FC-6]$ make build /usr/bin/plague-client build SDL_image SDL_image-1_2_5-2_fc6 fc6 Package SDL_image enqueued. Job ID: 22289.
http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/build-status/job.psp?uid=22289
22289: SDL_image-1.2.5-2.fc7 (building)
Where does the .fc7 come from? This is the FC-6 branch!
Once upon a time Saturday 25 November 2006 9:10 am, Michael Schwendt wrote:
FC-6]$ make build /usr/bin/plague-client build SDL_image SDL_image-1_2_5-2_fc6 fc6 Package SDL_image enqueued. Job ID: 22289.
http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/build-status/job.psp?uid=22289
22289: SDL_image-1.2.5-2.fc7 (building)
Where does the .fc7 come from? This is the FC-6 branch!
ill look at it tonight, im just about to walk out the door.
Dennis
On Saturday 25 November 2006 9:22 am, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
Once upon a time Saturday 25 November 2006 9:10 am, Michael Schwendt wrote:
FC-6]$ make build /usr/bin/plague-client build SDL_image SDL_image-1_2_5-2_fc6 fc6 Package SDL_image enqueued. Job ID: 22289.
http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/build-status/job.psp?uid=22289
22289: SDL_image-1.2.5-2.fc7 (building)
Where does the .fc7 come from? This is the FC-6 branch!
ill look at it tonight, im just about to walk out the door.
Dennis
Michael,
Ive looked at this and it has to be something at your end not updated. i checked out SDL_image and did a make build and everything is correct http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/build-status/job.psp?uid=22395 22395: SDL_image-1.2.5-3.fc6 (building)
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 22:04:14 -0600, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
On Saturday 25 November 2006 9:22 am, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
Once upon a time Saturday 25 November 2006 9:10 am, Michael Schwendt wrote:
FC-6]$ make build /usr/bin/plague-client build SDL_image SDL_image-1_2_5-2_fc6 fc6 Package SDL_image enqueued. Job ID: 22289.
http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/build-status/job.psp?uid=22289
22289: SDL_image-1.2.5-2.fc7 (building)
Where does the .fc7 come from? This is the FC-6 branch!
ill look at it tonight, im just about to walk out the door.
Dennis
Michael,
Ive looked at this and it has to be something at your end not updated. i checked out SDL_image and did a make build and everything is correct http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/build-status/job.psp?uid=22395 22395: SDL_image-1.2.5-3.fc6 (building)
No way. Look again. I've quoted the plague-client command-line above.
On Monday 27 November 2006 3:38 am, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 22:04:14 -0600, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
On Saturday 25 November 2006 9:22 am, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
Once upon a time Saturday 25 November 2006 9:10 am, Michael Schwendt
wrote:
FC-6]$ make build /usr/bin/plague-client build SDL_image SDL_image-1_2_5-2_fc6 fc6 Package SDL_image enqueued. Job ID: 22289.
http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/build-status/job.psp?uid=22289
22289: SDL_image-1.2.5-2.fc7 (building)
Where does the .fc7 come from? This is the FC-6 branch!
ill look at it tonight, im just about to walk out the door.
Dennis
Michael,
Ive looked at this and it has to be something at your end not updated. i checked out SDL_image and did a make build and everything is correct http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/build-status/job.psp?uid=22395 22395: SDL_image-1.2.5-3.fc6 (building)
No way. Look again. I've quoted the plague-client command-line above.
i did exactly the same set of steps you posted FC-6]$ make build /usr/bin/plague-client build SDL_image SDL_image-1_2_5-3_fc6 fc6 Package SDL_image enqueued. Job ID: 22438.
http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/build-status/job.psp?uid=22438
shows 22438: SDL_image-1.2.5-3.fc6 (building)
and older job that failed http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/build-status/job.psp?uid=22084
shows 22084: linphone-1.5.1-1.fc6 (failed)
the only thing i can think of is that your common dir is out of date.
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 10:06:20 -0600, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
On Monday 27 November 2006 3:38 am, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 22:04:14 -0600, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
On Saturday 25 November 2006 9:22 am, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
Once upon a time Saturday 25 November 2006 9:10 am, Michael Schwendt
wrote:
FC-6]$ make build /usr/bin/plague-client build SDL_image SDL_image-1_2_5-2_fc6 fc6 Package SDL_image enqueued. Job ID: 22289.
http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/build-status/job.psp?uid=22289
22289: SDL_image-1.2.5-2.fc7 (building)
Where does the .fc7 come from? This is the FC-6 branch!
ill look at it tonight, im just about to walk out the door.
Dennis
Michael,
Ive looked at this and it has to be something at your end not updated. i checked out SDL_image and did a make build and everything is correct http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/build-status/job.psp?uid=22395 22395: SDL_image-1.2.5-3.fc6 (building)
No way. Look again. I've quoted the plague-client command-line above.
i did exactly the same set of steps you posted FC-6]$ make build /usr/bin/plague-client build SDL_image SDL_image-1_2_5-3_fc6 fc6 Package SDL_image enqueued. Job ID: 22438.
http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/build-status/job.psp?uid=22438
shows 22438: SDL_image-1.2.5-3.fc6 (building)
and older job that failed http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/build-status/job.psp?uid=22084
shows 22084: linphone-1.5.1-1.fc6 (failed)
the only thing i can think of is that your common dir is out of date.
Eeek, why would you think that? Can you explain the theory behind that? Where would the "fc7" come from if I had an old FC-6 checkout?
Look closely at the command-line I've quoted. Here it is once more:
| FC-6]$ make build | /usr/bin/plague-client build SDL_image SDL_image-1_2_5-2_fc6 fc6
As you can see, the tag is "fc6", the target is "fc6", the branch is FC-6.
Now compare with:
http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/build-status/job.psp?uid=22289
Notice:
| 22289: SDL_image-1.2.5-2.fc7 (needsign)
| Logs: http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/logs/fedora-6-extras/22289-SDL_image-1.2.5...
In i386:
| SDL_image-1.2.5-2.fc7.src.rpm
And here:
http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/logs/fedora-6-extras/22289-SDL_image-1.2.5...
Somebody please explain where "fc7" comes from.
i did exactly the same set of steps you posted FC-6]$ make build /usr/bin/plague-client build SDL_image SDL_image-1_2_5-3_fc6 fc6 Package SDL_image enqueued. Job ID: 22438.
http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/build-status/job.psp?uid=22438
shows 22438: SDL_image-1.2.5-3.fc6 (building)
and older job that failed http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/build-status/job.psp?uid=22084
shows 22084: linphone-1.5.1-1.fc6 (failed)
the only thing i can think of is that your common dir is out of date.
Eeek, why would you think that? Can you explain the theory behind that? Where would the "fc7" come from if I had an old FC-6 checkout?
Look closely at the command-line I've quoted. Here it is once more: | FC-6]$ make build | /usr/bin/plague-client build SDL_image SDL_image-1_2_5-2_fc6 fc6
As you can see, the tag is "fc6", the target is "fc6", the branch is FC-6.
yes i clearly see that and it is wrong i don't know where the .fc7 came from. I did a fresh checkout of SDL_image and ran the exact same commands and got the expected result. I could be way out in left field. but the only thing i thought was perhaps you had an old common tree that had FC-6 pointing at devel. its a wild guess nothing more. I was unable to see a pattern of it in the buildsys to know for sure
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 13:39:31 -0600, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
i did exactly the same set of steps you posted FC-6]$ make build /usr/bin/plague-client build SDL_image SDL_image-1_2_5-3_fc6 fc6 Package SDL_image enqueued. Job ID: 22438.
http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/build-status/job.psp?uid=22438
shows 22438: SDL_image-1.2.5-3.fc6 (building)
and older job that failed http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/build-status/job.psp?uid=22084
shows 22084: linphone-1.5.1-1.fc6 (failed)
the only thing i can think of is that your common dir is out of date.
Eeek, why would you think that? Can you explain the theory behind that? Where would the "fc7" come from if I had an old FC-6 checkout?
Look closely at the command-line I've quoted. Here it is once more: | FC-6]$ make build | /usr/bin/plague-client build SDL_image SDL_image-1_2_5-2_fc6 fc6
As you can see, the tag is "fc6", the target is "fc6", the branch is FC-6.
yes i clearly see that and it is wrong i don't know where the .fc7 came from. I did a fresh checkout of SDL_image and ran the exact same commands and got the expected result. I could be way out in left field. but the only thing i thought was perhaps you had an old common tree that had FC-6 pointing at devel. its a wild guess nothing more. I was unable to see a pattern of it in the buildsys to know for sure
1) "FC-6" branch never points at "devel".
2) An old common/branches can have "devel" point at ".fc6" instead of ".fc7".
3) The plague-client command-line does NOT contain anything like "devel" or "fc7". Only "fc6".
4) The buildsys was asked to build an fc6-tagged package for target fc6, but built a fc7 src.rpm.
I'm out of here. If nobody has fixed it, it might come back.
On Tuesday 28 November 2006 16:01, Michael Schwendt wrote:
- "FC-6" branch never points at "devel".
I know this
- An old common/branches can have "devel" point at ".fc6" instead of
".fc7".
- The plague-client command-line does NOT contain anything like "devel"
or "fc7". Only "fc6".
i know that and i could not repoduce your problem
- The buildsys was asked to build an fc6-tagged package for target fc6,
but built a fc7 src.rpm.
Yes and i have not yet worked out why it did. Could you tar up your cvs tree so that i can disect it to see if it gives me any clues.
I'm out of here. If nobody has fixed it, it might come back.
I said i was pulling at strings. I hope it comes back so we can reliably repoduce it and fix it.
I really am trying to help
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 16:50:05 -0600, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
On Tuesday 28 November 2006 16:01, Michael Schwendt wrote:
- "FC-6" branch never points at "devel".
I know this
In the previous message you wrote:
| but the only thing i thought was perhaps you had an old common | tree that had FC-6 pointing at devel. its a wild guess nothing | more.
This would not lead to the same symptoms. Assume the following:
Case 1: No "FC-6" branch and old "common" checkout.
I would run "make build" in "devel" (where else?), which is still at ".fc6". But the job would target "devel", not "fc6"!
Case 2: "FC-6" branch and old "common" checkout.
I would run "make build" in "FC-6", which has no corresponding entry in the "common/branches" file. Would that work and produce good plague-client arguments which target "fc6"?
Also note that no new tag was created, but an old tag was re-used.
- An old common/branches can have "devel" point at ".fc6" instead of
".fc7".
- The plague-client command-line does NOT contain anything like "devel"
or "fc7". Only "fc6".
i know that and i could not repoduce your problem
Interesting would be any theory, where the .fc7 (for the generated src.rpm) can come from when nothing in the plague-client args contains "fc7".
- The buildsys was asked to build an fc6-tagged package for target fc6,
but built a fc7 src.rpm.
Yes and i have not yet worked out why it did. Could you tar up your cvs tree so that i can disect it to see if it gives me any clues.
Why? The local CVS working-copy is irrelevant. Everything is encoded in here:
/usr/bin/plague-client build SDL_image SDL_image-1_2_5-2_fc6 fc6
It is a client that does not use CVS at all.
"MS" == Michael Schwendt bugs.michael@gmx.net writes:
MS> Interesting would be any theory, where the .fc7 (for the generated MS> src.rpm) can come from when nothing in the plague-client args MS> contains "fc7".
Forgive me if it's already been covered in this discussion, but doesn't the final package name actually come from whatever the buildsys-macros packages defines the %dist tag to be? (Assuming, of course, that the package uses the %dist macro in its Release: tag.)
So it's possible that if the wrong buildsys-macros package got installed into the mock chroot somehow, the package could come out with the wrong name regardless of how plague-client was called or which CVS tag the buildsys checked out.
All it would take to get the wrong buildsys macro installed would be a typo in the mock config file. But that should result in all packages for that distro version getting the wrong %dist tag, and this seems to be an isolated case.
- J<
On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 19:33 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
"MS" == Michael Schwendt bugs.michael@gmx.net writes:
MS> Interesting would be any theory, where the .fc7 (for the generated MS> src.rpm) can come from when nothing in the plague-client args MS> contains "fc7".
Forgive me if it's already been covered in this discussion, but doesn't the final package name actually come from whatever the buildsys-macros packages defines the %dist tag to be? (Assuming, of course, that the package uses the %dist macro in its Release: tag.)
So it's possible that if the wrong buildsys-macros package got installed into the mock chroot somehow, the package could come out with the wrong name regardless of how plague-client was called or which CVS tag the buildsys checked out.
All it would take to get the wrong buildsys macro installed would be a typo in the mock config file. But that should result in all packages for that distro version getting the wrong %dist tag, and this seems to be an isolated case.
Perhaps a misconfiguration on one, rarely-used builder?
Paul.
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 08:13:37 +0000, Paul Howarth wrote:
Perhaps a misconfiguration on one, rarely-used builder?
http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/build-status/job.psp?uid=24566
| 24566: toped-0.8.2-2.fc7 (needsign) | Target: fedora-6-extras | Submitter: cgoorah yahoo com au | Source: toped-0_8_2-2_fc6
If target is fc6 and tag is within fc6 (for example, when all arguments on plague-client command-line refer to fc6), under which circumstances would a build machine use "fc7"? This job built a fc7 src.rpm and fc6 binaries:
| http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/logs/fedora-6-extras/24566-toped-0.8.2-2.f...
Michael Schwendt schrieb:
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 08:13:37 +0000, Paul Howarth wrote:
Perhaps a misconfiguration on one, rarely-used builder?
http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/build-status/job.psp?uid=24566 | 24566: toped-0.8.2-2.fc7 (needsign) | Target: fedora-6-extras | Submitter: cgoorah yahoo com au | Source: toped-0_8_2-2_fc6 If target is fc6 and tag is within fc6 (for example, when all arguments on plague-client command-line refer to fc6), under which circumstances would a build machine use "fc7"? This job built a fc7 src.rpm and fc6 binaries: | http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/logs/fedora-6-extras/24566-toped-0.8.2-2.f...
Even more interesting IMHO
$ rpm -qp toped-0.8.2-2.fc7.src.rpm toped-0.8.2-2.fc6 ^^^ How is above possible at all? Was the srpm renamed?
BTW, seems the SRPM was build on ppc2.fedora.redhat.com. And according to the build.log from all three builders it seems they all build packages with disttag "fc6".
/me is confused
CU thl
buildsys@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Dennis Gilmore -
Jason L Tibbitts III -
Michael Schwendt -
Paul Howarth -
Thorsten Leemhuis