Hello all,
Fedora 36 mass rebuild is done and FTBFS tickets [0] are filed. Some
of the tickets that got filed for ppc64le failures might have been
fixed in the recent resubmission of the failed tasks. If you notice
any of those tickets, please verify if it is fixed and if it is fixed,
you can
Seems like rebuilds is done? got like 2000 package updates today
On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 3:37 PM Michael Schwendt
wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 15:06:31 +0100, František Šumšal wrote:
>
> > I've indeed noticed the other warnings. However, given this mass rebuild
> was
> > done with a new
On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 15:06:31 +0100, František Šumšal wrote:
> I've indeed noticed the other warnings. However, given this mass rebuild was
> done with a new snapshot of gcc-12, the error is probably related to that,
> that's why I pointed out the most severe issue (since it's an error, not
> a
On 1/27/22 14:58, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 14:01:40 +0100, František Šumšal wrote:
Looks like the culprit is:
You may have noticed that there are many more compiler errors in the build.log,
but it seems you've missed that the src.rpm builds fine for all other archs.
What
On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 14:01:40 +0100, František Šumšal wrote:
> Looks like the culprit is:
You may have noticed that there are many more compiler errors in the build.log,
but it seems you've missed that the src.rpm builds fine for all other archs.
What gives?
On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 02:01:40PM +0100, František Šumšal wrote:
> Looks like the culprit is:
>
> In file included from common/mptPathString.cpp:13:
> ./src/mpt/uuid/uuid.hpp: In constructor 'constexpr
> mpt::mpt_libopenmpt::UUID::UUID()':
> ./src/mpt/uuid/uuid.hpp:195:17: error: 'goto' is not
Looks like the culprit is:
In file included from common/mptPathString.cpp:13:
./src/mpt/uuid/uuid.hpp: In constructor 'constexpr
mpt::mpt_libopenmpt::UUID::UUID()':
./src/mpt/uuid/uuid.hpp:195:17: error: 'goto' is not a constant expression
195 | return;
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 10:04:32 -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> After that we will be done and it will be on maintainers to sort out
> FTBFS issues.
What's up with the armv7hl arch being _the only one_ (!) that failed?
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=81787304
On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 08:39:31PM +0100, Iñaki Ucar wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 19:13, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> >
> > Greetings.
> >
> > The mass rebuild finished it's first pass on saturday morning, leaving
> > 3448 failed builds.
> >
> > We then did a second pass yesterday ( 2022-01-24 ) of
On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 19:13, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> Greetings.
>
> The mass rebuild finished it's first pass on saturday morning, leaving
> 3448 failed builds.
>
> We then did a second pass yesterday ( 2022-01-24 ) of all failed builds,
> and that resulted in 1282 failed builds.
>
> The
Greetings.
The mass rebuild finished it's first pass on saturday morning, leaving
3448 failed builds.
We then did a second pass yesterday ( 2022-01-24 ) of all failed builds,
and that resulted in 1282 failed builds.
The f36-rebuild tag is being merged now, but unfortunately our SOP had
it
Greetings.
The mass rebuild finished it's first pass on saturday morning, leaving
3448 failed builds.
We then did a second pass yesterday ( 2022-01-24 ) of all failed builds,
and that resulted in 1282 failed builds.
The f36-rebuild tag is being merged now, but unfortunately our SOP had
it
On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 09:15:42PM +0100, Dan Horák wrote:
> > Perhaps we could merge today and then do another pass of failed builds
> > into f36-rebuild tag and merge that back on thursday or something?
> > Can we easily identify those builds that failed due to these ppc64le
> > issues?
>
> it
On Mon, 24 Jan 2022 12:10:37 -0800
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 08:08:25PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 08:00:31PM +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> > > On 24/01/2022 19:06, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > > > This seems kind of high, so we are going
On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 08:08:25PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 08:00:31PM +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> > On 24/01/2022 19:06, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > > This seems kind of high, so we are going to resubmit all the failed
> > > builds in a short second round to
On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 08:00:31PM +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> On 24/01/2022 19:06, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > This seems kind of high, so we are going to resubmit all the failed
> > builds in a short second round to reduce the chance of transitory issues
> > causing the build failures.
>
On 24/01/2022 19:06, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
This seems kind of high, so we are going to resubmit all the failed
builds in a short second round to reduce the chance of transitory issues
causing the build failures.
I think the ppc64 GCC regressions should be fixed first.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly
The mass rebuild finished early saturday morning.
This resulted in 3448 failed builds.
This seems kind of high, so we are going to resubmit all the failed
builds in a short second round to reduce the chance of transitory issues
causing the build failures.
It's expected that should finish later
Mamoru TASAKA writes:
> Filed: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1798636
For what it's worth, I'd have raised an issue if it has a different
cause, and doesn't fixed along with the original regression, lest it
looks as if I'm shirking bug reporting responsibilities.
Dave Love wrote on 2020/02/06 1:07:
I assume this -- currently breaking procenv, as that uses -Werror -- has
the same cause, as it shows up under the same circumstances:
In function 'strncat',
inlined from 'appendn' at string-util.c:111:2,
inlined from 'appendn' at
I assume this -- currently breaking procenv, as that uses -Werror -- has
the same cause, as it shows up under the same circumstances:
In function 'strncat',
inlined from 'appendn' at string-util.c:111:2,
inlined from 'appendn' at string-util.c:80:1,
inlined from 'append' at
On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 11:08:22AM -0500, Marek Polacek wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 10:51:17AM -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > On Sat, 2020-02-01 at 16:59 -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> >
> > > See
> > > https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/mass-rebuild/f32-failures.html
> > > and
> > >
On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 10:51:17AM -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Sat, 2020-02-01 at 16:59 -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> > See
> > https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/mass-rebuild/f32-failures.html
> > and
> > https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/mass-rebuild/f32-need-rebuild.html
> >
> > for
On Sat, 2020-02-01 at 16:59 -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> See
> https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/mass-rebuild/f32-failures.html
> and
> https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/mass-rebuild/f32-need-rebuild.html
>
> for detailed lists of what needs rebuilding and what failed.
libXt's failure on
On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 9:59 AM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> That needs some investigation. Can you file a releng ticket on it?
>
> We need to sort out why it wasn't built... I do see the commit, but
> oddly no build at all.
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/9220
Thanks, Kevin.
--
Jerry James
> > > Aside from a few stragglers, the mass rebuild is complete.
> >
> > That's great! Thanks for all of your work making this happen, Kevin.
> > I do want to point out that at least one of my packages, GAPDoc, does
> > not seem to have had a build started at all. For this package, it
> >
On Sun, Feb 02, 2020 at 09:04:47PM -0700, Jerry James wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 6:04 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > Aside from a few stragglers, the mass rebuild is complete.
>
> That's great! Thanks for all of your work making this happen, Kevin.
> I do want to point out that at least one of
On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 6:04 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Aside from a few stragglers, the mass rebuild is complete.
That's great! Thanks for all of your work making this happen, Kevin.
I do want to point out that at least one of my packages, GAPDoc, does
not seem to have had a build started at all.
Greetings.
Aside from a few stragglers, the mass rebuild is complete.
However, we ran into a number of builds that failed at the start of the
mass rebuild due to some problems with s390x builders.
Due to that and also to reduce the chance of any failed builds being
caused by builder or network
Greetings.
Aside from a few stragglers, the mass rebuild is complete.
However, we ran into a number of builds that failed at the start of the
mass rebuild due to some problems with s390x builders.
Due to that and also to reduce the chance of any failed builds being
caused by builder or network
Björn Persson bj...@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se writes:
ldd works recursively. What does readelf --dynamic /usr/bin/gnome-session |
fgrep -i png output?
Thank you very much for your help. gnome-session depends on
libgdk_pixbuf-2.0.so.0()(64bit) and gdk-pixbuf2 depends on
libpng12.so.0()(64bit), so
Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com writes:
After yesterday's rebuilds, there remain 271 binary packages from 232
source packages that still require libpng-compat.
This is a bit late of course, but I have just upgraded to xbmc from
rpmfusion-rawhide which required libpng15. I allowed yum to pull in
fredagen den 30 december 2011 00:07:02 skrev Benny Amorsen:
# rpm -q --requires gnome-session | fgrep -i png
(no output)
# ldd /usr/bin/gnome-session|fgrep -i png
libpng12.so.0 = /usr/lib64/libpng12.so.0 (0x7fbd0a0c7000)
A lot of packages suffer from the same problem; they
Hi,
On 12/06/2011 06:17 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
After yesterday's rebuilds, there remain 271 binary packages from 232
source packages that still require libpng-compat.
No FTBFS bugs have been filed at this time.
There's a pretty wide variety of failures represented here. In addition
to the
Adam Jackson wrote:
8 qt3-3.3.8b-37.fc17.src.rpm
Fixed. This was poking a round a lot in the png_info structure. Thankfully,
the NetBSD folks had already prepared a patch, which I applied in
qt3-3.3.8b-40.fc17, which built successfully in Rawhide.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
After yesterday's rebuilds, there remain 271 binary packages from 232
source packages that still require libpng-compat.
No FTBFS bugs have been filed at this time.
There's a pretty wide variety of failures represented here. In addition
to the libpng API changes, a quick scan also unconvers
On 10 February 2011 05:49, Dennis Gilmore den...@ausil.us wrote:
On Tuesday, February 08, 2011 06:23:57 pm Dennis Gilmore wrote:
so the mass rebuild is 24 hours in we have completed ~45% of the builds and
are at 365 packages failed to build the total number of builds in the mass
rebuild is
On Friday, February 11, 2011 07:34:07 am Mat Booth wrote:
Do you have a list of the ones that were not submitted or going to
submit them yourself?
GLC_lib
HotEqn
Pixie
SOAPpy
YafaRay
abcde
aboot
ace
acpitool
adanaxisgpl
aide
aircrack-ng
anerley
ant
apel
apmud
arora
asl
aspell-pl
asterisk
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Dennis Gilmore den...@ausil.us wrote:
asterisk
This one should be taken care of now. I suspect that something in
F15/rawhide changed that made Asterisk's build system think that an
optional dependency was now a mandatory one.
--
Jeff Ollie
--
devel mailing
On 02/11/2011 11:49 AM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Dennis Gilmoreden...@ausil.us wrote:
asterisk
This one should be taken care of now. I suspect that something in
F15/rawhide changed that made Asterisk's build system think that an
optional dependency was now a
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 3:20 PM, Christopher Aillon cail...@redhat.com wrote:
On 02/11/2011 11:49 AM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 9:23 AM, Dennis Gilmoreden...@ausil.us wrote:
asterisk
This one should be taken care of now. I suspect that something in
F15/rawhide changed
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 1:45 AM, Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, I wish I could find a good cite...
Perhaps the deltarpm and/or xz maintainers could chime in with the
exact info.
This is the first hit for xz compression deltarpm problem and
describes the problem perfectly
On Wed, 9 Feb 2011 07:35:37 -0500
Josh Boyer jwbo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 1:45 AM, Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com
wrote:
nod That does a great job of explaining what we had here. The
difference this time is that instead of architecture being the key,
version of xz
Hi!
On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 06:23:57PM -0600, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
so the mass rebuild is 24 hours in we have completed ~45% of the builds and
are at 365 packages failed to build the total number of builds in the mass
rebuild is 10404 we are churning along nicely. i expect to complete the
-Werror=unused-but-set-variable
In some cases (often from
macro expansion) you just want to keep such unused variables
around. You can in that case just cast them to void,
or add __attribute__((__unused__)) to them.
Some code employs a
Here are some common errors. Please try to fix the issues rather than
adding workaround flags like -fpermissive,
-Wno-unused-but-set-variable etc. Benjamin, do you plan to write
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.6/porting_to.html? This could serve as
partial source for that page.
I will absolutely
On Tuesday, February 08, 2011 06:23:57 pm Dennis Gilmore wrote:
so the mass rebuild is 24 hours in we have completed ~45% of the builds and
are at 365 packages failed to build the total number of builds in the mass
rebuild is 10404 we are churning along nicely. i expect to complete the
first
so the mass rebuild is 24 hours in we have completed ~45% of the builds and
are at 365 packages failed to build the total number of builds in the mass
rebuild is 10404 we are churning along nicely. i expect to complete the first
pass sometime in the next 24 hours. so far i think its going
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 7:23 PM, Dennis Gilmore den...@ausil.us wrote:
so the mass rebuild is 24 hours in we have completed ~45% of the builds and
are at 365 packages failed to build the total number of builds in the mass
rebuild is 10404 we are churning along nicely. i expect to complete the
On Tue, 2011-02-08 at 18:23 -0600, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
so the mass rebuild is 24 hours in we have completed ~45% of the builds and
are at 365 packages failed to build the total number of builds in the mass
rebuild is 10404 we are churning along nicely. i expect to complete the first
pass
On Tuesday, February 08, 2011 07:00:44 pm Josh Boyer wrote:
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 7:23 PM, Dennis Gilmore den...@ausil.us wrote:
so the mass rebuild is 24 hours in we have completed ~45% of the builds
and are at 365 packages failed to build the total number of builds in
the mass rebuild is
On Tue, 8 Feb 2011 20:00:44 -0500
Josh Boyer jwbo...@gmail.com wrote:
I believe this wiki page should have been included in the announce
mail:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_15_Mass_Rebuild
For those that don't particularly follow devel day-to-day, the blurb
about the XZ change is
On Tue, 2011-02-08 at 20:49 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Tue, 8 Feb 2011 20:00:44 -0500
Josh Boyer jwbo...@gmail.com wrote:
I believe this wiki page should have been included in the announce
mail:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_15_Mass_Rebuild
For those that don't
53 matches
Mail list logo
