https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1764730
Emmanuel Seyman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||1764975
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1764975
Emmanuel Seyman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||1764730
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1764730
Emmanuel Seyman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Depends On|1764975
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1764975
Emmanuel Seyman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|1764730 |
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1764975
Bug ID: 1764975
Summary: [RFE] EPEL-8 branch for
perl-Scalar-Util-LooksLikeNumber
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1764730
Emmanuel Seyman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||1764975
Referenced Bugs:
On Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 7:01 PM Matthew Miller
wrote:
>
> > [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Welcome
>
> can we get this onto the docs site?
>
Sure. In which section does it need to be? Maybe here?
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/join/
A.
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1764909
Bug ID: 1764909
Summary: perl-HTTP-Cookies-6.05 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-HTTP-Cookies
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
https://fedorapeople.org/groups/389ds/ci/nightly/2019/10/24/report-389-ds-base-1.4.2.2-20191023gitabc6f16.fc30.x86_64.html
___
389-devel mailing list -- 389-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 2/153 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm)
ID: 475203 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso modularity_tests
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/475203
ID: 475236 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_default@uefi
URL:
Proc tu i libdasm nejsem napsanej jako puvodni vlastnik?
Tenhle list jsem rozhodne videl v souvislosti s impacketem, ale libdasm jsem
si nevsiml.
-- Původní e-mail --
Od: Miro Hrončok
Komu: Development discussions related to Fedora , devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
According to the schedule [1], Fedora 31 Candidate RC-1.9 is now
available for testing. Please help us complete all the validation
testing! For more information on release validation testing, see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Release_validation_test_plan
Test coverage information for the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1711098
--- Comment #1 from Robert Scheck ---
Thank you very much for the long report, I've asked upstream to have a look to
it.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 01:38:03PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 10. 09. 19 13:35, Peter Robinson wrote:
> >On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 10:48 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >>
> >>On 13. 08. 19 19:10, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >>>efivar and mokutil fail to build from source. They have been retired, then
>
On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 12:56:41PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> However, I also have a pretty strong bias towards people who showed up to
> do the work, and the decisions they've made. That doesn't mean we're stuck
> and can't adjust -- in fact, adjusting as we've gone along is a lot of why
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1764854
Bug ID: 1764854
Summary: perl-CPAN-FindDependencies-2.49 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-CPAN-FindDependencies
Keywords:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1764833
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||1764828
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1764833
Bug ID: 1764833
Summary: [RFE] EPEL-8 branch for perl-Function-Parameters
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Function-Parameters
Assignee:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1764828
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||1764833
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1764828
Bug ID: 1764828
Summary: [RFE] EPEL-8 branch for perl-Dir-Self
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Dir-Self
Assignee: jples...@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1764823
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||1764822
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1764822
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||1764823
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1764823
Bug ID: 1764823
Summary: [RFE] EPEL-8 branch for perl-Test-Trap
Product: Fedora EPEL
Version: epel8
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Test-Trap
Assignee: lkund...@v3.sk
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1764822
Bug ID: 1764822
Summary: [RFE] EPEL-8 branch for perl-Test-Refcount
Product: Fedora EPEL
Version: epel8
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Test-Refcount
Assignee:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1764817
Bug ID: 1764817
Summary: [RFE] EPEL-8 branch for perl-MooseX-Role-Parameterized
Product: Fedora EPEL
Version: epel8
Status: NEW
Component: perl-MooseX-Role-Parameterized
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1678632
Neal Gompa changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1757009
Troy Dawson changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tdaw...@redhat.com
--- Comment #2 from
Add txt2man, it got filed against el6 for some reason. I just fixed it.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1741795
Thanks,
Richard
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1764730
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||emman...@seyman.fr,
|
So this came up in the last EPEL meeting:
bugzilla query -s NEW -t 'epel8' --outputformat "%{id}: %{component}:
%{summary}" | sort | less
Most of these are package requests but some are other types.
1739162: libxml++: libxml++ for EPEL8
1739163: libffado: libffado for EPEL8
1741523:
On Wed, 23 Oct 2019 at 13:03, Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 09:12:41AM +0200, Jakub Jelen wrote:
> > I think this is a problem that the rsh package is in normal RHEL8 (not
> > sure in which stream) and if I am right, packages in rhel can not be in
> > epel too.
>
>
> When we
On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 09:12:41AM +0200, Jakub Jelen wrote:
> I think this is a problem that the rsh package is in normal RHEL8 (not
> sure in which stream) and if I am right, packages in rhel can not be in
> epel too.
When we get modularity up and working for EPEL-8, we'll need to figure out
On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 12:17:26AM +0200, alcir...@gmail.com wrote:
> [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Welcome
can we get this onto the docs site?
--
Matthew Miller
Fedora Project Leader
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To
On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 07:09:50PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > But it leads to the strange situation that we can recommend to install
> > ffmpeg if it is bundled with some proprietary software, but cannot do so
> > if it is part of a free software repository.
> Considering that FFmpeg is
On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 12:44:06PM -0400, Randy Barlow wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-10-23 at 14:41 +0200, Petr Šabata wrote:
> > We currently don’t have any other proposal that would fulfill the vision
> > of our Objective and the needs of our users.
> How do the proposals I've mentioned not fulfill the
On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 10:47:15AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> In general, yes. If the package versions have incompatibilities and/or
> user-visible changes, a different stream is needed for each Fedora
> release. There was a subthread about this recently, starting at
In this
On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 09:07:27AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > Because this keeps coming up, we talked about this at the Fedora Council
> > meeting today. Our goals for modularity are:
> > 2. Those alternate streams should be able to have different lifecycles.
>
> Hmm, it
On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 11:46:41AM -0400, Jason Taylor wrote:
> I am interested in this package as well, I can help maintain it (fas:
> jtaylor)
Is there an easy command-line query tool for this package, like there was
for the old db version?
--
Matthew Miller
Fedora Project Leader
On Wed, 2019-10-23 at 14:41 +0200, Petr Šabata wrote:
> We
> currently don’t have any other proposal that would fulfill the vision
> of our Objective and the needs of our users.
How do the proposals I've mentioned not fulfill the goals?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1764730
Bug ID: 1764730
Summary: Please consider building an RPM for Data::Dump::Color
Product: Fedora EPEL
Version: epel8
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Data-Dump
Assignee:
OLD: Fedora-31-20191021.n.0
NEW: Fedora-31-20191023.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 3
Downgraded packages: 1
Size of added packages: 0 B
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size of upgraded
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1760397
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #3 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1764422
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #2 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1764217
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #2 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1763924
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #2 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1744784
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |MODIFIED
--- Comment #1 from
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 1/153 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm)
Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-31-20191021.n.0):
ID: 474813 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso modularity_tests
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/474813
ID: 474875 Test: arm Minimal-raw_xz-raw.xz
This is your reminder that the Go/No-Go meeting for Fedora 31 is
Thursday 24 October at 1400 UTC in #fedora-meeting Note that this is
different than the usual time and channel.
--
Ben Cotton
He / Him / His
Fedora Program Manager
Red Hat
TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1760397
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |MODIFIED
--- Comment #2 from
This is your reminder that the Go/No-Go meeting for Fedora 31 is
Thursday 24 October at 1400 UTC in #fedora-meeting Note that this is
different than the usual time and channel.
--
Ben Cotton
He / Him / His
Fedora Program Manager
Red Hat
TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis
On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 10:42 AM Daniel Walsh wrote:
>
> On 10/23/19 10:05 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 9:40 AM Daniel Walsh wrote:
> >> How do I go about removing packages from Fedora Distro. I want to drop
> >> oci-systemd-hook and oci-register-machine? I would
On 10/23/19 10:05 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 9:40 AM Daniel Walsh wrote:
>> How do I go about removing packages from Fedora Distro. I want to drop
>> oci-systemd-hook and oci-register-machine? I would love to remove them
>> from f31 but it might be too late.
> I
On Wed, 23 Oct 2019 at 03:36, Michal Ruprich wrote:
>
> Hi Jakube,
>
> yes the package was there in the early RHEL-8.0.0 branch but has been
> removed. So technically it is not in RHEL-8 even though there are some
> builds from very long time ago. So perhaps I need to make sure these
> disappear
Hello, new utf8cpp maintainer here (thanks to Jamie for packaging it
and maintaining so far).
It appears that the project moved from SourceForge to GitHub a couple of
years ago and made quite a few releases since then. I've already
submitted an update from 2.3.4 to 2.3.6 in F30+, but I would like
No missing expected images.
Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check!
4 of 45 required tests failed, 2 results missing
openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING**
below
Unsatisfied gating requirements that could not be mapped to openQA tests:
FAILED:
On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 9:40 AM Daniel Walsh wrote:
>
> How do I go about removing packages from Fedora Distro. I want to drop
> oci-systemd-hook and oci-register-machine? I would love to remove them
> from f31 but it might be too late.
I think we need more information on what you mean by
On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 3:47 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 9:39 AM Daniel Walsh wrote:
> >
> > How do I go about removing packages from Fedora Distro. I want to drop
> > oci-systemd-hook and oci-register-machine? I would love to remove them
> > from f31 but it might be too
On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 9:39 AM Daniel Walsh wrote:
>
> How do I go about removing packages from Fedora Distro. I want to drop
> oci-systemd-hook and oci-register-machine? I would love to remove them
> from f31 but it might be too late.
Too late for Fedora 31, but you can retire them from
How do I go about removing packages from Fedora Distro. I want to drop
oci-systemd-hook and oci-register-machine? I would love to remove them
from f31 but it might be too late.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe
On Wed, 23 Oct 2019 at 08:43, Petr Šabata wrote:
>
> I do believe we all intend the best, even if we sometimes disagree. We
> currently don’t have any other proposal that would fulfill the vision
> of our Objective and the needs of our users. The input here helps us
> re-focus on the most acute
On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 12:47 PM Fabio Valentini wrote:
>
> Hello packagers,
>
> I have identified that the Stewardship SIG owned some packages that
> have now become leaf packages in fedora, since their last dependent
> packages were recently removed or updated to no longer require them.
>
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1764596
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
CC|
Starting a new thread since the old one is hard to navigate at this point.
Modularity is a distribution-level change and requires some mindset
shift from packagers and users alike. I understand the concerns some
people have, feeling it’s something new and half-baked that is being
forced on them.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1764596
--- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
An unexpected error occurred while creating the scratch build and has been
automatically reported. Sorry!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1764596
Bug ID: 1764596
Summary: perl-DBD-Mock-1.51 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-DBD-Mock
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1764346
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1764422
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2019-af95b484ba has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-af95b484ba
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1764346
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1763497
--- Comment #6 from Paul Howarth ---
Status update: perl-Feed-Find appears to be blocked for EPEL-6:
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8923
No idea why this should be. It's not in EL-6 proper. Maybe it used to be?
--
You are receiving this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1764422
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |MODIFIED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1763664
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[RFe] EPEL-8 branch for |[RFE] EPEL-8 branch for
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1744842
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--- Comment #2 from
Hi Jakube,
yes the package was there in the early RHEL-8.0.0 branch but has been
removed. So technically it is not in RHEL-8 even though there are some
builds from very long time ago. So perhaps I need to make sure these
disappear too?
On 10/23/19 9:12 AM, Jakub Jelen wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-10-23
On Wed, 2019-10-23 at 08:45 +0200, Michal Ruprich wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am trying to request epel-8 branch for rsh package but the request
> is
> always closed as invalid with this explanation: "The branch in PDC
> already exists". I have no idea what that means. I simply cannot find
> the epel-8
On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 08:45:36AM +0200, Michal Ruprich wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I am trying to request epel-8 branch for rsh package but the request is
>always closed as invalid with this explanation: "The branch in PDC already
>exists". I have no idea what that means. I simply cannot
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1763668
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--- Comment #3 from
Hi,
I am trying to request epel-8 branch for rsh package but the request is
always closed as invalid with this explanation: "The branch in PDC
already exists". I have no idea what that means. I simply cannot find
the epel-8 branch anywhere. Could anyone explain this and ideally point
me in the
77 matches
Mail list logo
