On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 9:55 am, Fabio Valentini
wrote:
FWIW, I've been resubmitting koji builds for all FTBFS packages that
build locally (with mockbuild --enablerepo local) for the past few
days.
Almost 100 packages that failed due to transient buildroot issues
(broken gcc/annobin, broken get
In support of Kevin's statement:
Out-of-source builds make sense if you want to build from the source multiple
times, or if you want to ensure that the source is immutable (for the build
process).
None of this seems to be the goal of the Change which was motivated solely by
general "you should
On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 3:14 AM Elliott Sales de Andrade
wrote:
> Thanks. Out of my 84 FTBFS, 75% were due to this breakage. I've
> already re-submitted them and they've passed, but I suspect a
> reasonable number of the failures in the second pass might be related
> to this.
>
> Only 2 were relate
On Sat, 1 Aug 2020 at 14:42, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> On Sat, Aug 01, 2020 at 06:35:30PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 01, 2020 at 03:13:50PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > > On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 2:44 PM Richard W.M. Jones
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Aug 01, 2020 a
Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 9:23 PM Kevin Kofler
> wrote:
>> Especially the CMake one was completely pointless.
>
> The goal was not pointless, but I will assert that the
> implementation was flawed in practice.
The goal was to make more packages do out-of-source builds, whic
On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 9:23 PM Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Especially the CMake one was completely pointless.
The goal was not pointless, but I will assert that the
implementation was flawed in practice.
I would suggest that a lesson to be learned is that changes
that are expected to require updates t
Michael J Gruber wrote:
> I think we should test build with changes like cmake or LTO in isolation
> from the typical mass rebuild which exposes many other problems.
I think we should just not do this kind of changes that mass-break packages
at all. Especially the CMake one was completely pointle
On Sat, Aug 01, 2020 at 06:35:30PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 01, 2020 at 03:13:50PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 2:44 PM Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Aug 01, 2020 at 03:25:48AM -0400, Elliott Sales de Andrade wrote:
> > > > libcroco
On Sat, Aug 01, 2020 at 03:13:50PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 2:44 PM Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 01, 2020 at 03:25:48AM -0400, Elliott Sales de Andrade wrote:
> > > libcroco was retired on Rawhide, but the libcroco-0.6.so.3()(64bit) it
> > > provides
On Sat, Aug 01, 2020 at 03:37:37PM -, Michael J Gruber wrote:
> It is tagged as
>
> f33-rebuild
> f33-updates-candidate
>
> now but not as
>
> f33
>
> and bodhi does not know about it either. Is it possible/advisable to tag it
> as f33 directly to get the other rebuilds going again?
You c
On Sat, Aug 01, 2020 at 03:15:59PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 3:12 PM Michael J Gruber
> wrote:
> >
> > Well, that second mass rebuild made things worse for me.
> > The time between the two was really short - we do need time to fix things
> > (see below).
> > The sec
It is tagged as
f33-rebuild
f33-updates-candidate
now but not as
f33
and bodhi does not know about it either. Is it possible/advisable to tag it as
f33 directly to get the other rebuilds going again?
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraprojec
On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 8:30 am, Michael Catanzaro
wrote:
I don't think there's anything else that needs to be done now.
OK, I see Fabio's mail that it isn't tagged yet:
Can we get gettext-0.20.2-4.fc33 tagged into the f33? I'd do it
myself, if I was sure not to break anything ... would "ko
I got permission from the package owner (Dodji) before retiring it.
I'll check with you first next time, sorry.
I don't think there's anything else that needs to be done now. First we
have to wait for the mass rebuild script to finish. Then we see what
all failed
__
Sorry, this is my fault.
On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 3:25 am, Elliott Sales de Andrade
wrote:
gettext is used by many many things. Please unretire libcroco, or
rebuild gettext without it.
It was successfully rebuilt last night by releng, I assume by the mass
rebuild script. We were trying to reb
On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 3:12 PM Michael J Gruber wrote:
>
> Well, that second mass rebuild made things worse for me. The time between the
> two was really short - we do need time to fix things (see below). The second
> rebuild not only forced us to rebase changes which were in QA (and rewrite
>
On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 2:44 PM Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> On Sat, Aug 01, 2020 at 03:25:48AM -0400, Elliott Sales de Andrade wrote:
> > libcroco was retired on Rawhide, but the libcroco-0.6.so.3()(64bit) it
> > provides is used by libtextstyle.so.0, part of gettext.
> >
> > gettext is used by m
On 8/1/20 09:25, Elliott Sales de Andrade wrote:
libcroco was retired on Rawhide, but the libcroco-0.6.so.3()(64bit) it
provides is used by libtextstyle.so.0, part of gettext.
gettext is used by many many things. Please unretire libcroco, or
rebuild gettext without it.
This is unfortunate.
Mi
Well, that second mass rebuild made things worse for me. The time between the
two was really short - we do need time to fix things (see below). The second
rebuild not only forced us to rebase changes which were in QA (and rewrite the
changelog because of date order stubbornness) but - what's wor
On Sat, Aug 01, 2020 at 03:25:48AM -0400, Elliott Sales de Andrade wrote:
> libcroco was retired on Rawhide, but the libcroco-0.6.so.3()(64bit) it
> provides is used by libtextstyle.so.0, part of gettext.
>
> gettext is used by many many things. Please unretire libcroco, or
> rebuild gettext witho
libcroco was retired on Rawhide, but the libcroco-0.6.so.3()(64bit) it
provides is used by libtextstyle.so.0, part of gettext.
gettext is used by many many things. Please unretire libcroco, or
rebuild gettext without it.
--
Elliott
___
devel mailing li
21 matches
Mail list logo
