Fedora 26 Alpha 1.5 compose check report
Missing expected images: Workstation live i386 Xfce raw-xz armhfp Workstation live x86_64 Failed openQA tests: 6/96 (x86_64), 1/17 (i386), 1/2 (arm) New failures (same test did not fail in 26 Alpha 1.3): ID: 72742 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_notifications_postinstall URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72742 ID: 72745 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_update_graphical URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72745 ID: 72775 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_realmd_join_kickstart URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72775 Old failures (same test failed in 26 Alpha 1.3): ID: 72647 Test: arm Minimal-raw_xz-raw.xz install_arm_image_deployment_upload URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72647 ID: 72671 Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_desktop_64bit URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72671 ID: 72714 Test: i386 universal upgrade_2_desktop_32bit URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72714 ID: 72720 Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_desktop_encrypted_64bit URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72720 ID: 72752 Test: x86_64 universal install_cyrillic_language URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72752 Soft failed openQA tests: 1/96 (x86_64), 10/17 (i386) (Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug) Old soft failures (same test soft failed in 26 Alpha 1.3): ID: 72624 Test: i386 Server-boot-iso install_default URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72624 ID: 72625 Test: i386 Server-dvd-iso install_default URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72625 ID: 72653 Test: x86_64 universal install_asian_language URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72653 ID: 72707 Test: i386 universal install_scsi_updates_img URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72707 ID: 72708 Test: i386 universal install_simple_encrypted URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72708 ID: 72709 Test: i386 universal install_software_raid URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72709 ID: 72710 Test: i386 universal install_btrfs URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72710 ID: 72711 Test: i386 universal install_ext3 URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72711 ID: 72712 Test: i386 universal install_lvmthin URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72712 ID: 72716 Test: i386 universal install_package_set_minimal URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72716 ID: 72717 Test: i386 universal install_repository_http_graphical URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72717 Passed openQA tests: 89/96 (x86_64), 6/17 (i386) New passes (same test did not pass in 26 Alpha 1.3): ID: 72606 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_default@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72606 ID: 72617 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_cockpit_default URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72617 ID: 72618 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_cockpit_basic URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72618 ID: 72634 Test: i386 Workstation-boot-iso install_default URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72634 ID: 72682 Test: x86_64 universal install_delete_pata URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72682 ID: 72702 Test: x86_64 universal install_simple_encrypted@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72702 ID: 72703 Test: x86_64 universal install_simple_free_space@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72703 ID: 72706 Test: x86_64 universal install_rescue_encrypted@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72706 ID: 72713 Test: i386 universal upgrade_desktop_32bit URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72713 ID: 72772 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso realmd_join_sssd URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72772 ID: 72773 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso realmd_join_cockpit URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72773 ID: 72774 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_role_deploy_domain_controller URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72774 Skipped openQA tests: 1 of 115 Installed system changes in test i386 Server-boot-iso install_default: System load changed from 0.06 to 0.19 Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/71595#downloads Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72624#downloads Installed system changes in test i386 Server-dvd-iso install_default: System load changed from 0.29 to 0.12 Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/71596#downloads Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72625#downloads Installed system changes in test x86_64 Workstation-boot-iso install_default: System load changed from 0.53 to 0.72 Average CPU usage changed from 2.28571429 to 24.55238095 Used mem changed from 804 MiB to 934 MiB Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/71611#downloads Current test data: https://openqa.fedorap
Fedora 26 Alpha 1.4 compose check report
No missing expected images. Failed openQA tests: 5/107 (x86_64), 1/18 (i386), 1/2 (arm) ID: 72438 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_realmd_join_kickstart URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72438 ID: 72479 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_notifications_live URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72479 ID: 72483 Test: arm Minimal-raw_xz-raw.xz base_services_start_arm URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72483 ID: 72528 Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_desktop_64bit URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72528 ID: 72531 Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_desktop_encrypted_64bit URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72531 ID: 72536 Test: x86_64 universal install_cyrillic_language URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72536 ID: 72551 Test: i386 universal upgrade_2_desktop_32bit URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72551 Soft failed openQA tests: 2/107 (x86_64), 10/18 (i386) (Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug) ID: 72447 Test: i386 Server-boot-iso install_default URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72447 ID: 72448 Test: i386 Server-dvd-iso install_default URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72448 ID: 72516 Test: x86_64 universal install_btrfs@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72516 ID: 72517 Test: x86_64 universal install_ext3@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72517 ID: 72542 Test: i386 universal install_package_set_minimal URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72542 ID: 72543 Test: i386 universal install_repository_http_graphical URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72543 ID: 72544 Test: i386 universal install_scsi_updates_img URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72544 ID: 72545 Test: i386 universal install_simple_encrypted URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72545 ID: 72546 Test: i386 universal install_software_raid URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72546 ID: 72547 Test: i386 universal install_btrfs URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72547 ID: 72548 Test: i386 universal install_ext3 URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72548 ID: 72549 Test: i386 universal install_lvmthin URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72549 Passed openQA tests: 99/107 (x86_64), 7/18 (i386), 1/2 (arm) -- Mail generated by check-compose: https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Test-Announce] Fedora 26 Candidate Alpha-1.5 Available Now!
According to the schedule [1], Fedora 26 Candidate Alpha-1.5 is now available for testing. Please help us complete all the validation testing! For more information on release validation testing, see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Release_validation_test_plan Test coverage information for the current release can be seen at: https://www.happyassassin.net/testcase_stats/26 You can see all results, find testing instructions and image download locations, and enter results on the Summary page: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_26_Alpha_1.5_Summary The individual test result pages are: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_26_Alpha_1.5_Installation https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_26_Alpha_1.5_Base https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_26_Alpha_1.5_Server https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_26_Alpha_1.5_Cloud https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_26_Alpha_1.5_Desktop https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_26_Alpha_1.5_Security_Lab All Alpha priority test cases for each of these test pages [2] must pass in order to meet the Alpha Release Criteria [3]. Help is available on #fedora-qa on irc.freenode.net [4], or on the test list [5]. Current Blocker and Freeze Exception bugs: http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current [1] http://fedorapeople.org/groups/schedule/f-26/f-26-quality-tasks.html [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Release_validation_test_plan [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_26_Alpha_Release_Criteria [4] irc://irc.freenode.net/fedora-qa [5] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/t...@lists.fedoraproject.org/ ___ test-announce mailing list -- test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-announce-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora 26-20170328.n.0 compose check report
Missing expected images: Server dvd i386 Server boot i386 Passed openQA tests: 1/108 (x86_64) -- Mail generated by check-compose: https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: automated packaging
On Mon, 2017-03-27 at 12:26 +, Petr Pisar wrote: > Or are these test failures expected to be delivered through FMN only? This is currently how they are handled. I have my FMN settings configured to send these to me over IRC and that works well for me. However, I don't believe that is the default setting. > I remember I read about a planned change in taskotron failure > reporting, > but I'm not sure this is the same thing. I'm not sure what the plans are around notification. I do believe there are plans to have automated tests be able to block updates from going out, so that might happen in the future. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: failed to open file (schemas/gschemas.compiled not found)
Am Tue, 28 Mar 2017 13:19:29 -
schrieb "Martin Gansser" :
> I am working on a review of gnome-shell-extension-netspeed
> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1377631). Upstream
> Ticket: https://github.com/hedayaty/NetSpeed/issues/56 I'm using the
> latest version of NetSpeed from the extensions website, with GNOME
> 3.22, on Fedora 25 Workstation x86_64.
>
> I get the following error message when running the Preferences dialog
> of gnome-tweak-tool or gnome-shell-extension-prefs:
>
> GLib.FileError: Failed to open file
> '/usr/share/gnome-shell/extensions/netsp...@hedayaty.gmail.com/schemas/gschemas.compiled':
> open() failed: No such file or directory
>
> Stack trace:
> @/usr/share/gnome-shell/extensions/netsp...@hedayaty.gmail.com/prefs.js:31
>
> Application<._getExtensionPrefsModule@resource:///org/gnome/shell/extensionPrefs/main.js:74
> wrapper@resource:///org/gnome/gjs/modules/lang.js:178
>
> Application<._selectExtension@resource:///org/gnome/shell/extensionPrefs/main.js:89
> wrapper@resource:///org/gnome/gjs/modules/lang.js:178
>
> Application<._onCommandLine@resource:///org/gnome/shell/extensionPrefs/main.js:239
> wrapper@resource:///org/gnome/gjs/modules/lang.js:178
> main@resource:///org/gnome/shell/extensionPrefs/main.js:377
> @:1
>
>
> Does anyone have an idea, how to fix this ?
The attached patch fixes the issue and should work with local and
global installation.
It first checks for the local path and uses it, if it exists, otherwise
uses the global path.
It does not really look good, but I tried to make just a minimal
change.
Jens
--- a/prefs.js 2017-03-28 22:42:21.070687232 +0200
+++ b/prefs.js 2017-03-28 22:42:34.680952138 +0200
@@ -27,8 +27,10 @@
const NetworkManager = imports.gi.NetworkManager;
const _ = Gettext.domain('netspeed').gettext;
-let schemaDir = Extension.dir.get_child('schemas').get_path();
-let schemaSource = Gio.SettingsSchemaSource.new_from_directory(schemaDir, Gio.SettingsSchemaSource.get_default(), false);
+let schemaDir = Extension.dir.get_child('schemas');
+let schemaSource = schemaDir.query_exists(null)?
+Gio.SettingsSchemaSource.new_from_directory(schemaDir.get_path(), Gio.SettingsSchemaSource.get_default(), false):
+Gio.SettingsSchemaSource.get_default();
let schema = schemaSource.lookup('org.gnome.shell.extensions.netspeed', false);
let Schema = new Gio.Settings({ settings_schema: schema });
--- a/net_speed.js 2017-03-28 22:50:13.212931817 +0200
+++ b/net_speed.js 2017-03-28 22:50:57.355800047 +0200
@@ -302,12 +302,10 @@
this._devices = new Array();
this._client = NMC.Client.new();
-let schemaDir = Extension.dir.get_child('schemas').get_path();
-let schemaSource = Gio.SettingsSchemaSource.new_from_directory(
-schemaDir,
-Gio.SettingsSchemaSource.get_default(),
-false
-);
+let schemaDir = Extension.dir.get_child('schemas');
+let schemaSource = schemaDir.query_exists(null)?
+Gio.SettingsSchemaSource.new_from_directory(schemaDir.get_path(), Gio.SettingsSchemaSource.get_default(), false):
+Gio.SettingsSchemaSource.get_default();
let schema = schemaSource.lookup('org.gnome.shell.extensions.netspeed', false);
this._setting = new Gio.Settings({ settings_schema: schema });
this._saving = 0;
pgpyTQrWVvlJ5.pgp
Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Rawhide-20170328.n.0 compose check report
No missing expected images. Failed openQA tests: 7/107 (x86_64), 1/18 (i386), 1/2 (arm) New failures (same test did not fail in Rawhide-20170327.n.0): ID: 71948 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_realmd_join_kickstart URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/71948 ID: 72042 Test: x86_64 universal install_updates_img_local URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72042 Old failures (same test failed in Rawhide-20170327.n.0): ID: 71992 Test: arm Minimal-raw_xz-raw.xz install_arm_image_deployment_upload URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/71992 ID: 72035 Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_kde_64bit URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72035 ID: 72038 Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_desktop_64bit URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72038 ID: 72040 Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_kde_64bit URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72040 ID: 72041 Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_desktop_encrypted_64bit URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72041 ID: 72046 Test: x86_64 universal install_cyrillic_language URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72046 ID: 72061 Test: i386 universal upgrade_2_desktop_32bit URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72061 Soft failed openQA tests: 1/107 (x86_64), 10/18 (i386) (Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug) Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Rawhide-20170327.n.0): ID: 71957 Test: i386 Server-boot-iso install_default URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/71957 ID: 71958 Test: i386 Server-dvd-iso install_default URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/71958 ID: 72047 Test: x86_64 universal install_asian_language URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72047 ID: 72052 Test: i386 universal install_package_set_minimal URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72052 ID: 72053 Test: i386 universal install_repository_http_graphical URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72053 ID: 72054 Test: i386 universal install_scsi_updates_img URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72054 ID: 72055 Test: i386 universal install_simple_encrypted URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72055 ID: 72056 Test: i386 universal install_software_raid URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72056 ID: 72057 Test: i386 universal install_btrfs URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72057 ID: 72058 Test: i386 universal install_ext3 URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72058 ID: 72059 Test: i386 universal install_lvmthin URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72059 Passed openQA tests: 99/107 (x86_64), 7/18 (i386) New passes (same test did not pass in Rawhide-20170327.n.0): ID: 71952 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso realmd_join_sssd URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/71952 ID: 72050 Test: x86_64 universal install_kickstart_nfs URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72050 ID: 72558 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_role_deploy_domain_controller URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72558 ID: 72559 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso realmd_join_cockpit URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/72559 Skipped openQA tests: 1 of 127 Installed system changes in test x86_64 Server-boot-iso install_default@uefi: System load changed from 0.05 to 0.16 Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/71117#downloads Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/71937#downloads Installed system changes in test x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_default_upload: 1 packages(s) removed since previous compose: compat-openssl10 Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/71118#downloads Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/71938#downloads Installed system changes in test x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_default@uefi: 1 packages(s) removed since previous compose: compat-openssl10 Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/71119#downloads Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/71939#downloads Installed system changes in test i386 Server-boot-iso install_default: System load changed from 0.27 to 0.10 Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/71137#downloads Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/71957#downloads Installed system changes in test i386 Server-dvd-iso install_default: 1 packages(s) removed since previous compose: compat-openssl10 Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/71138#downloads Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/71958#downloads Installed system changes in test x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_default_upload: System load changed from 0.69 to 1.01 Average CPU usage changed from 8.70476190 to 27.3667 Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/71142#downloads Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/test
Re: How attached are we to branch ACLs? -- Should we kill pkgdb?
El vie, 24-03-2017 a las 19:37 +0100, Pierre-Yves Chibon escribió: > Hi everyone, > > As I am working on bringing pagure as a front-end to our dist-git, a > question is > troubling me. > > Currently ACLs are stored in pkgdb, it allows having a per-branch ACL > model, > which in itself is quite cool, but I wonder: is it that useful? > > I know pkgdb brings us other things too and I am explicitely ignoring > them here > because I think we can find solutions for them, which may even have > benefits > over our current processes. One of the things we get from pkgdb is the owner sync process, given that notifications come from FMN the owner in koji is really irrelevant. and I have had more emails from doing builds in koji than from being listed as the owner of something. but it does make me wonder how we will handle who to send notifications to on different actions. bugzilla syncing and ownership also raise concerns for me. > So, does per-branch ACLs make sense to you? Have you had cases where > you thought > it was good/bad? More importantly, have you had cases where you would > want to give > someone access to just one branch and really really do *not* want > them to have > access to the other branches? The only times its been really useful wasin giving a new packager access to rawhide where any mistake could be more easily and quickly dealt with and the impact smaller. but I do not see that as a concern going forward. > Of course, EPEL vs Fedora comes to mind here, but I wonder: if the > EPEL maintainer > has also commit on the Fedora branches, is it really that much of a > big deal? > And vice-versa? If we wanted to making it easier for people to come from the CentOS community and contribute to epel. I can see a desire to keep EPEL and Fedora separate. > Before I investigate what it would take to drop pkgdb entirely and > let pagure > handle the ACLs, I wanted to hear from you if you think this is a > terrible idea > or worth investigating. > I think its worth investigating. It will take more information in order to judge if its the right thing, to me the biggest concerns is how we deal with the non repo acl needs and the peripheral tasks that are run with data from pkgdb. Bonus points would be how we could unify the view of the packager experience so that we only have one place to go to do and request things. Dennis signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: a rawhide build not tagged into f27-build
Hi, On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 03:51:48PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: > > My build of updated poppler in Rawhide was not tagged into f27-build > > automatically, as it used to be in the past: > > > > $ koji wait-repo --build=`fedpkg verrel` f27-build > > Warning: nvr poppler-0.53.0-1.fc27 is not current in tag f27-build > > latest build in f27-build is poppler-0.52.0-1.fc26 > > > > I had to tag it manually to be able to proceed with rebuilds of > > depending packages. Is that a misconfiguration in koji? Or is it an > > expected behavior now? > > Nothing has ever got tagged into f27-build. The builds for that get > inherited from f27. All builds now go via f27-pending (as has been > advertised on this list and announce etc) where they currently just > get signed but eventually there will also be CI run at this point, but > they will then automatically go to f27 once signing is done. This did > happen in the case of your poppler NVR but you just didn't wait long > enough. Thanks for the explanation. It seems I missed this announcement or didn't pay enough attention to it. And I am unable to find it now... D. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Orphaning of ClamAV - EPEL BRANCH ONLY
I'm going to orphan the EPEL branch because I don't use EPEL and know nothing about it. I believe it would help with triage of the incoming EPEL bugzilla reports for them to go into a queue of someone who knows EPEL. I don't want to be responsible for them sitting as "NEW" - which is a whole other subject. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Qt 5.8 coming to rawhide
Rex Dieter wrote: > Mostly fyi/heads-up, > > kde-sig members imported Qt 5.8 into git over the weekend (kudos to > heliocastro for initial packaging/copr and kkofler for merging import), > and > bootstrap builds are under way. I'm hoping to have the whole stack done > by tomorrow (Tue Mar 28). Sorry, looks like things will be delayed, rawhide's buildroot isn't updating. Newly built qt5-qtbase, https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=873133 remains in f27-pending tag (unsigned?) for quite awhile since yesterday. -- Rex ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Orphaned Packages in branched (2017-03-26)
t...@fedoraproject.org wrote: > clucene09 orphan, group::kde-sig,0 weeks ago This one is triggering a bit of a false positive for anything depending on Qt(4). It should be solved with, https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-1cf6f83c58 (pending f26-alpha freeze being lifted) -- Rex ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: a rawhide build not tagged into f27-build
> My build of updated poppler in Rawhide was not tagged into f27-build > automatically, as it used to be in the past: > > $ koji wait-repo --build=`fedpkg verrel` f27-build > Warning: nvr poppler-0.53.0-1.fc27 is not current in tag f27-build > latest build in f27-build is poppler-0.52.0-1.fc26 > > I had to tag it manually to be able to proceed with rebuilds of > depending packages. Is that a misconfiguration in koji? Or is it an > expected behavior now? Nothing has ever got tagged into f27-build. The builds for that get inherited from f27. All builds now go via f27-pending (as has been advertised on this list and announce etc) where they currently just get signed but eventually there will also be CI run at this point, but they will then automatically go to f27 once signing is done. This did happen in the case of your poppler NVR but you just didn't wait long enough. I have untagged poppler-0.53.0-1.fc27 from f27-build as that's not where it's meant to go. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
a rawhide build not tagged into f27-build
Hi, My build of updated poppler in Rawhide was not tagged into f27-build automatically, as it used to be in the past: $ koji wait-repo --build=`fedpkg verrel` f27-build Warning: nvr poppler-0.53.0-1.fc27 is not current in tag f27-build latest build in f27-build is poppler-0.52.0-1.fc26 I had to tag it manually to be able to proceed with rebuilds of depending packages. Is that a misconfiguration in koji? Or is it an expected behavior now? D. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Intent to retire fleet in F-27 (F-26?)
2017-03-14 12:07 GMT+01:00 Peter Lemenkov : > Hello All! > Upstream decided to abandon fleet in favor of Kubernetes: > > * https://coreos.com/blog/migrating-from-fleet-to-kubernetes.html > > I believe we should do the same and retire it. I'll mark it as retired > this weekend (18-19 March). ...and it's gone. -- With best regards, Peter Lemenkov. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: How to use COPR + Tito + dist-git?
Dne 28.3.2017 v 15:14 Till Hofmann napsal(a): > I'm just packaging it, upstream sources are in a separate repository. > I'm basically trying to follow the same workflow as with regular Fedora > packages: Spec file in my repository, and a reference to an upstream > tarball in the repository (although just fetching Source0 would be fine > too). I just want to avoid adding SRPMs or upstream tarballs to the > repository. Ideally, Tito would fetch the upstream tarball and build the > package with the Spec file in my repository. In order to do this, I need > to upload the source to some lookaside cache, which is then used by Tito > (which would already work if the builders had git-annex installed). OK. Probably best and fastest way is to wait till next week, when we should deploy new version. -- Miroslav Suchy, RHCA Red Hat, Senior Software Engineer, #brno, #devexp, #fedora-buildsys ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
failed to open file (schemas/gschemas.compiled not found)
I am working on a review of gnome-shell-extension-netspeed (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1377631). Upstream Ticket: https://github.com/hedayaty/NetSpeed/issues/56 I'm using the latest version of NetSpeed from the extensions website, with GNOME 3.22, on Fedora 25 Workstation x86_64. I get the following error message when running the Preferences dialog of gnome-tweak-tool or gnome-shell-extension-prefs: GLib.FileError: Failed to open file '/usr/share/gnome-shell/extensions/netsp...@hedayaty.gmail.com/schemas/gschemas.compiled': open() failed: No such file or directory Stack trace: @/usr/share/gnome-shell/extensions/netsp...@hedayaty.gmail.com/prefs.js:31 Application<._getExtensionPrefsModule@resource:///org/gnome/shell/extensionPrefs/main.js:74 wrapper@resource:///org/gnome/gjs/modules/lang.js:178 Application<._selectExtension@resource:///org/gnome/shell/extensionPrefs/main.js:89 wrapper@resource:///org/gnome/gjs/modules/lang.js:178 Application<._onCommandLine@resource:///org/gnome/shell/extensionPrefs/main.js:239 wrapper@resource:///org/gnome/gjs/modules/lang.js:178 main@resource:///org/gnome/shell/extensionPrefs/main.js:377 @:1 Does anyone have an idea, how to fix this ? ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: How to use COPR + Tito + dist-git?
On 28.03.2017 14:23, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > Dne 28.3.2017 v 10:40 Till Hofmann napsal(a): >> I'm playing around with Tito and COPR following [1,2]. It works great so >> far, but I'm still having problems with loading the sources to a >> lookaside cache. I've found a blog post that uses git-annex [3], but the >> COPR builders do not have git-annex installed. According to another blog > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1426033 That would certainly help. > >> post [4], I should be able to use COPR with dist-git. Unfortunately, I >> couldn't find any further information on COPR + dist-git. Is there some >> documentation that I missed? In particular, does anyone have a sample >> configuration for using COPR + Tito + dist-git? > > This is little bit vague. Can you elaborate more what you are trying to > achive? Where you have sources? Where you have > spec? Are you upstream? Or you just packaging it? > I'm just packaging it, upstream sources are in a separate repository. I'm basically trying to follow the same workflow as with regular Fedora packages: Spec file in my repository, and a reference to an upstream tarball in the repository (although just fetching Source0 would be fine too). I just want to avoid adding SRPMs or upstream tarballs to the repository. Ideally, Tito would fetch the upstream tarball and build the package with the Spec file in my repository. In order to do this, I need to upload the source to some lookaside cache, which is then used by Tito (which would already work if the builders had git-annex installed). Ultimately, I want to manage a number of related packages in a single repository and build all the packages with COPR. Kind regards, Till ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: How to use COPR + Tito + dist-git?
Dne 28.3.2017 v 10:40 Till Hofmann napsal(a): > I'm playing around with Tito and COPR following [1,2]. It works great so > far, but I'm still having problems with loading the sources to a > lookaside cache. I've found a blog post that uses git-annex [3], but the > COPR builders do not have git-annex installed. According to another blog https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1426033 > post [4], I should be able to use COPR with dist-git. Unfortunately, I > couldn't find any further information on COPR + dist-git. Is there some > documentation that I missed? In particular, does anyone have a sample > configuration for using COPR + Tito + dist-git? This is little bit vague. Can you elaborate more what you are trying to achive? Where you have sources? Where you have spec? Are you upstream? Or you just packaging it? -- Miroslav Suchy, RHCA Red Hat, Senior Software Engineer, #brno, #devexp, #fedora-buildsys ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
bug report of fedmsg
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1436656 ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
How to use COPR + Tito + dist-git?
Hi all, I'm playing around with Tito and COPR following [1,2]. It works great so far, but I'm still having problems with loading the sources to a lookaside cache. I've found a blog post that uses git-annex [3], but the COPR builders do not have git-annex installed. According to another blog post [4], I should be able to use COPR with dist-git. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any further information on COPR + dist-git. Is there some documentation that I missed? In particular, does anyone have a sample configuration for using COPR + Tito + dist-git? Thanks for any pointers! Till [1] http://miroslav.suchy.cz/blog/archives/2013/12/29/how_to_build_in_copr/ [2] http://miroslav.suchy.cz/blog/archives/2013/12/17/how_to_create_new_release_of_rpm_package_in_5_seconds/ [3] https://m0dlx.com/blog/Reproducible_builds_on_Copr_with_tito_and_git_annex.html [4] http://blog.samalik.com/copr-dist-git-and-patternfly/ ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora 26 Alpha 1.3 compose check report
No missing expected images. Failed openQA tests: 10/107 (x86_64), 3/18 (i386), 1/2 (arm) New failures (same test did not fail in 26 Alpha 1.2): ID: 71577 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_default@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/71577 ID: 71587 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_cockpit_default URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/71587 ID: 71601 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_default@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/71601 ID: 71617 Test: i386 Workstation-boot-iso install_default URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/71617 ID: 71636 Test: x86_64 universal install_delete_pata URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/71636 ID: 71659 Test: x86_64 universal install_simple_encrypted@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/71659 ID: 71698 Test: i386 universal upgrade_desktop_32bit URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/71698 ID: 71699 Test: i386 universal upgrade_2_desktop_32bit URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/71699 Old failures (same test failed in 26 Alpha 1.2): ID: 71585 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_role_deploy_domain_controller URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/71585 ID: 71606 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_update_graphical URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/71606 ID: 71630 Test: arm Minimal-raw_xz-raw.xz install_arm_image_deployment_upload URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/71630 ID: 71676 Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_desktop_64bit URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/71676 ID: 71679 Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_desktop_encrypted_64bit URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/71679 ID: 71684 Test: x86_64 universal install_cyrillic_language URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/71684 Soft failed openQA tests: 2/107 (x86_64), 10/18 (i386) (Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug) New soft failures (same test did not soft fail in 26 Alpha 1.2): ID: 71595 Test: i386 Server-boot-iso install_default URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/71595 ID: 71596 Test: i386 Server-dvd-iso install_default URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/71596 ID: 71660 Test: x86_64 universal install_simple_free_space@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/71660 ID: 71690 Test: i386 universal install_package_set_minimal URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/71690 ID: 71691 Test: i386 universal install_repository_http_graphical URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/71691 ID: 71692 Test: i386 universal install_scsi_updates_img URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/71692 ID: 71693 Test: i386 universal install_simple_encrypted URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/71693 ID: 71694 Test: i386 universal install_software_raid URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/71694 ID: 71695 Test: i386 universal install_btrfs URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/71695 ID: 71696 Test: i386 universal install_ext3 URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/71696 ID: 71697 Test: i386 universal install_lvmthin URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/71697 Old soft failures (same test soft failed in 26 Alpha 1.2): ID: 71685 Test: x86_64 universal install_asian_language URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/71685 Passed openQA tests: 90/107 (x86_64), 5/18 (i386) New passes (same test did not pass in 26 Alpha 1.2): ID: 71599 Test: i386 Everything-boot-iso install_default URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/71599 ID: 71610 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_notifications_postinstall URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/71610 ID: 71616 Test: i386 Workstation-boot-iso memory_check URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/71616 ID: 71672 Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_server_64bit URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/71672 ID: 71678 Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_kde_64bit URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/71678 ID: 71683 Test: x86_64 universal install_european_language URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/71683 ID: 71700 Test: i386 universal install_package_set_kde URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/71700 Skipped openQA tests: 4 of 127 Installed system changes in test x86_64 Server-boot-iso install_default: 1 packages(s) removed since previous compose: compat-openssl10 Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/68613#downloads Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/71574#downloads Installed system changes in test x86_64 Server-boot-iso install_default@uefi: 1 packages(s) removed since previous compose: compat-openssl10 Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/68614#downloads Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/71575#downloads Installed system changes in test x86_64 Everything
