On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 7:11 PM kevin <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 11:45:48AM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 9:33 PM kevin <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 08:14:38PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > > > Do you think it would be a good idea to file bugs for those packages > > > > where a build for f33 was "forgotten"? > > > > Since I already have the "downgrade check" scripted [0] it's a simple task of: > > > > > > > > - check if the package has attempted build for f33 > > > > - if yes, check if it's FTBFS, and don't report a bug > > > > - if no build was attempted for f33, report a bug > > > > > > > > I see ~100 downgraded *binary* packages going from fully updated f32 > > > > to fully updated f33. > > > > The number of affected *source* packages is naturally lower than that. > > > > The script also doesn't account for packages being renamed (but in > > > > those cases, proper Obsoletes and Provides need to be present during > > > > package review, so I don't think this is a problem). > > > > > > Yes, I think that would be lovely. > > > > > > kevin > > > > I'm on it. > > > > By the way, I'm finding some weird issues where packages are tagged > > with f33 in koji for a few days but an *older* build is in the repos, > > e.g. appliance-tools and ddgr. > > I am not seeing that here. Could be a mirror issue? > > I ran out check_latest_build script on f33 (which looks at each > package and tries to figure out if the last tagged one is the > 'highest'). > > It gives: > > containernetworking-plugins-0.8.6-1.fc33 < containernetworking-plugins-0.8.6-11.1.gitbd58999.fc33 > crun-0.14.1-1.fc33 < crun-0.14.1-2.fc33 > fabtests-1.11.0-1.fc33 < fabtests-1.11.0rc2-1.fc33 > igt-gpu-tools-1.25-1.20200818git4e5f76b.fc33 < igt-gpu-tools-1.25-2.20200719git9b964d7.fc33 > libfabric-1.11.0-1.fc33 < libfabric-1.11.0rc2-1.fc33 > slirp4netns-1.1.4-1.fc33 < slirp4netns-1.1.4-4.dev.giteecccdb.fc33 > stdair-1.00.10-5.fc33 < stdair-1.00.10-6.fc33 > sympa-6.2.56-2.fc33 < sympa-6.2.56-2.fc33.1 > > kevin Hrm. It looks like at least some of those issues were transient, yes. However, two issues are still left: - libdkimpp-2.0.0-6.fc33 is tagged with f33 and f34 but 2.0.0-3.fc32 is in the f33 repos - swift-lang-5.2.5-1.fc33 is tagged with f33 and f34 but 5.2.4-3.fc33 is in the f33 repos Both these packages were built ~two weeks ago, so maybe they were screwed up by the mass branching somehow? Fabio _______________________________________________ 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
