On Wed, 2006-03-01 at 05:27 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 20:09 -0500, Dan Williams wrote: > > On Wed, 2006-03-01 at 00:02 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > On Tue, 2006-02-28 at 18:14 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > > > Hi! > > > > > > > > This is a script-generated mail to remind you that some of your arch- > > > > specific Fedora Extras packages were not yet rebuild for FC5. All arch- > > > > specific packages in "extras/development/" that were build before > > > > > > > '2006-02-13 02:48:00 -0500' > > > > > > > > should be rebuild as soon as possible. We're running out of time, FC5 > > > > is near! > > > > > > I'd do, but ATM, I am facing sporadic > > > ... > > > Package ... enqueued. (However, no Job ID was provided in the time > > > required) > > > ... > > > > > > again (2 out of ca. 9 requests failed) > > > > > > <rant> > > > IMO, such mass rebuild requests are not of much use before we have more > > > reliable buildsystem. > > > </rant> > > > > Build system seems to be doing fine ATM... > > It just happened again: > > Package perl-Test-ClassAPI enqueued. (However, no Job ID was provided > in the time required) Again, buildsys is doing fine. Please check to make sure the job did not actually get enqueued. While I know that reporting this has been the rule for a while, the code added a couple weeks ago should mean that 95% of the cases where this error gets returned are not actually buildsys hangs. It should recover in ~10s and continue as normal. Dan -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
