On pe, 17 syys 2021, Sahana Prasad wrote:
Hello all,
The side-tag was merged yesterday. OpenSSL 3.0.0 is available in rawhide
now.
You can continue to port your changes for OpenSSL 3.0.0 now.
The following packages FTBFS (attached), kindly have a look at them.
I haven't reported FTBFS bugs right away. As I know many packages have the
porting ready already
and they were waiting for 3.0.0 to land in rawhide.
Some packages fail due to usage of deprecated functions. Consider treating
those warnings as not errors
for a quick fix and you could slowly stop using deprecated functions in the
future.
Thanks Miro for your help with building packages in the side-tag and
getting a list of failed packages.
We will try a rebuild of all these failed packages after 3/4 weeks and
report bugs for failing packages then.
I did a scratch build for freeipa without any changes and it succeeded:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=75835593
Side-tag rebuild failed due to nodejs issues which aren't a problem anymore:
DEBUG util.py:444: Error:
DEBUG util.py:444: Problem: conflicting requests
DEBUG util.py:444: - nothing provides /usr/bin/pwsh needed by nodejs-1:16.9.1-3.fc36.s390x
DEBUG util.py:446: (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)
Looks like we don't need any rebuild this time? FreeIPA doesn't work
currently in rawhide due to libdb regression which broke 389-ds
installs.
Thank you,
Regards,
Sahana Prasad
On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 10:25 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <
zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 08:20:06AM +0000, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 08:13:08AM +0000, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 07:53:46PM +0200, Sahana Prasad wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 12:57 PM Petr Menšík <pemensik@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Sahana,
> > > >
> > > > it would be nice, if changelog entry contained bug id we could use
to
> > > > watch the progress. Or any other link to some tracker. bind
package has a
> > > > new release, I am preparing update for it, but I am not sure where
should I
> > > > watch for a progress. Even build of openssl itself does not
reference any
> > > > bug. Is there any better tracker than bug #1825937, which I can
monitor for
> > > > progress? Is the koji build the best way to check readiness? Does
exist any
> > > > variant of RHEL9 bug #1958021
> > > > <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1958021> for Fedora
Rawhide?
> > > >
> > > > Is there any expected timeline, how long it might take to merge the
> > > > side-tag?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hi Petr,
> > >
> > > I have merged the side-tag [1].
> > > I would however need karma for it to get to stable.
> > >
> > > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-ee8c904f46
> > >
> > > I will send a list of the failed packages shortly.
> >
> > systemd was built into the side-tag yesterday [1],
> > but doesn't appear in the update…
> >
> > [1] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1832196
>
> Oh, I see it finished building after you merged the tag. Dunno,
> maybe the update should be updated?
>
> --
>
> Another issue: the update has 1006 "automated tests", out of which
> 1001 fail! I think is very wrong with "automated tests" is the
> out-of-the-box success rate is below 0.005%.
>
> Error:
> Problem: conflicting requests
> - nothing provides libcrypto.so.3()(64bit) needed by
zola-0.12.2-8.fc36.x86_64
> - nothing provides libcrypto.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) needed by
zola-0.12.2-8.fc36.x86_64
> - nothing provides libssl.so.3()(64bit) needed by
zola-0.12.2-8.fc36.x86_64
> - nothing provides libssl.so.3(OPENSSL_3.0.0)(64bit) needed by
zola-0.12.2-8.fc36.x86_64
> (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)
> Installation of zola-0:0.12.2-8.fc36.x86_64 failed.
>
> So... is the test ignoring the fact that the package is part of
> an update and trying to install rpms individually?
Another one (
https://osci-jenkins-1.ci.fedoraproject.org/job/fedora-ci/job/rpminspect-pipeline/job/master/42395/testReport/(root)/tests/_annocheck/
)
"""
Error Message
Test "/annocheck" failed.
Find out more about this test in the documentation:
https://github.com/rpminspect/rpminspect#rpminspect
Found a bug? Please open an issue in the issue tracker:
https://pagure.io/fedora-ci/general/issues
"""
How on earth are we supposed to figure out what annocheck doesn't like?
There's 185328 bytes of "Standard Output" that follows…
Zbyszek
_______________________________________________
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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
--
/ Alexander Bokovoy
Sr. Principal Software Engineer
Security / Identity Management Engineering
Red Hat Limited, Finland
_______________________________________________
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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
