Bug 1923406

Summary: auriferous: FTBFS in Fedora rawhide/f34
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Fedora Release Engineering <releng>
Component: auriferousAssignee: Hans de Goede <hdegoede>
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: unspecified Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: rawhideCC: hdegoede
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2021-02-06 14:24:59 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 1868278    
Attachments:
Description Flags
build.log
none
root.log
none
state.log none

Description Fedora Release Engineering 2021-02-01 16:46:43 UTC 
auriferous failed to build from source in Fedora rawhide/f34

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=60909758


For details on the mass rebuild see:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_34_Mass_Rebuild
Please fix auriferous at your earliest convenience and set the bug's status to
ASSIGNED when you start fixing it. If the bug remains in NEW state for 8 weeks,
auriferous will be orphaned. Before branching of Fedora 35,
auriferous will be retired, if it still fails to build.

For more details on the FTBFS policy, please visit:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Fails_to_build_from_source_Fails_to_install/
Comment 1 Fedora Release Engineering 2021-02-01 16:47:55 UTC 
Created attachment 1753237 [details]
build.log

file build.log too big, will only attach last 32768 bytes
Comment 2 Fedora Release Engineering 2021-02-01 16:47:56 UTC 
Created attachment 1753238 [details]
root.log

file root.log too big, will only attach last 32768 bytes
Comment 3 Fedora Release Engineering 2021-02-01 16:47:56 UTC 
Created attachment 1753239 [details]
state.log
Comment 4 Hans de Goede 2021-02-06 14:24:59 UTC 
It looked like the script had a hick-up and filed this one twice, marking this one as a dup.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1923402 ***