Hi, redirecting to copr-devel
On Qua, 2015-07-29 at 09:18 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On Wed, 2015-07-29 at 15:15 +0200, Rajeesh K V wrote:
Hello,
Copr fails to build for F23 (i686, x86_64) due to error:
Error: Package glibc-2.21.90-21.fc23.x86_64.rpm is not signed
For instance see the build log https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/rajeeshknambiar/kf5-k de-apps/fedora-23-x86_64/plasma-volume-control-5.3.90-1.fc22/root.log
Known issue, should be fixed later today when Bodhi is activated for Fedora 23.
I still have those failures in fedora-23-ppc64le [1] and fedora-rawhide-ppc64le buildroots .
Should we open bug reports in bugzilla , product Copr [3] ?
[1] https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/sergiomb/patchutils_with_dif... DEBUG util.py:377: Error: Package tar-1.28-6.fc23.ppc64le.rpm is not signed
[2] https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/sergiomb/patchutils_with_dif... DEBUG util.py:377: Error: nothing provides libsemanage.so.1()(64bit) needed by shadow-utils-2:4.2.1-2.fc23.ppc64le. DEBUG util.py:377: nothing provides libsemanage.so.1()(64bit) needed by shadow-utils-2:4.2.1-2.fc23.ppc64le DEBUG util.py:488: Child return code was: 1
[3] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Copr
Thanks,
Dne 16.8.2015 v 21:05 Sérgio Basto napsal(a):
I still have those failures in fedora-23-ppc64le [1] and fedora-rawhide-ppc64le buildroots .
Should we open bug reports in bugzilla , product Copr [3] ?
This is problem of Fedora rel-engs. There is nothing I can do.
On Seg, 2015-08-17 at 13:35 +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Dne 16.8.2015 v 21:05 Sérgio Basto napsal(a):
I still have those failures in fedora-23-ppc64le [1] and fedora-rawhide-ppc64le buildroots .
Should we open bug reports in bugzilla , product Copr [3] ?
This is problem of Fedora rel-engs. There is nothing I can do.
OK redirecting back to devel
Thanks,
copr-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org