Re: Lots of FTBFS bugs filed for S390x "BuildrootError: Requested repo (1785390) is DELETED" / "rpm.error: error reading package header" errors

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 04/08/20 17:48 +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 5:46 PM Jonathan Wakely
<jwakely@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 03/08/20 19:29 +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
>On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 6:59 PM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 8/3/20 5:53 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> > On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 05:21:58PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> >> Hi All,
>> >>
>> >> <grumpy mode>
>> >> I just noticed that a lot my packages got a FTBFS because of
>> >> failing to build on s390x. The first set of rebuilds failed with:
>> >>
>> >> "BuildrootError: Requested repo (1785390) is DELETED"
>> >>
>> >> The second set of rebuilds failed with:
>> >>
>> >> "rpm.error: error reading package header"
>> >>
>> >> errors.
>> >>
>> >> The last error was also seen quite a bit during the F32 mass rebuid ...
>> >
>> > I'm sorry this is happening, and it makes me very grumpy too.
>> >
>> > I have some thoughts on improvements we can make to help try and make
>> > this better, but I was under the impression it was mostly working ok for
>> > the second pass.
>> >
>> > We went from 4162 to 2833 failures, so it had to have been working at
>> > least sometime there?
>>
>> It seems for me the s390x failures on the second build are limited
>> to package names starting with A-Z and "aa*" - "an*" .
>>
>> Any chance we can get a third mass rebuild for package-names starting
>> with A-Z and "a*" ?
>>
>> Or maybe all those where the only failing platform is on s390x ?
>>
>> (no idea how easy it is to script any of this)
>
>I am already resubmitting all builds that failed in koji but that
>currently pass locally in mock with "--enablerepo local".
>So far this has reduced the number of FTBFS packages by almost 100,
>and the script is still running.
>This should take care of all packages that only failed due to infra issues.

It looks like the %release was bumped again for these second rebuilds.
That shouldn't have been necessary, right?

I wondered about this too. The answer was: Usually no, but this time,
yes, because ELN:
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/9616#comment-668524

I see, thanks!

_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux