > Full logs at http://linux.dell.com/files/fedora/FixBuildRequires/ > pypy-1.5-1.fc16 (build/make) dmalcolm,tomspur I don't see a dire

Re: Fedora rawhide FTBFS status 2011-06-16 x86_64

2011-06-24 Thread Paul Howarth
On 06/24/2011 03:15 PM, Matt Domsch wrote: > On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 07:17:45PM -0500, Matt Domsch wrote: >> Fedora Fails To Build From Source Results for x86_64 >> using rawhide from 2011-06-16 > > As a reminder, please do not simply "CLOSED NOTABUG" your FTBFS bugs. > By the time I started mass-f

Re: Fedora rawhide FTBFS status 2011-06-16 x86_64

2011-06-24 Thread Matt Domsch
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 07:17:45PM -0500, Matt Domsch wrote: > Fedora Fails To Build From Source Results for x86_64 > using rawhide from 2011-06-16 As a reminder, please do not simply "CLOSED NOTABUG" your FTBFS bugs. By the time I started mass-filing 564 bugs yesterday, any packages I filed bugs

Re: Fedora rawhide FTBFS status 2011-06-16 x86_64

2011-06-24 Thread Matt Domsch
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 03:05:52PM +0200, Michal Hlavinka wrote: > On Wednesday 22 of June 2011 19:17:45 Matt Domsch wrote: > > Fedora Fails To Build From Source Results for x86_64 > > using rawhide from 2011-06-16 > > > > Good hunting! > > > > Full logs at http://linux.dell.com/files/fedora/FixB

Re: Fedora rawhide FTBFS status 2011-06-16 x86_64

2011-06-24 Thread Michal Hlavinka
On Wednesday 22 of June 2011 19:17:45 Matt Domsch wrote: > Fedora Fails To Build From Source Results for x86_64 > using rawhide from 2011-06-16 > > Good hunting! > > Full logs at http://linux.dell.com/files/fedora/FixBuildRequires/ ... > Total packages: 10614 > Number failed to build: 603 > Numbe

Re: Fedora rawhide FTBFS status 2011-06-16 x86_64

2011-06-23 Thread Petr Pisar
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:41:11PM +0200, Iain Arnell wrote: > On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Petr Pisar wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 07:17:45PM -0500, Matt Domsch wrote: > >> Fedora Fails To Build From Source Results for x86_64 > >> using rawhide from 2011-06-16 > >> > > > > These are th

Re: Fedora rawhide FTBFS status 2011-06-16 x86_64

2011-06-23 Thread Matt Domsch
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 03:03:12PM +0200, Mattias Ellert wrote: > ons 2011-06-22 klockan 19:17 -0500 skrev Matt Domsch: > > Fedora Fails To Build From Source Results for x86_64 > > using rawhide from 2011-06-16 > > > > Good hunting! > > > > lcgdm-1.8.0.1-7.fc16 (build/make) ellert,stevetraylen >

Re: Fedora rawhide FTBFS status 2011-06-16 x86_64

2011-06-23 Thread Mattias Ellert
ons 2011-06-22 klockan 19:17 -0500 skrev Matt Domsch: > Fedora Fails To Build From Source Results for x86_64 > using rawhide from 2011-06-16 > > Good hunting! > lcgdm-1.8.0.1-7.fc16 (build/make) ellert,stevetraylen This is already resolved (by an update of CGSI-gSOAP). The package built fine on

Re: Fedora rawhide FTBFS status 2011-06-16 x86_64

2011-06-23 Thread Paul Howarth
On 06/23/2011 01:17 AM, Matt Domsch wrote: > Fedora Fails To Build From Source Results for x86_64 > using rawhide from 2011-06-16 > > Good hunting! ... > pghmcfc: milter-regex,perl-Net-SSH-Perl,spamass-milter milter-regex and spamass-milter failed to build because of a broken libdb dependency i

Re: Fedora rawhide FTBFS status 2011-06-16 x86_64

2011-06-23 Thread Richard W.M. Jones
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 07:17:45PM -0500, Matt Domsch wrote: > virt-mem-0.3.1-9.fc12 (build/make) rjones,virtmaint This is a dead.package, or if it's not then it's supposed to be dead. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones virt-top is 'top' for v

Re: Fedora rawhide FTBFS status 2011-06-16 x86_64

2011-06-22 Thread Milan Crha
On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 19:17 -0500, Matt Domsch wrote: > evolution-data-server-3.1.2-1.fc16 (build/make) Hi, not much to be done, except of not using deprecated flags in configure, because this is failing on a recently deprecated G_CONST_RETURN, but not in the eds itself, but in pango, whic

Re: Fedora rawhide FTBFS status 2011-06-16 x86_64

2011-06-22 Thread Matt Domsch
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 07:17:45PM -0500, Matt Domsch wrote: > Fedora Fails To Build From Source Results for x86_64 > using rawhide from 2011-06-16 There are several false failures in this list due to what seems to be a race condition between my RHEL5 NFS server and F15 clients. If your mock.log

Re: Fedora rawhide FTBFS status 2011-06-16 x86_64

2011-06-22 Thread Stephen Gallagher
On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 19:17 -0500, Matt Domsch wrote: > Fedora Fails To Build From Source Results for x86_64 > using rawhide from 2011-06-16 > > Good hunting! > > Full logs at http://linux.dell.com/files/fedora/FixBuildRequires/ > sgallagh: pysvn I've opened a bug upstream. The %check unit test

Fedora rawhide FTBFS status 2011-06-16 x86_64

2011-06-22 Thread Matt Domsch
Fedora Fails To Build From Source Results for x86_64 using rawhide from 2011-06-16 Good hunting! Full logs at http://linux.dell.com/files/fedora/FixBuildRequires/ 4 Open Bugs which now build, and can be marked CLOSED RAWHIDE: gdmap: [u'599984'] mine_detector: [u'631394'] python-beaker: [u'59994