[release-process] F45 Cycle: Mass Rebuild (scheduled July 15th, 2026 14 UTC) #13406

Closed
opened 2026-06-30 15:26:58 +00:00 by patrikp · 23 comments
Member

As per the Fedora 45 release schedule [1], the mass rebuild is scheduled to happen on Wednesday, 2026-07-15.

For the driving changes, please refer to the relevant wiki page [2].

If you need to exclude a package from the rebuild, you can do one of the following:

  • Add a noautobuild file to the root of your dist-git repository.
  • Request that Release Engineering add your package to the skip list (via PR or ticket) [3].

Either method will cause the mass rebuild script to skip the package.

If you have questions, comment on this ticket or ask in the Release Engineering Matrix room [4].

[1] https://fedorapeople.org/groups/schedule/f-45/f-45-releng-tasks.html
[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_45_Mass_Rebuild#Driving_Features
[3] https://forge.fedoraproject.org/releng/tooling/src/branch/main/release-process/mass-rebuilds/mass_rebuilds_info.py
[4] https://matrix.to/#/#releng:fedoraproject.org

As per the Fedora 45 release schedule [1], the mass rebuild is scheduled to happen on Wednesday, 2026-07-15. For the driving changes, please refer to the relevant wiki page [2]. If you need to exclude a package from the rebuild, you can do one of the following: - Add a `noautobuild` file to the root of your dist-git repository. - Request that Release Engineering add your package to the skip list (via PR or ticket) [3]. Either method will cause the mass rebuild script to skip the package. If you have questions, comment on this ticket or ask in the Release Engineering Matrix room [4]. [1] https://fedorapeople.org/groups/schedule/f-45/f-45-releng-tasks.html [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_45_Mass_Rebuild#Driving_Features [3] https://forge.fedoraproject.org/releng/tooling/src/branch/main/release-process/mass-rebuilds/mass_rebuilds_info.py [4] https://matrix.to/#/#releng:fedoraproject.org
patrikp self-assigned this 2026-06-30 15:26:58 +00:00
Author
Member

Before the Mass Rebuild

Communication

  • [] Set Up the Wiki Page [1]
  • [] Create the Tracker Ticket (this ticket)
  • [] Send the Announcement Email [2]

Koji Setup

  • [] Confirm Secondary Architectures are Ready
  • [] Create the Rebuild Tag [3]
  • [] Create the Build Target [4]
  • [] Request Autosigning [5] (PR reviewed, merged, and deployed)

Release Engineering Script Updates

  • [] Update Variables in Relevant Scripts [6]

Footnotes:
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_45_Mass_Rebuild
[2] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/GRFRJG3X6VHX4R5QJUTKPBGJRO5AO22L/
[3] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taginfo?tagID=143719
[4] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildtargetinfo?targetID=61249
[5] infra/tickets#13459
[6] releng/tooling#13041


During the Mass Rebuild

  • [] Final Checks
  • [] Running the Rebuild Script
  • [] Monitoring Progress [1][2]
  • [] Announce the Rebuild Started [3] (email sent, waiting for approval)

Footnotes:
[1] https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/mass-rebuild/f45-need-rebuild.html
[2] https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/mass-rebuild/f45-failures.html
[3] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/6VHXCNHJYDJQHMN7LWR6F4YV3OQH5WB5/


After the Mass Rebuild

  • [] Tag the Builds
  • [] Remove the Build Target
  • [] Send the Final Announcement [1]
  • [] File FTBFS Bugs [2] (not completed at the time of writing but tracker in a separate ticket)

Footnotes:
[1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/IYGKLVOR7HE2PS5FKA2OZVN7XYPGTD25/
[2] #13426


PR for reworked SOP:
infra/docs#531

## Before the Mass Rebuild ### Communication - [✅] Set Up the Wiki Page [1] - [✅] Create the Tracker Ticket (this ticket) - [✅] Send the Announcement Email [2] ### Koji Setup - [✅] Confirm Secondary Architectures are Ready - [✅] Create the Rebuild Tag [3] - [✅] Create the Build Target [4] - [✅] Request Autosigning [5] (PR reviewed, merged, and deployed) ### Release Engineering Script Updates - [✅] Update Variables in Relevant Scripts [6] Footnotes: [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_45_Mass_Rebuild [2] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/GRFRJG3X6VHX4R5QJUTKPBGJRO5AO22L/ [3] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taginfo?tagID=143719 [4] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildtargetinfo?targetID=61249 [5] https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/13459 [6] https://forge.fedoraproject.org/releng/tooling/pulls/13041 ---------- ## During the Mass Rebuild - [✅] Final Checks - [✅] Running the Rebuild Script - [✅] Monitoring Progress [1][2] - [✅] Announce the Rebuild Started [3] (email sent, waiting for approval) Footnotes: [1] https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/mass-rebuild/f45-need-rebuild.html [2] https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/mass-rebuild/f45-failures.html [3] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/6VHXCNHJYDJQHMN7LWR6F4YV3OQH5WB5/ ---------- ## After the Mass Rebuild - [✅] Tag the Builds - [✅] Remove the Build Target - [✅] Send the Final Announcement [1] - [✅] File FTBFS Bugs [2] (not completed at the time of writing but tracker in a separate ticket) Footnotes: [1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/IYGKLVOR7HE2PS5FKA2OZVN7XYPGTD25/ [2] https://forge.fedoraproject.org/releng/tickets/issues/13426 ---------- PR for reworked SOP: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/docs/pulls/531
jnsamyak changed title from F45 Cycle: Mass Rebuild to [release-process] F45 Cycle: Mass Rebuild (scheduled July 15th, 2026 14 UTC) 2026-07-13 14:45:35 +00:00
Owner

@fabio mentioned in releng matrix channel:

FYI, wrt/ mass rebuild: I'm tracking an LLVM miscompilation bug that manifests in segfaults in Rust code built with rustc 1.97.0, it might be good to have that fixed before the mass rebuild starts ... https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2499684
@fabio mentioned in releng matrix channel: ``` FYI, wrt/ mass rebuild: I'm tracking an LLVM miscompilation bug that manifests in segfaults in Rust code built with rustc 1.97.0, it might be good to have that fixed before the mass rebuild starts ... https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2499684 ```
Author
Member

It seems like there are toolchain changes after all. The change proposal [1] was submitted before the deadline, but for one reason or another the FESCo ticket [2] was only filed today. FESCo approved the proposal but the changes haven't yet landed in Rawhide. Without the toolchain updates being in place we cannot start the mass rebuild, so there's a real possibility it will have to be delayed.

I reached out to the change owner (Carlos O'Donell) directly asking for more details.

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Changes/GNUToolchainF45
[2] fesco/tickets#3641

It seems like there _are_ toolchain changes after all. The change proposal [1] was submitted before the deadline, but for one reason or another the FESCo ticket [2] was only filed today. FESCo approved the proposal but the changes haven't yet landed in Rawhide. Without the toolchain updates being in place we cannot start the mass rebuild, so there's a real possibility it will have to be delayed. I reached out to the change owner (Carlos O'Donell) directly asking for more details. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Changes/GNUToolchainF45 [2] https://forge.fedoraproject.org/fesco/tickets/issues/3641
Member

The glibc update in https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-54318fdaca is good enough for a mass rebuild, it was updated from the upstream development branch by Frederic on the 7th.

The gcc update in https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-9a7eae5a85 is good enough for a mass rebuild, it was updated from the upstream release branch by Jakub on the 3rd.

The binutils update in https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-aa53457f70 is undergoing final review by Siddhesh and Nick. The previous build https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-547ddbb113 is in theory good enough for a mass rebuild.

The gdb update in https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-4a670576d0 is good enough for a mass rebuild, it was updated by Kevin on the 13th.

I think we are green from the system toolchain perspective except the binutils update is stuck under review, but we're working on that.

The glibc update in https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-54318fdaca is good enough for a mass rebuild, it was updated from the upstream development branch by Frederic on the 7th. The gcc update in https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-9a7eae5a85 is good enough for a mass rebuild, it was updated from the upstream release branch by Jakub on the 3rd. The binutils update in https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-aa53457f70 is undergoing final review by Siddhesh and Nick. The previous build https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-547ddbb113 is in theory good enough for a mass rebuild. The gdb update in https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-4a670576d0 is good enough for a mass rebuild, it was updated by Kevin on the 13th. I think we are green from the system toolchain perspective except the binutils update is stuck under review, but we're working on that.
Member

@siddhesh @nickc How is the binutils update going?

@siddhesh @nickc How is the binutils update going?
Owner

Okay, so just binutils-2.46.90-1.fc45 needs to make it to stable. I see it still is in testing.

Okay, so just binutils-2.46.90-1.fc45 needs to make it to stable. I see it still is in testing.
Author
Member

The rebuild was already supposed to be running at this point, but there are still two unresolved issues:

So it's pretty clear we will have to delay the start.

@codonell @decathorpe (and I suppose also @siddhesh and @nickc)
Could you please post a comment here once we're good to go? Thank you.

The rebuild was already supposed to be running at this point, but there are still two unresolved issues: * https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-aa53457f70 <- This has to land in stable. * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2499684 So it's pretty clear we will have to delay the start. @codonell @decathorpe (and I suppose also @siddhesh and @nickc) Could you please post a comment here once we're good to go? Thank you.
Contributor
I poked the pending LLVM PR: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/llvm/pull-request/620

I don't think it's important to land the LLVM change before the mass rebuild.

I don't think it's important to land the LLVM change before the mass rebuild.

@patrikp wrote in #13406 (comment):

* https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-aa53457f70 <- This has to land in stable.

It's in stable now.

@patrikp wrote in https://forge.fedoraproject.org/releng/tickets/issues/13406#issuecomment-1062789: > * https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-aa53457f70 <- This has to land in stable. > It's in stable now.
Member

Reminder that we should check the list of gated updates before merging, and not merge rebuilds that correspond to updates that failed gating for what look like valid/worrisome reasons.

Reminder that we should check the [list of gated updates](https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?gating=failed&release=F45) before merging, and not merge rebuilds that correspond to updates that failed gating for what look like valid/worrisome reasons.
Member

Also note there is a large KDE update currently pending on a side tag; it looks like the mass rebuild is rebuilding things that were intended for that side tag, but won't necessarily build them against each other, if it's just building in alphabetical order?

Also note there is a [large KDE update](https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-5e9be4aa64) currently pending on a side tag; it looks like the mass rebuild is rebuilding things that were intended for that side tag, but won't necessarily build them against each other, if it's just building in alphabetical order?
Member

Looking through gated updates...

  • We should not rebuild/merge simdutf-9.0.0-1.fc45, it will break Workstation
  • file-5.48-1.fc45 appears to contain a genuine bug, merging it wouldn't break the world but we still maybe shouldn't
  • tomcat-10.1.57-1.fc45 has what looks like a genuine issue with bad symlinks (@dsoumis will look into this)
  • primecount-8.5-3.fc45 failed tests because the packager is doing something weird with the source tarballs and rpminspect picked it up. The source tarball seems to be changed with every commit to the package even when the version doesn't change and there's no reason for the source tarball to change. Not sure what's going on. @valki has since tried to do an 8.6 build but it failed
  • The update to nettle 4 never passed gating, so gnutls is not currently built against nettle 4, and if the mass rebuild just runs alphabetically, the mass rebuild gnutls will build against nettle 3 from current buildroot but we will then build nettle 4 from dist-git later and gnutls will probably break
Looking through gated updates... * We should not rebuild/merge [simdutf-9.0.0-1.fc45](https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-72230fd7cc), it will break Workstation * [file-5.48-1.fc45](https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-412ea7bd7b) appears to contain a [genuine bug](https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-412ea7bd7b#comment-4704886), merging it wouldn't break the world but we still maybe shouldn't * [tomcat-10.1.57-1.fc45](https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-513dbc1867) has what looks like a genuine issue with [bad symlinks](https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-513dbc1867#comment-4704895) (@dsoumis will look into this) * [primecount-8.5-3.fc45](https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-67219d9bbb) failed tests because the packager is doing something weird with the source tarballs and rpminspect picked it up. The source tarball seems to be changed with every commit to the package even when the version doesn't change and there's no reason for the source tarball to change. Not sure what's going on. @valki has since tried to do an [8.6 build](https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=3043388) but it failed * The [update to nettle 4](https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-31c4be6212) never passed gating, so gnutls is not currently built against nettle 4, and if the mass rebuild just runs alphabetically, the mass rebuild gnutls will build against nettle 3 from current buildroot but we will then build nettle 4 from dist-git later and gnutls will probably break
Contributor

re/ nettle: there's a nettle3.10 compat package, so at least gnutls built against nettle 3 from the current buildroot won't not be installable.

re/ nettle: there's a nettle3.10 compat package, so at least gnutls built against nettle 3 from the current buildroot won't not be installable.
Member

yeah, saw that after. So it'll probably be okay, but not what the packager intended.

yeah, saw that after. So it'll probably be okay, but not what the packager intended.
Owner

@patrikp, mass rebuild is completed. We need to mass-merge builds to tag to the main tag, but before that, when you come in tomorrow, please make sure to check @adamwill's comment above, untag the builds, and do the needful. Once the tag is merged, send out an announcement on the list.

FYI: We keep need-rebuilds and find-failures HTML pages open for approximately two weeks, so folks have time to view.

Post announcement, I'll file the FTBFS bugs after creating new bug pages.

@patrikp, mass rebuild is completed. We need to mass-merge builds to tag to the main tag, but before that, when you come in tomorrow, please make sure to check @adamwill's comment above, untag the builds, and do the needful. Once the tag is merged, send out an announcement on the list. FYI: We keep need-rebuilds and find-failures HTML pages open for approximately two weeks, so folks have time to view. Post announcement, I'll file the FTBFS bugs after creating new bug pages.
Owner

Additionally, three builds were stuck during the mass rebuild, having run times of more than 50 hours. Two were stuck at the ppc64le builder, and one was stuck with x86_64.

It would be good to add these to the completion email so folks know why their respective builds were canceled.

Additionally, three builds were stuck during the mass rebuild, having run times of more than 50 hours. Two were stuck at the ppc64le builder, and one was stuck with x86_64. - python-geopmpy-3.2.1-4.fc45 -> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=3050867 - sbcl-2.6.6-2.fc45 -> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=3057319 - rust-async-std-1.13.2-3.fc45 -> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=3053898 It would be good to add these to the completion email so folks know why their respective builds were canceled.
Owner

robosignatory changes has been merged, and autosign playbook ran successfully, clear for tagging packages @patrikp

robosignatory changes has been merged, and autosign playbook ran successfully, clear for tagging packages @patrikp
Author
Member

@adamwill wrote in #13406 (comment):

First off, thank you very much for keeping such a watchful eye, I literally don't know what we'd do without you.

Looking through gated updates...

* We should not rebuild/merge [simdutf-9.0.0-1.fc45](https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-72230fd7cc), it will break Workstation

* [file-5.48-1.fc45](https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-412ea7bd7b) appears to contain a [genuine bug](https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-412ea7bd7b#comment-4704886), merging it wouldn't break the world but we still maybe shouldn't

* [tomcat-10.1.57-1.fc45](https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-513dbc1867) has what looks like a genuine issue with [bad symlinks](https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-513dbc1867#comment-4704895) (@dsoumis will look into this)

These three have been untagged from f45-rebuild (or rather, the builds that were done as part of mass rebuild):

Mon Jul 20 15:50:57 2026 simdutf-9.0.0-2.fc45 untagged from f45-rebuild by patrikp
Mon Jul 20 15:51:51 2026 file-5.48-2.fc45 untagged from f45-rebuild by patrikp
Mon Jul 20 15:52:52 2026 tomcat-10.1.57-2.fc45 untagged from f45-rebuild by patrikp
* [primecount-8.5-3.fc45](https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-67219d9bbb) failed tests because the packager is doing something weird with the source tarballs and rpminspect picked it up. The source tarball seems to be changed with every commit to the package even when the version doesn't change and there's no reason for the source tarball to change. Not sure what's going on. @valki has since tried to do an [8.6 build](https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=3043388) but it failed

It seems like the build actually succeeded. In any case:
$ koji list-tagged f45-rebuild | grep -E primecount returns no results. No primecount builds are currently in the rebuild tag so it shouldn't be of any concern in terms of running the mass tagging script.

* The [update to nettle 4](https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-31c4be6212) never passed gating, so gnutls is not currently built against nettle 4, and if the mass rebuild just runs alphabetically, the mass rebuild gnutls will build against nettle 3 from current buildroot but we will then build nettle 4 from dist-git later and gnutls will probably break

Untagged to be safe:

Mon Jul 20 16:09:59 2026 gnutls-3.8.13-2.fc45 untagged from f45-rebuild by patrikp
Mon Jul 20 16:10:48 2026 nettle-4.0-3.fc45 untagged from f45-rebuild by patrikp
Mon Jul 20 16:11:34 2026 nettle3.10-3.10.1-4.fc45 untagged from f45-rebuild by patrikp

So I believe we should be all good to run the mass tagging script, which I'm going to do now.

@adamwill wrote in https://forge.fedoraproject.org/releng/tickets/issues/13406#issuecomment-1063288: First off, thank you very much for keeping such a watchful eye, I literally don't know what we'd do without you. > Looking through gated updates... > > * We should not rebuild/merge [simdutf-9.0.0-1.fc45](https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-72230fd7cc), it will break Workstation > > * [file-5.48-1.fc45](https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-412ea7bd7b) appears to contain a [genuine bug](https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-412ea7bd7b#comment-4704886), merging it wouldn't break the world but we still maybe shouldn't > > * [tomcat-10.1.57-1.fc45](https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-513dbc1867) has what looks like a genuine issue with [bad symlinks](https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-513dbc1867#comment-4704895) (@dsoumis will look into this) These three have been untagged from `f45-rebuild` (or rather, the builds that were done as part of mass rebuild): ``` Mon Jul 20 15:50:57 2026 simdutf-9.0.0-2.fc45 untagged from f45-rebuild by patrikp Mon Jul 20 15:51:51 2026 file-5.48-2.fc45 untagged from f45-rebuild by patrikp Mon Jul 20 15:52:52 2026 tomcat-10.1.57-2.fc45 untagged from f45-rebuild by patrikp ``` > * [primecount-8.5-3.fc45](https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-67219d9bbb) failed tests because the packager is doing something weird with the source tarballs and rpminspect picked it up. The source tarball seems to be changed with every commit to the package even when the version doesn't change and there's no reason for the source tarball to change. Not sure what's going on. @valki has since tried to do an [8.6 build](https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=3043388) but it failed It seems like the build actually succeeded. In any case: `$ koji list-tagged f45-rebuild | grep -E primecount` returns no results. No primecount builds are currently in the rebuild tag so it shouldn't be of any concern in terms of running the mass tagging script. > * The [update to nettle 4](https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-31c4be6212) never passed gating, so gnutls is not currently built against nettle 4, and if the mass rebuild just runs alphabetically, the mass rebuild gnutls will build against nettle 3 from current buildroot but we will then build nettle 4 from dist-git later and gnutls will probably break Untagged to be safe: ``` Mon Jul 20 16:09:59 2026 gnutls-3.8.13-2.fc45 untagged from f45-rebuild by patrikp Mon Jul 20 16:10:48 2026 nettle-4.0-3.fc45 untagged from f45-rebuild by patrikp Mon Jul 20 16:11:34 2026 nettle3.10-3.10.1-4.fc45 untagged from f45-rebuild by patrikp ``` So I believe we should be all good to run the mass tagging script, which I'm going to do now.
Author
Member

So, when trying to run the mass tagging script, it fails with this error:
ERROR: User patrikp lacks f45 access permission. Reason: tag requires autosign permission
Which makes sense as I don't have the permission and usually use the --force flag to tag/untag builds.

I will bring this up in the weekly meeting which conveniently starts in less than half an hour.

So, when trying to run the mass tagging script, it fails with this error: `ERROR: User patrikp lacks f45 access permission. Reason: tag requires autosign permission` Which makes sense as I don't have the permission and usually use the --force flag to tag/untag builds. I will bring this up in the weekly meeting which conveniently starts in less than half an hour.
Author
Member

It was brought to my attention that, since I have admin powers in Koji, I can just add the permission myself (imagine that).

I ran the script and it finished:

Final verification for 21816 builds...
SUCCESS: All 21816 builds verified in f45
Total tagged builds: 816

Let me send the final email now.

It was brought to my attention that, since I have admin powers in Koji, I can just add the permission myself (imagine that). I ran the script and it finished: ``` Final verification for 21816 builds... SUCCESS: All 21816 builds verified in f45 Total tagged builds: 816 ``` Let me send the final email now.
Member

Total tagged builds: 816

?

`Total tagged builds: 816` ?
Author
Member

@adamwill wrote in #13406 (comment):

Total tagged builds: 816

?

I think this is a bug in the script. It does the tagging in batches of 1000. The last line is just the remainder after the last full batch of 1000.

21816 (all builds) - 816 (the remainder) = 21000 (multiple of 1000). We're good.

Announcement email sent and the first comment with the checklist updated.

Next up is filing FTBFS bugs, but that is tracked in a separate ticket, so I believe we can close this one.

@adamwill wrote in https://forge.fedoraproject.org/releng/tickets/issues/13406#issuecomment-1067228: > `Total tagged builds: 816` > > ? I think this is a bug in the script. It does the tagging in batches of 1000. The last line is just the remainder after the last full batch of 1000. 21816 (all builds) - 816 (the remainder) = 21000 (multiple of 1000). We're good. Announcement email sent and the first comment with the checklist updated. Next up is filing FTBFS bugs, but that is tracked in a separate ticket, so I believe we can close this one.
Sign in to join this conversation.
No milestone
7 participants
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference
releng/tickets#13406
No description provided.