Igor Raits

Hmm, interesting how it works in our environment. Because with negotiate I can easily talk to foreman API. Need to check how we configure that.

hmm, looks like that test is just unreliable. I rebuilt same sources again and it passed.

Added some print in there and get: ``` tree c36c20831e43e5984c672a714661870b67ab1d95 author Mark Adams 1517510299 -0600 committer Mark Adams 1517510441 -0600 Making a GPG signed commit diff --git a/a/file b/b/file index...

So I have tested 1.2.0 + 1.0.0, one test still fails.. ``` =================================== FAILURES =================================== _______________________ PatchTest.test_no_context_lines ________________________ self = def test_no_context_lines(self): old_blob = self.repo[BLOB_OLD_SHA] new_blob = self.repo[BLOB_NEW_SHA] patch =...

Not too much related to the issue itself, but I'm curious… > section for each CPU core What's the reason for this?

I don't see what is the hack in mentioned comment. You can have multiple levels of dynamic BRs, so you want to iterate through generating them over and over until...

This is definitely not a hack. The problem is that mock uses `--nodeps`, so the rpmbuild is not sure whether all dependencies are satisfied or not. Obviously it can exit...

that buildreqs.nosrc.rpm has been generated

I'm not sure if it is documented, however if you pass `--nodeps` you can't ever have MISSINGBUILDREQUIRES, because you omit checking it. And the only way RPM can tell you...

> is it correct to return 11 when no BuildRequires is are missed? rpmbuild does not know that because it has been told to use `--nodeps`. > expensive no-op dnf...