Re: [qa-build-notification] QA notification for completed autobuilder build (yocto-6.1_M2.rc1)
Richard Purdie <[email protected]> Fri, 24 Jul 2026 06:57:25 +0100
| Newsgroups | org.yoctoproject.lists.yocto |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <bcb8e9d6ef10a03f17b67baa7aacf7bdba848f0c.camel@linuxfoundation.org> |
On Thu, 2026-07-23 at 23:40 +0000, Pokybuild User via lists.yoctoproject.or=
g wrote:
>=20
> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 A build flagged for QA (yocto-6.1_M2.rc1) was complete=
d on the autobuilder and is available at:
>=20
>=20
> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 https://valkyrie.yocto.io/pub/=
releases/yocto-6.1_M2.rc1
>=20
>=20
> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Build URL: https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/valkyr=
ie/#/builders/29/builds/4274
>=20
> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Build hash information:=20
>=20
> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 bitbake: c251833d2062ef92fc7e77ab6456af928ad1d31a
> meta-agl: 3c55b45bf920bec93938af02f2452cd698d3bacc
> meta-arm: 167661762b7d3985751fff066b5e7355325f3ecc
> meta-aws: 64aaf5c905b47bff49060e217ee96bdd8423707f
> meta-clang: 0baedd06e78d26d3b927471cfd91960b7229a178
> meta-intel: 8877caca6b1fe6efe33c756698ce6ecdcaea2238
> meta-mingw: e2aac06ec74e46d08b7e68f61043047c761ae9f9
> meta-openembedded: 2dc51e7171cc94b55ae8cd72cac183bc7293ea35
> meta-qcom: 2eb6cef3b3c25cf80c57e8b76b1b573770465a2b
> meta-virtualization: a4987f0af6f30883e1dcd52cec66311343241d6f
> meta-yocto: e4690557fb0fffcb5e9a86d1c1ebc550bb0da090
> oecore: c0508fbea8d26242e0c761d412d727943f9d6355
> yocto-docs: 358519ca6406a89fee42c45dcaf63a37a374f33c
This build did have some issues:
* meta-qcom failure - from recent updates needing updates in the layer
* meta-aws and meta-virt showing license warnings from recent changes
* weird selftest commit hash issue
https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/valkyrie/#/builders/23/builds/4412
* warning from alma8 workers being offline
however I believe we should proceed with QA and none should block
release. Can the rest of the TSC please let us know ASAP if anyone
disagrees?
The regression report does also look large from lots of ptest
mismatches. This was from the musl/glibc split which is confusing the
code. This will need some further thought, they're not real
regressions.
Cheers,
Richard