[Test-Announce] 2016-09-26 @ 15:00 UTC - Fedora QA Meeting

[Adam Williamson]

# Fedora Quality Assurance Meeting
# Date: 2016-09-26
# Time: 15:00 UTC
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto)
# Location: #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net

Greetings testers!

It's meeting time again on Monday! We have some Test Days coming up to
check in on, Beta is coming up, I have a crazy idea to chat about, so
let's get together!

If anyone has any other items for the agenda, please reply to this
email and suggest them! Thanks.

== Proposed Agenda Topics ==

1. Previous meeting follow-up
2. Fedora 25 Beta status
3. Test Day status
4. Workstation Atomic / Flatpak testing
5. Release validation NG?
6. Open floor
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
___
test-announce mailing list -- test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-announce-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Test-Announce] 2016-09-26 @ 16:00 UTC - Fedora 25 Blocker Review

[Adam Williamson]

# F25 Blocker Review meeting
# Date: 2016-09-26
# Time: 16:00 UTC
# Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net

Hi folks! We currently have 2 proposed Beta blockers and 8 proposed
Final blockers to review.

If you have time this weekend, you can take a look at the proposed or
accepted blockers before the meeting -  the full lists can be found
here: https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/ .

We'll be evaluating these bugs to see if they violate any of the 
Release Criteria and warrant the blocking of a release if they're not 
fixed. Information on the release criteria for F25 can be found on the 
wiki [0].

For more information about the Blocker and Freeze exception process, 
check out these links:
 - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process
 - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_freeze_exception_bug_process

And for those of you who are curious how a Blocker Review Meeting 
works - or how it's supposed to go and you want to run one - check out 
the SOP on the wiki:
 - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting

Have a good weekend and see you on Monday!

[0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Criteria
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
___
test-announce mailing list -- test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-announce-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1379025] New: perl-PDF-Reuse-0.37 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379025

Bug ID: 1379025
   Summary: perl-PDF-Reuse-0.37 is available
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: perl-PDF-Reuse
  Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
  Assignee: ppi...@redhat.com
  Reporter: upstream-release-monitor...@fedoraproject.org
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org, ppi...@redhat.com



Latest upstream release: 0.37
Current version/release in rawhide: 0.36-5.fc25
URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/PDF-Reuse/

Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a
stable branch: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy

More information about the service that created this bug can be found at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring

Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging
changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your
responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still
correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added
upstream.

Based on the information from anitya: 
https://release-monitoring.org/project/3204/

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1379025] perl-PDF-Reuse-0.37 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379025



--- Comment #2 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
Created attachment 1204309
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1204309=edit
Rebase-helper rebase-helper-debug.log log file.
See for details and report the eventual error to rebase-helper
https://github.com/phracek/rebase-helper/issues.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1379025] perl-PDF-Reuse-0.37 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379025



--- Comment #3 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
Patches were not touched. All were applied properly

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1379025] perl-PDF-Reuse-0.37 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379025



--- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
Patching or scratch build for perl-PDF-Reuse-0.36 failed.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1377907] perl-Mojolicious-7.08 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1377907

Upstream Release Monitoring  
changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|perl-Mojolicious-7.07 is|perl-Mojolicious-7.08 is
   |available   |available



--- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
Latest upstream release: 7.08
Current version/release in rawhide: 7.06-1.fc26
URL: http://mojolicio.us/

Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a
stable branch: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy

More information about the service that created this bug can be found at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring

Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging
changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your
responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still
correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added
upstream.

Based on the information from anitya: 
https://release-monitoring.org/project/5966/

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1379020] New: perl-HTTP-Tiny-0.068 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379020

Bug ID: 1379020
   Summary: perl-HTTP-Tiny-0.068 is available
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: perl-HTTP-Tiny
  Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
  Assignee: ppi...@redhat.com
  Reporter: upstream-release-monitor...@fedoraproject.org
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org, ppi...@redhat.com



Latest upstream release: 0.068
Current version/release in rawhide: 0.064-1.fc26
URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/HTTP-Tiny/

Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a
stable branch: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy

More information about the service that created this bug can be found at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring

Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging
changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your
responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still
correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added
upstream.

Based on the information from anitya: 
https://release-monitoring.org/project/2982/

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: F26 System Wide Change: OpenSSL 1.1.0

[David Woodhouse]

On Tue, 2016-09-20 at 11:37 +0200, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> Well... we certainly need to port it sooner or later although I
> understand that effort will be quite non-trivial.

You mean port libp11? That's already working against OpenSSL 1.1, isn't
it? We just need to ensure we can ship a version of libp11 — or at
least the engine — for both OpenSSL 1.1 and OpenSSL 1.0.2, if we're
going to ship them both in parallel.

-- 
dwmw2




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: HEADS UP: update to podofo-0.9.4

[Jon Ciesla]

On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 6:05 AM, Sandro Mani  wrote:

> Hi
>
> I'll be updating to podofo-0.9.4 in rawhide next weekend. This update
> includes a soname bump, and the following packages will need to be rebuilt:
>
> calibre
> fontmatrix
> krename
> scribus
>
> I don't have commit access to any of those packages, so I need help from
> the maintainers or a proven packager to rebuild these. The packages build
> fine with the updated podofo without modification, see [1], except krename
> which is currently FTBFS, but this trivial patch [2] fixes it.
>
> Thanks
> Sandro
>
> [1] https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/smani/podofo_update_
> test/builds/
> [2] https://smani.fedorapeople.org/krename-4.0.9-build.patch
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
>

I've started all 4 rebuilds.

-- 
http://cecinestpasunefromage.wordpress.com/

in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love

-d. bowie
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [important] Need review f25-backgrounds package for beta release

[Luya Tshimbalanga]

On 23/09/16 12:44 PM, gil wrote:
> hi
>
> Il 23/09/2016 19:49, Luya Tshimbalanga ha scritto:
>> Hi team,
>>
>> Could someone do a review of f25-backgrounds before the beta freeze on
>> September 27?
>> It is a critical package because it contains the default wallpapers for
>> F25 release.
>>
>> The link is https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378971
> take!
>> Thanks in advance.
>>
> have time for this https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290339 ?
>
Taken.


-- 
Luya Tshimbalanga
Graphic & Web Designer
E: l...@fedoraproject.org
W: http://www.coolest-storm.net
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Intending to retire and/or orphan festival

[Matthew Miller]

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 02:44:31PM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> I plan to retire festival before f25 beta unless someone else wants
> to take it over.

I think you should do it. Updated packages are likely to be so
different that they deserve a re-review anyway.

-- 
Matthew Miller

Fedora Project Leader
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: HEADS UP: update to podofo-0.9.4

[Sandro Mani]

The rawhide build is now complete.


On 18.09.2016 13:05, Sandro Mani wrote:

Hi

I'll be updating to podofo-0.9.4 in rawhide next weekend. This update 
includes a soname bump, and the following packages will need to be 
rebuilt:


calibre
fontmatrix
krename
scribus

I don't have commit access to any of those packages, so I need help 
from the maintainers or a proven packager to rebuild these. The 
packages build fine with the updated podofo without modification, see 
[1], except krename which is currently FTBFS, but this trivial patch 
[2] fixes it.


Thanks
Sandro

[1] 
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/smani/podofo_update_test/builds/

[2] https://smani.fedorapeople.org/krename-4.0.9-build.patch


___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[HEADS UP] Gnome 3.22 update for Fedora 25 is broken!

[Heiko Adams]

Hi,
after updating to Gnome 3.22 it seems that at least evolution[1] and 
epiphany[2] are broken but I'm affraid the problem affects any app which 
deals with html conten.


So please unpush that update and fix the problem ASAP.

[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378985
[2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378987

BTW: Trying to karma for that update freezes my browsers (firefox and 
chromium) while loading the update-details page.

--
Regards,

Heiko Adams
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Intending to retire and/or orphan festival

[Bruno Wolff III]

I plan to retire festival before f25 beta unless someone else wants to 
take it over.


It really needs a lot of work to update it to a current version. Also recently 
outside changes have resulted in it segfaulting (even after a rebuild) and 
it is currently unusable.

___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [important] Need review f25-backgrounds package for beta release

[gil]

hi

Il 23/09/2016 19:49, Luya Tshimbalanga ha scritto:

Hi team,

Could someone do a review of f25-backgrounds before the beta freeze on
September 27?
It is a critical package because it contains the default wallpapers for
F25 release.

The link is https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378971

take!

Thanks in advance.


have time for this https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290339 ?

thanks!
regards
.g
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Orphaned oflb-riordonfancy-fonts

[Till Maas]

Hi,

I just orphaned oflb-riordonfancy-fonts - it is a FTBFS package I tried
to save from retirement a while ago thinking that maintaining a font
should not be that hard. However I realized I do not have the time to
get to understand why it does not build. Therefore I orphaned it for now
and will retire it later if nobody adopts it.

Kind regards
Till
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[important] Need review f25-backgrounds package for beta release

[Luya Tshimbalanga]

Hi team,

Could someone do a review of f25-backgrounds before the beta freeze on
September 27?
It is a critical package because it contains the default wallpapers for
F25 release.

The link is https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378971

Thanks in advance.

-- 
Luya Tshimbalanga
Graphic & Web Designer
E: l...@fedoraproject.org
W: http://www.coolest-storm.net

___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[EPEL-devel] Golang 1.7 in el6

[Jakub Cajka]

Hello,

  I have updated golang to version go1.7.1 in el6. As there were several 
outstanding issues with the old version(and it is no longer supported by 
upstream) and go1.7 brings several improvements(see 
https://tip.golang.org/doc/go1.7). It is now submitted as update in bodhi(no 
build-root override) https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/golang-1.7.1-1.el6.

  Karma and testing is welcomed,

Jakub Čajka
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

spot pushed to perl-Email-Valid (master). "1.201"

[notifications]

From ec3a652e1828a67d952c331ca40efffc3a8d8f1a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Tom Callaway 
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 13:36:57 -0400
Subject: 1.201

---
 .gitignore| 1 +
 perl-Email-Valid.spec | 7 +--
 sources   | 2 +-
 3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore
index 42cffa3..caa9566 100644
--- a/.gitignore
+++ b/.gitignore
@@ -4,3 +4,4 @@
 /Email-Valid-1.197.tar.gz
 /Email-Valid-1.198.tar.gz
 /Email-Valid-1.200.tar.gz
+/Email-Valid-1.201.tar.gz
diff --git a/perl-Email-Valid.spec b/perl-Email-Valid.spec
index 6a1063f..de75181 100644
--- a/perl-Email-Valid.spec
+++ b/perl-Email-Valid.spec
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 Name:   perl-Email-Valid
-Version:1.200
-Release:2%{?dist}
+Version:1.201
+Release:1%{?dist}
 Summary:Check validity of internet email address
 Group:  Development/Libraries
 License:GPL+ or Artistic
@@ -51,6 +51,9 @@ make test
 
 
 %changelog
+* Fri Sep 23 2016 Tom Callaway  - 1.201-1
+- update to 1.201
+
 * Mon May 16 2016 Jitka Plesnikova  - 1.200-2
 - Perl 5.24 rebuild
 
diff --git a/sources b/sources
index 16b27d3..5f0b1eb 100644
--- a/sources
+++ b/sources
@@ -1 +1 @@
-59b8ed8b143b9cee2b4e6449bda23492  Email-Valid-1.200.tar.gz
+161b0f81fbee4548440e1fd3c234f56e  Email-Valid-1.201.tar.gz
-- 
cgit v0.12



http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/perl-Email-Valid.git/commit/?h=master=ec3a652e1828a67d952c331ca40efffc3a8d8f1a
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Fedora 25-20160923.n.0 compose check report

[Adam Williamson]

On Fri, 2016-09-23 at 15:24 +, Fedora compose checker wrote:
> Missing expected images:
> 
> 
> Xfce raw-xz armhfp
> Cloud_base raw-xz i386
> Atomic raw-xz x86_64
> 
> 
> Failed openQA tests: 7/98 (x86_64), 1/17 (i386), 1/2 (arm)

If anyone's wondering where the nice 'compare to previous compose'
feature I added recently disappeared to: the 'previous compose' code
relies on PDC, and PDC compose import seems to have been broken lately.
The last F25 compose which actually appeared in PDC was 20160919.n.0. I
want to trust PDC here as the alternative 'previous compose' logic is
horrible brute force stuff, but if we can't trust PDC I might have to
go back to that approach. When we can't find the previous compose,
check-compose falls back to just generating the report in the old
format.

> ID: 35749 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_default_upload
> URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/35749
> ID: 35750 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_default@uefi
> URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/35750

Seems like Workstation is getting crashy lately; both these crashed
back to GDM from the desktop. Will file crash reports.

> ID: 35762 Test: x86_64 Atomic-boot-iso install_default
> URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/35762

Latest here is https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1375702 ,
should be fixed soon.

> ID: 35770 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_browser
> URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/35770

Firefox never ran. Not sure yet if it was really slow and the test just
didn't wait long enough, or if it actually failed to start.

> ID: 35773 Test: arm Minimal-raw_xz-raw.xz 
> install_arm_image_deployment_upload
> URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/35773

initial-setup stuff still, I think.

> ID: 35778 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_default@uefi
> URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/35778

Oh goody, a mysterious anaconda crash. I still don't know why this
happens occasionally:

14:03:07,447 CRIT anaconda: Anaconda crashed on signal 11
14:03:07,453 INFO kernel:[   49.748854] anaconda[1605]: segfault at 0 ip
   (null) sp 7ffc383e7848 error 14 in python3.5[55e38dd69000+1000]
14:03:09,774 ERR kernel:[   52.070307] audit: netlink_unicast sending to 
audit_pid=1746 returned error: -111

it's possible it's just some kind of intermittent hardware issue on the
worker hosts, the worker host this test ran on is a fairly old box.

> ID: 35832 Test: x86_64 universal install_lvmthin
> URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/35832

Hmm, this didn't happen in any other recent run, but I think I've seen
it once or twice before and it may be some kind of intermittent
timing/slowness problem rather than a new bug exactly. Still, filed it:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378970

> ID: 35834 Test: x86_64 universal install_iscsi
> URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/35834

iSCSI's currently in that state where it's broken six different ways
and every time we fix one, we see the next. The current bugs for F25
are:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347415
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1375712

> ID: 35861 Test: i386 universal upgrade_2_desktop_32bit
> URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/35861

This is still good old:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1333591
But I see it's now in POST! Progress! Glorious progress!
> 
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

spot uploaded Email-Valid-1.201.tar.gz for perl-Email-Valid

[notifications]

161b0f81fbee4548440e1fd3c234f56e  Email-Valid-1.201.tar.gz

http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/lookaside/pkgs/perl-Email-Valid/Email-Valid-1.201.tar.gz/md5/161b0f81fbee4548440e1fd3c234f56e/Email-Valid-1.201.tar.gz
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1376269] perl-Perl-Critic-Moose-1.05 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376269

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Fixed In Version|perl-Perl-Critic-Moose-1.05 |perl-Perl-Critic-Moose-1.05
   |-1.fc26 |-1.fc26
   |perl-Perl-Critic-Moose-1.05 |perl-Perl-Critic-Moose-1.05
   |-1.fc25 |-1.fc25
   ||perl-Perl-Critic-Moose-1.05
   ||-1.fc24



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-Perl-Critic-Moose-1.05-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Fedora 25-20160923.n.0 compose check report

[Fedora compose checker]

Missing expected images:

Xfce raw-xz armhfp
Cloud_base raw-xz i386
Atomic raw-xz x86_64

Failed openQA tests: 7/98 (x86_64), 1/17 (i386), 1/2 (arm)

ID: 35749   Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_default_upload
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/35749
ID: 35750   Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/35750
ID: 35762   Test: x86_64 Atomic-boot-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/35762
ID: 35770   Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_browser
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/35770
ID: 35773   Test: arm Minimal-raw_xz-raw.xz 
install_arm_image_deployment_upload
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/35773
ID: 35778   Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/35778
ID: 35832   Test: x86_64 universal install_lvmthin
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/35832
ID: 35834   Test: x86_64 universal install_iscsi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/35834
ID: 35861   Test: i386 universal upgrade_2_desktop_32bit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/35861

Passed openQA tests: 84/98 (x86_64), 16/17 (i386)

Skipped openQA tests: 8 of 117
-- 
Mail generated by check-compose:
https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/fedora-qa.git/tree/check-compose
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: RFC: URLs for docs and released bits from CI

[Tim Flink]

My reply ended up going only to Martin instead of to the list so I'm
re-sending.

On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 07:04:37 -0400 (EDT)
Martin Krizek  wrote:

> - Original Message -
> > From: "Tim Flink" 
> > To: qa-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> > Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 12:09:56 AM
> > Subject: RFC: URLs for docs and released bits from CI
> > 
> > I submitted a revision today which makes some slight modification to
> > how the doit.py script is building docs, rpms and tarballs.
> > 
> > https://phab.qadevel.cloud.fedoraproject.org/D1012
> > 
> > My intention is to get this deployed to a non-staging setup soon
> > but I wanted to reach out to see if anyone had an issue for the
> > URLs that would end up being used.
> > 
> > https://baseurl/docs/
> > 
> > This path would contain docs for  built per branch for
> > non-master branches and per-release-version when triggered on the
> > master branch. The 'latest' symlink will always be updated to point
> > at the most recent build on the master branch
> > 
> > 
> > https://baseurl/releases/
> > 
> > Pretty much the same thing as for docs but with the rpms, srpms and
> > tarball(s) created during the CI build.
> > 
> > Does this seem sane to everyone? Any
> > comments/questions/suggestions? I'd like to get the auto-docs
> > functionality deployed soon - hopefully right after F25 beta freeze
> > is over.
> > 
> 
> Just wondering if URLs would looked better like this:
> 
> https://{docs,releases}.baseurl/
> 
> (assuming there's no technical issues with that).

The only potential issue there is that we only have so many "slots" for
subdomains in the SSL cert. I'm pretty sure we have 5 total so that
shouldn't be an issue, though.

I'm fine with either format. It shouldn't be too hard to switch over to
virtualhosts.

> Other thought I have is to have a index page at https://docs.baseurl/
> which would contain links to various project's version of docs. But
> I am hesitant as to how worth is it to spend time on it, so having
> apache default file listing might be good enough.

That's a good idea. Not sure how much work it'd take to get something
like that but it's at least worth looking in to.

> Either way, the proposed URLs and directory structure look sane to me.

Cool, thanks for looking it over.

Tim

> Thanks,
> Martin
> ___
> qa-devel mailing list -- qa-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to qa-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org



pgpn1Y9OI2XYA.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
qa-devel mailing list -- qa-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to qa-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: A tale of systemd and MaxProcs

[Laura Abbott]

On 09/22/2016 09:18 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 12:32:40PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:

* IMHO the initial upstream default didn't make sense for Fedora


On this specific change, I'm not sure the *updated* default makes sense
either. It still is quite constrained.


* Perhaps after beta but before final we ping maintainers of
  "important" packages asking what big changes have happened? Or
  someone just goes thru the release notes for them all and proposes a
  list of them?


I think this is good, but probably too late for some kinds of
decisions.


* Your brilliant idea here.


I think that we should have a general policy for packagers of
far-reaching infrastructure packages (systemd, glibc, kernel, whatever)
that any new restrictions or constraints should be disabled by default
in Fedora, regardless of upstream defaults, until we're able to have a
conversation — here, in the edition WGs, and/or in FESCo, as
appropriate for the particular change.




The particular issue came here with an upgrade to F24. Where does
rawhide fit into this? It seems like this should have been found
with rawhide or at least someone noticed an issue.

Thanks,
Laura
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Fedora Rawhide-20160923.n.0 compose check report

[Fedora compose checker]

Missing expected images:

Kde live i386
Kde live x86_64
Cloud_base raw-xz i386
Atomic raw-xz x86_64
Kde raw-xz armhfp

Failed openQA tests: 5/89 (x86_64), 3/16 (i386), 1/2 (arm)

ID: 35652   Test: i386 Workstation-boot-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/35652
ID: 35653   Test: x86_64 Atomic-boot-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/35653
ID: 35654   Test: arm Minimal-raw_xz-raw.xz 
install_arm_image_deployment_upload
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/35654
ID: 35715   Test: x86_64 universal install_iscsi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/35715
ID: 35716   Test: x86_64 universal install_package_set_kde
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/35716
ID: 35729   Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_desktop_64bit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/35729
ID: 35732   Test: x86_64 universal install_rescue_encrypted
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/35732
ID: 35742   Test: i386 universal upgrade_2_desktop_32bit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/35742
ID: 35743   Test: i386 universal install_package_set_kde
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/35743

Passed openQA tests: 84/89 (x86_64), 13/16 (i386)

Skipped openQA tests: 1 of 107
-- 
Mail generated by check-compose:
https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/fedora-qa.git/tree/check-compose
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1378895] New: 8-bpp TIFF images are broken in the resulting PDF document

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378895

Bug ID: 1378895
   Summary: 8-bpp TIFF images are broken in the resulting PDF
document
   Product: Fedora
   Version: 23
 Component: perl-PDF-API2
  Assignee: jples...@redhat.com
  Reporter: ppi...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: bjohn...@symetrix.com, jples...@redhat.com,
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Blocks: 1369984
   External Bug ID: CPAN 118047



Created attachment 1204154
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1204154=edit
8-bpp TIFF image

This code creates an PDF with broken 8-bpp TIFF image:

#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict;
use warnings;
use PDF::API2;

my $pdf = PDF::API2->new(-file => 'out.pdf');
my $page = $pdf->page;
$page->mediabox(157, 196);

my $imgobj = $pdf->image_tiff('8.tiff');

my $gfx = $page->gfx;
$gfx->image($imgobj, 0, 0, 157, 196);

$pdf->save;
$pdf->end;

It works fine if the TIFF image has only 1 bit per pixel. I have
perl-PDF-API2-2.025-1.fc23.noarch, but it it's broken in all Fedoras.


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369984
[Bug 1369984] gscan2pdf v1.3.8 saves imported PDF pages as negative images
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Broken dependencies: perl-Data-Alias

[buildsys]

perl-Data-Alias has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree:
On aarch64:
perl-Data-Alias-1.20-2.fc24.aarch64 requires libperl.so.5.22()(64bit)
perl-Data-Alias-1.20-2.fc24.aarch64 requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.22.1)
On x86_64:
perl-Data-Alias-1.20-2.fc24.x86_64 requires libperl.so.5.22()(64bit)
perl-Data-Alias-1.20-2.fc24.x86_64 requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.22.1)
On i386:
perl-Data-Alias-1.20-2.fc24.i686 requires libperl.so.5.22
perl-Data-Alias-1.20-2.fc24.i686 requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.22.1)
On armhfp:
perl-Data-Alias-1.20-2.fc24.armv7hl requires libperl.so.5.22
perl-Data-Alias-1.20-2.fc24.armv7hl requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.22.1)
Please resolve this as soon as possible.

___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Broken dependencies: perl-Alien-ROOT

[buildsys]

perl-Alien-ROOT has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree:
On aarch64:
perl-Alien-ROOT-5.34.36.1-1.fc26.noarch requires root-core
Please resolve this as soon as possible.

___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Python (3) packaging for EPEL 7: hddfancontrol

[Petr Viktorin]

On 09/23/2016 02:12 AM, Ben Rosser wrote:

Hello,

I just packaged and built hddfancontrol
(https://github.com/desbma/hddfancontrol) for Fedora, which is written
in Python 3.

I'd like to get this built for EPEL-- the machine that I want to run it
on is actually a CentOS 7 box. However, there's a problem: it depends on
python-daemon, which only gained python3 support in version 2.0 The EPEL
package provides version 1.6.

So, obviously I can build this in a Copr if I really want, alongside an
updated python-daemon package. However, there is a fork of python-daemon
1.x, python-daemon-3K
(https://pypi.python.org/pypi/python-daemon-3K/1.5.8), that supports
Python 3. Upstream hddfancontrol actually depends on this version of
python-daemon, so for Fedora I had to patch it to use python-daemon 2.0
instead.

So perhaps it would make sense to package python-daemon-3K just for EPEL
and have it provide python3*-daemon? Is that a reasonable course of
action here? Any other suggestions besides just using Copr?


Hello,
Have you contacted the EPEL maintainers of python-daemon? I think those 
are the people that will give you the best advice around python-daemon 
in EPEL.



--
Petr Viktorin
___
python-devel mailing list -- python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[EPEL-devel] Fedora EPEL 6 updates-testing report

[updates]

The following Fedora EPEL 6 Security updates need testing:
 Age  URL
 442  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-7031   
python-virtualenv-12.0.7-1.el6
 436  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-7168   
rubygem-crack-0.3.2-2.el6
 368  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-8156   
nagios-4.0.8-1.el6
 326  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-e2b4b5b2fb   
mcollective-2.8.4-1.el6
 298  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-35e240edd9   
thttpd-2.25b-24.el6
 184  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-30a8346813   
vtun-3.0.1-10.el6
  89  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-db7e78fac7   
php-PHPMailer-5.2.16-2.el6
  82  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-d0e444c5f2   
pypy-5.0.1-4.el6
  43  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-a1450d7fe0   
knot-1.6.8-1.el6
  29  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-8594ed3a53   
chicken-4.11.0-3.el6
  13  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-eb5607d339   
wordpress-4.6.1-1.el6
  13  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-0e948eb4e8   
php-horde-Horde-Core-2.26.1-1.el6
  13  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-e2038f5db3   
php-horde-Horde-Mime-Viewer-2.2.1-1.el6
  13  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-d4f645229a   
php-horde-Horde-Text-Filter-2.3.5-1.el6
  13  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-665fb50899   
php-horde-horde-5.2.12-1.el6
  13  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-4b16af69a6   
varnish-2.1.5-6.el6
  13  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-f2d60f53f3   
GraphicsMagick-1.3.25-1.el6
  11  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-bcc7555c8a   
drupal7-google_analytics-2.3-1.el6
  10  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-204f2f07aa   
drupal7-panels-3.7-1.el6
   9  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-e079d167e3   
distribution-gpg-keys-1.7-1.el6 mock-1.2.21-1.el6
   6  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-320b654443   
php-adodb-5.15-10.el6
   1  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-edda50420f   
mongodb-2.4.14-4.el6
   1  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-25e30f6dc3   
jansson-2.9-1.el6
   0  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-e8602185c5   
links-2.13-1.el6


The following builds have been pushed to Fedora EPEL 6 updates-testing

CGSI-gSOAP-1.3.10-1.el6
copr-cli-1.57-1.el6
debootstrap-1.0.83-1.el6
links-2.13-1.el6
nuttcp-6.1.2-1.el6
python-copr-1.74-1.el6
python-filelock-2.0.6-1.el6
rubygem-jgrep-1.4.1-1.el6
srm-ifce-1.24.1-1.el6
the_silver_searcher-0.32.0-3.el6

Details about builds:



 CGSI-gSOAP-1.3.10-1.el6 (FEDORA-EPEL-2016-97ad2aceab)
 GSI plugin for gSOAP

Update Information:

New upstream release




 copr-cli-1.57-1.el6 (FEDORA-EPEL-2016-ac91d6a1fa)
 Command line interface for COPR

Update Information:

* re-use PYTHONPATH in cli wrapper * dummy api for submitting module builds
  - Bug 1361344 - RFE: Allow denial of build deletion and resubmitting at
project or group level - fix creating group projects - fix search for projects
within group (RhBug: 1337247)    This version of copr-cli and python-copr is
backwards compatible (in contrast to python-copr 1.70 and copr-cli 1.51) with
old copr-frontends (1.92 and older), which means that the standard copr-cli
build command works for frontends of these versions (no "got unknown parameter
'source_type' error).  Note, however, that these versions (1.72 + 1.53) are
incompatible with frontend-1.93 (and only this one). Please, if you employ COPR,
do not use frontend-1.93. Additionally, this release fixes building error of
python-copr 1.71 and copr-cli 1.52 on el7 and el6 distros caused by added pylint
checks.    This release mainly fixes bug Bug 1340650 - SRPM builds submitted
from CLI fail: "invalid request".    Support for package manipulation as a
main new feature.

References:

  [ 1 ] Bug #1337247 - search for projects within group doesn't work
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1337247
  [ 2 ] Bug #1361344 - RFE: Allow denial of build deletion and resubmitting at 
project or group level
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1361344
  [ 3 ] Bug #1346945 - Project List filled 

Re: duplicate package on fresh install

[Nico Kadel-Garcia]

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 5:34 AM, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
 wrote:
> Hello,
>  A user posted some issue on gnutls [0], and it turned out that after a
> fresh install of f24 that user had two versions of the library
> installed. I have no idea why this can be or whether that should be
> expected from the installer/updater. Any insights?

Could be lots of reasons. An x86_64 and i686 library installed
simultaneously can appear confusingly as duplicate libraries if you
don't ask rpm to report architecture. A system interruption during the
update can block rpm from clearing the old entries in its database. Or
a failure of '%post' operations can cause the update to fail partway
through.

The usual answer if there are genuinely two copies reported is to do a
"reinstall" if it's two distinct versions of the same package, and to
do an "rpm --rebuilddb" and see if that helps.

>
> regards,
> Nikos
>
> [0]. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378781
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: A tale of systemd and MaxProcs

[Nico Kadel-Garcia]

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Matthew Miller
 wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 12:32:40PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> * IMHO the initial upstream default didn't make sense for Fedora
>
> On this specific change, I'm not sure the *updated* default makes sense
> either. It still is quite constrained.
>
>> * Perhaps after beta but before final we ping maintainers of
>>   "important" packages asking what big changes have happened? Or
>>   someone just goes thru the release notes for them all and proposes a
>>   list of them?
>
> I think this is good, but probably too late for some kinds of
> decisions.
>
>> * Your brilliant idea here.
>
> I think that we should have a general policy for packagers of
> far-reaching infrastructure packages (systemd, glibc, kernel, whatever)
> that any new restrictions or constraints should be disabled by default
> in Fedora, regardless of upstream defaults, until we're able to have a
> conversation — here, in the edition WGs, and/or in FESCo, as
> appropriate for the particular change.

Like the very poorly handled KillUserProcess setting, it's a
deliberately added, generally unnecessary, and not particularly
welcome systemd "feature" that provides a limited resource management
benefit in return for breaking numerous existing workflows. The
intentions may have been good, but the unclear and difficult to trace
failures when it is activated mean that it should have been left off
by default upstream, and it should be left off by default in Fedora.

It should be activated only as an option, not by default.


> --
> Matthew Miller
> 
> Fedora Project Leader
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

pkgdb_updater updated: description of perl-Params-ValidationCompiler

[notifications]

pkgdb_updater updated: description of perl-Params-ValidationCompiler

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/perl-Params-ValidationCompiler/
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

pkgdb_updater updated: description of perl-Test2-Plugin-NoWarnings

[notifications]

pkgdb_updater updated: description of perl-Test2-Plugin-NoWarnings

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/perl-Test2-Plugin-NoWarnings/
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1378713] [abrt] slic3r: wxTopLevelWindowGTK::RequestUserAttention(): perl killed by SIGSEGV

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378713



--- Comment #14 from Miro Hrončok  ---
Happened once or every time?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

duplicate package on fresh install

[Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos]

Hello,
 A user posted some issue on gnutls [0], and it turned out that after a
fresh install of f24 that user had two versions of the library
installed. I have no idea why this can be or whether that should be
expected from the installer/updater. Any insights?

regards,
Nikos

[0]. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378781
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[389-devel] Re: Please review 48992: Total init may fail if the pushed schema is rejected

[Ludwig Krispenz]

Hi Thierry,

the description in the commit is now fine, but given that the choice of 
LDAP_CONSTRAINT_VIOLATION is a bit arbitrary it would be good to have a 
comment where it is set, explaining why this error code was used.
About which error code to choose, if you have to pick one of the errors 
which will allow "keep_going" it is fine, although I think the original 
choice of unwilling to perform was a better match, operations_error or 
ldap_other would, in my opinion, also be good candidates - but they are 
in the wrong category.


Looking at ignore_error_and_keep_going, I am wondering if this partition 
in go|stop is really still correct ? maybe we should investigate this as 
well.


Ludwig

On 09/23/2016 10:08 AM, thierry bordaz wrote:
Thanks Noriko for your review. I updated the patch to give more 
explanation why  the fix is in modify_schema_dse.
I pick up LDAP_CONSTRAINT_VIOLATION in replacement of 
UNWILLING_TO_PERFORM but I have not strong opinion on appropriate 
value of that returned value. In the logic of that fix, it just needs 
to be not fatal regarding ignore_error_and_keep_going.


https://fedorahosted.org/389/attachment/ticket/48992/0002-Ticket-48992-Total-init-may-fail-if-the-pushed-schem.patch 



https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/48992
___
389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 389-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org


--
Red Hat GmbH, http://www.de.redhat.com/, Registered seat: Grasbrunn,
Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243,
Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Michael Cunningham, Michael O'Neill, Eric 
Shander
___
389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 389-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Upstream Release Monitoring builds for EL7 instead of Rawhide

[Igor Gnatenko]

I definitely fixed this issue:
https://github.com/fedora-infra/the-new-hotness/commit/2eed58c4ea09729f17e8c672196318d7028b0dba

On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Kevin Fenzi  wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 15:34:07 -0400
> Avram Lubkin  wrote:
>
>> Seems like this issue is almost a year old.
>
> Sadly so. ;(
>
> If anyone would like to work on it they would be most welcome.
>
> Folks in #fedora-apps would be happy to answer any questions you have
> about the setup.
>
> kevin
>
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
>



-- 
-Igor Gnatenko
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[389-devel] Please review 48992: Total init may fail if the pushed schema is rejected

[thierry bordaz]

Thanks Noriko for your review. I updated the patch to give more 
explanation why  the fix is in modify_schema_dse.
I pick up LDAP_CONSTRAINT_VIOLATION in replacement of 
UNWILLING_TO_PERFORM but I have not strong opinion on appropriate value 
of that returned value. In the logic of that fix, it just needs to be 
not fatal regarding ignore_error_and_keep_going.


https://fedorahosted.org/389/attachment/ticket/48992/0002-Ticket-48992-Total-init-may-fail-if-the-pushed-schem.patch

https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/48992
___
389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 389-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1378062] perl-Module-CoreList-5.20160920 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378062



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-Module-CoreList-5.20160920-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-817207d2a9

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1378713] New: [abrt] slic3r: wxTopLevelWindowGTK:: RequestUserAttention(): perl killed by SIGSEGV

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378713

Bug ID: 1378713
   Summary: [abrt] slic3r:
wxTopLevelWindowGTK::RequestUserAttention(): perl
killed by SIGSEGV
   Product: Fedora
   Version: 24
 Component: slic3r
  Assignee: mhron...@redhat.com
  Reporter: bugzi...@isengard.at
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: mhron...@redhat.com,
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org



Description of problem:
Just closed the application without saving configuration.

Version-Release number of selected component:
slic3r-1.2.9-8.fc24

Additional info:
reporter:   libreport-2.7.2
backtrace_rating: 4
cmdline:perl /usr/bin/slic3r
crash_function: wxTopLevelWindowGTK::RequestUserAttention
executable: /usr/bin/perl
global_pid: 3473
kernel: 4.7.4-200.fc24.x86_64
pkg_fingerprint: 73BD E983 81B4 6521
pkg_vendor: Fedora Project
runlevel:   N 5
type:   CCpp
uid:1000

Truncated backtrace:
Thread no. 1 (10 frames)
 #0 wxTopLevelWindowGTK::RequestUserAttention at src/gtk/toplevel.cpp:1411
 #1 XS_Wx__TopLevelWindow_RequestUserAttention at Frames.c:6219
 #2 Perl_pp_entersub at pp_hot.c:3272
 #3 Perl_runops_standard at run.c:41
 #4 Perl_call_sv at perl.c:2769
 #5 wxPliEventCallback::Handler at cpp/e_cback.cpp:93
 #6 wxEvtHandler::ProcessEventIfMatches at src/common/event.cpp:1239
 #7 wxEvtHandler::SearchDynamicEventTable at src/common/event.cpp:1421
 #8 wxEvtHandler::ProcessEvent at src/common/event.cpp:1297
 #9 wxWindowBase::TryParent at src/common/wincmn.cpp:2661

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1378062] perl-Module-CoreList-5.20160920 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1378062



--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-Module-CoreList-5.20160920-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-f53c1cc2c0

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org