#12944 BuildError: package libxml++ not in list for tag epel10.{1,0}-testing-candidate
Closed: It's all good by jnsamyak. Opened by robert.

  • Describe the issue
    Building libxml++ for EPEL 10.1 and 10.0 fails:
  • EPEL 10.0 branch: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=136858089 fails with "BuildError: package libxml++ not in list for tag epel10.0-testing-candidate"
  • EPEL 10.1 branch: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=136858091 fails with "BuildError: package libxml++ not in list for tag epel10.1-testing-candidate"
$ koji list-pkgs --package libxml++ --tag epel10.0-testing-candidate
(no matching packages)
$ koji list-pkgs --package libxml++ --tag epel10.1-testing-candidate
(no matching packages)

Given I waited 12+ hours after branching, I shouldn't have been too impatient.

  • When do you need this? (YYYY/MM/DD)
    ASAP :)

  • When is this no longer needed or useful? (YYYY/MM/DD)
    n/a

  • If we cannot complete your request, what is the impact?
    n/a


koji list-pkgs --package libxml++ --tag epel10.0-testing-candidate
Package                 Tag                     Extra Arches     Owner          
----------------------- ----------------------- ---------------- ---------------
libxml++                epel10.0                                 blinxen   
koji list-pkgs --package libxml++ --tag epel10.1-testing-candidate
Package                 Tag                     Extra Arches     Owner          
----------------------- ----------------------- ---------------- ---------------
libxml++                epel10.1                                 blinxen        

I think these are there now, hope it resolved your issue?

Metadata Update from @jnsamyak:
- Issue assigned to jnsamyak

Yes, works now. Did you change something? If not…I don't understand it: I branched other epel10 packages afterwards and I was able to build them successfully, but not libxml++ until I opened this issue.

Maybe it was just a timing issue, a builder might be late or something by the time I picked up, they were already in the respective tags.

Metadata Update from @jnsamyak:
- Issue close_status updated to: It's all good
- Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)

Metadata