[Bug 1793185] perl-XXX-0.35 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1793185 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version|

Re: Copr Build System - review of 2019 and vote for features in 2020

On Wednesday, January 22, 2020 8:35:32 AM CET Pavel Raiskup wrote: > On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 11:59:50 PM CET Jakub Kadlcik wrote: > > > For what it's worth, I never got the promised notification for my Coprs. > > > The legacy chroots are just gone forever with no warning whatsoever. > > > > I

Re: Copr Build System - review of 2019 and vote for features in 2020

On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 11:59:50 PM CET Jakub Kadlcik wrote: > > For what it's worth, I never got the promised notification for my Coprs. > > The legacy chroots are just gone forever with no warning whatsoever. > > I am truly sorry to hear that. I am afraid, that there is no way to recover >

[Bug 1793505] perl-SOAP-WSDL-3.003-14.fc32 FTBFS: Failed test 'conversion with timezone' at t/SOAP/WSDL/XSD/Typelib/Builtin/dateTime.t line 35.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1793505 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1750908 (F32FTBFS) Referenced Bugs:

[Bug 1793185] perl-XXX-0.35 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1793185 Bug 1793185 depends on bug 1793436, which changed state. Bug 1793436 Summary: Review Request: perl-YAML-PP - YAML 1.2 processor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1793436 What|Removed |Added

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On 21/01/2020 23:13, John M. Harris Jr wrote: On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 2:31:47 PM MST Michael Catanzaro wrote: On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 4:04 pm, Neal Gompa wrote: And any discussion of GitHub isn't going to involve self-hosted, it's going to involve GitHub.com, which means we're talking

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 4:59 AM Dan Čermák wrote: > > Felix Schwarz writes: > > > Am 21.01.20 um 21:48 schrieb Guido Aulisi: > >> I totally agree with Fabio, I can’t think of a single reason we should > >> dismiss > >> pagure. > > > > Gitlab is used by many free software communities like

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 9:57:59 PM MST Dan Čermák wrote: > Felix Schwarz writes: > > Am 21.01.20 um 21:48 schrieb Guido Aulisi: > >> I totally agree with Fabio, I can’t think of a single reason we should > >> dismiss pagure. > > > > Gitlab is used by many free software communities like

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

Felix Schwarz writes: > Am 21.01.20 um 21:48 schrieb Guido Aulisi: >> I totally agree with Fabio, I can’t think of a single reason we should >> dismiss >> pagure. > > Gitlab is used by many free software communities like Freedesktop, Gnome, > Debian. Using the same tools could help to

Re: Announcing multi-builds updates gating

On 01/21/2020 08:59 AM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > Good Morning Everyone, > > We are pleased to announce that the work to gate rawhide packages has leveled > up! > Thank you to everyone who worked on this. This is great! -Tom > Back in July we announced the first phase where bodhi got the

Re: coq build failure with OCaml 4.10

On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 9:39 AM Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > ... Or maybe not. That patch fixes the first problem, but then > there's a seemingly much harder problem: > > https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/5534/40745534/build.log > > I'm going to leave Coq alone for now. I found an

[389-devel] 389 DS nightly 2020-01-22 - 96% PASS

https://fedorapeople.org/groups/389ds/ci/nightly/2020/01/22/report-389-ds-base-1.4.3.1-20200122git76571de.fc31.x86_64.html ___ 389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to

Re: Vague proposal: ship prebuilt initramfs images

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 12:43:47PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: > configinitrd file1 file2 file3 > initrd initramfs1.img initramfs2.img CONFIG Huh - it seems like grub may already support this? It looks like: initrd initramfs.img newc:/etc/crypttab:/boot/crypttab will add /boot/crypttab to

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

The following Fedora EPEL 6 Security updates need testing: Age URL 11 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-db6621b9a8 perl-Clipboard-0.21-1.el6.1 The following builds have been pushed to Fedora EPEL 6 updates-testing munin-2.0.54-1.el6 Details about builds:

[Bug 1793146] perl-Module-CoreList-5.20200120 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1793146 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #4 from

[Bug 1793459] perl-ExtUtils-CBuilder-0.280234 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1793459 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from

[Bug 1793152] perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20200120 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1793152 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #3 from

[Bug 1793586] perl-PPIx-Regexp-0.068 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1793586 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #4 from

[EPEL-devel] Fedora EPEL 7 updates-testing report

The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing: Age URL 525 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-3c9292b62d condor-8.6.11-1.el7 267 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-c499781e80 python-gnupg-0.4.4-1.el7 264

[389-devel] c2rust

Hi all, Last night Thierry asked about some of the values of rust, and how to approach this topic. Rust has been very powerful in how productive it's made me in other projects due to the stricter compiler rules, forcing me to handle things correctly. I think there are really two reasonable

[389-devel] LCA2020 authentication talk

Hi all, Last week I was at Linux Conf Australia where I presented on the psychology of multi-factor authentication, and also presented a lightning talk on failure analysis. Here are the recordings, I hope you find them useful. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOZzleJ9OEs

Re: qpid-proton removal impact

On 21. 01. 20 20:31, Irina Boverman wrote: I re-took the ownership of qpid-proton package yesterday, if this is not reflected in fedora package db, what do I need to do to hold on to it? Nothing. Everything is fine. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok

Re: Copr Build System - review of 2019 and vote for features in 2020

> For what it's worth, I never got the promised notification for my Coprs. > The legacy chroots are just gone forever with no warning whatsoever. I am truly sorry to hear that. I am afraid, that there is no way to recover those data. Thank you for reporting it though, I have investigated the

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 3:13 pm, John M. Harris Jr wrote: Both Gitea and Gogs are potential options, in my opinion, both are lightweight and easy to extend. I have some experience with Gogs. I don't recommend it. ___ devel mailing list --

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On ti, 21 tammi 2020, Alex Scheel wrote: For a period of time, IDM tried using Pagure for FreeIPA development. They filed a huge number of issues. Now we host issues on Pagure, and have moved development to GitHub. [*] I think we've mostly quit filing bugs; the Pagure team has done a good job

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

> >> And any discussion of GitHub isn't going to involve self-hosted, it's > >> going to involve GitHub.com, which means we're talking about losing > >> more of our independence as a project. This is one of those things > >> that I'm not sure is a wise move. > > > > Well since we have a request

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 5:14 PM John M. Harris Jr wrote: > > On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 2:31:47 PM MST Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 4:04 pm, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > > And any discussion of GitHub isn't going to involve self-hosted, it's > > > going to involve

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 2:31:47 PM MST Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 4:04 pm, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > And any discussion of GitHub isn't going to involve self-hosted, it's > > going to involve GitHub.com, which means we're talking about losing > > more of our

Re: Fedora 32 system-wide change proposal: reduce installation media size by improving the compression ratio of SquashFS filesystem

On Sunday, January 19, 2020 4:41:06 PM MST Chris Murphy wrote: > I admit I'm biased toward the two endpoints: create and consume, not > distribution ,i.e the mirror donors. Their storage and bandwidth > concerns were evaluated with the RPM change from xz to zstd. So I'm > mystified by the bias for

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On 1/21/20 4:59 PM, Felix Schwarz wrote: > (Though > I somehow got used to pagure and getting the gitlab integration to the same > level as pagure currently will be a lot of work for sure.) Maybe I'm just a grumpy old system admin but it sounds like a lot of work for little, if any, gain.

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

Am 21.01.20 um 22:31 schrieb Michael Catanzaro: > Well since we have a request for requirements: I propose requirements #1 and > #2 are to be self-hosted and open source. +1 Felix ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

Am 21.01.20 um 21:48 schrieb Guido Aulisi: > I totally agree with Fabio, I can’t think of a single reason we should dismiss > pagure. Gitlab is used by many free software communities like Freedesktop, Gnome, Debian. Using the same tools could help to facilitate inter-process/inter-distro

Re: Blanket approval for EPEL packages

On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 04:35, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > Hi, > > There used to be page with blanket approval for EPEL packages. Is there > still something like this? It is tiring to respond all the EPEL request > I don't really care about. > The page went away because it had not 'worked' but people

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 2:33:11 PM MST Neal Gompa wrote: > Unfortunately, this is very difficult to manage with GitLab Omnibus > based deployments The new plugin interface makes it so that this is not the case. I make use of it on git.splentity.com, for example. -- John M. Harris, Jr.

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

- Original Message - > From: "Michael Catanzaro" > To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" > > Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 4:31:47 PM > Subject: Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 4:04 pm, Neal Gompa wrote: > > And any

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On 1/21/20 4:31 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 4:04 pm, Neal Gompa wrote: >> And any discussion of GitHub isn't going to involve self-hosted, it's >> going to involve GitHub.com, which means we're talking about losing >> more of our independence as a project. This is one

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 4:18 PM John M. Harris Jr wrote: > > On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 2:04:33 PM MST Neal Gompa wrote: > > Aside from GitLab being very anti-integration > > This is no longer the case, by the way. GitLab has recently made it easier to > add plugins, with the new method not

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 4:04 pm, Neal Gompa wrote: And any discussion of GitHub isn't going to involve self-hosted, it's going to involve GitHub.com, which means we're talking about losing more of our independence as a project. This is one of those things that I'm not sure is a wise move.

[EPEL-devel] Re: [Fedocal] Reminder meeting : EPEL Steering Co

On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 at 13:00, wrote: > > Dear all, > > You are kindly invited to the meeting: >EPEL Steering Co on 2020-01-22 from 18:00:00 to 19:00:00 GMT >At freenode@fedora-meeting > > Sorry I thought I cancelled this meeting. In any case, many people are on travel to BRNO for

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Tuesday, 21 January 2020 17:34:37 CET Leigh Griffin wrote: > Hey Everyone, > > On behalf of the CPE team I want to draw the communities attention to a > recent blog post which you may be impacted by: > https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/git-forge-requirements/ > > We will be seeking

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 2:04:33 PM MST Neal Gompa wrote: > Aside from GitLab being very anti-integration This is no longer the case, by the way. GitLab has recently made it easier to add plugins, with the new method not requiring patching the source tree. Even before that change, webhook

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

I had replied to Fabio on IRC but... :-) - Original Message - > From: "Guido Aulisi" > To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" > > Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 3:48:31 PM > Subject: Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog > > > > > Il giorno 21 gen 2020,

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 10:02 PM Leigh Griffin wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020, 20:02 Fabio Valentini wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 8:30 PM Leigh Griffin wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020, 17:17 Fabio Valentini wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 5:40 PM Leigh

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 3:01 PM Fabio Valentini wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 8:30 PM Leigh Griffin wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020, 17:17 Fabio Valentini wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 5:40 PM Leigh Griffin wrote: > >> > > >> > Hey Everyone, > >> > > >> > On behalf

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020, 20:02 Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 8:30 PM Leigh Griffin wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020, 17:17 Fabio Valentini > wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 5:40 PM Leigh Griffin > wrote: > >> > > >> > Hey Everyone, > >> > > >> > On behalf

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

> Il giorno 21 gen 2020, alle ore 18:15, Fabio Valentini > ha scritto: > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 5:40 PM Leigh Griffin > wrote: >> >> Hey Everyone, >> >> On behalf of the CPE team I want to draw the communities attention to a >> recent blog post which you may

Re: Self Introduction: Philip Matura

> Il giorno 5 dic 2019, alle ore 17:34, p...@tura-home.de ha scritto: > > Hello, > > my name is Philip Matura and I'm currently a student in mathematics. In > my freetime I'm doing audio/music and electronics stuff. I've been > converted to the Linux world with Fedora about 10 years ago and

Re: gcc-10 Fortran argument mismatch issue

Hi, Jeff. On Tuesday, 21 January 2020 at 21:16, Jeff Law wrote: > > > So this is another issue that's going to be seen with gcc-10. I'd been > hoping to get the time to fix packages correctly, but I think it's > ultimately going to have to fall to the package maintainers. > > gcc has

Re: gcc-10 Fortran argument mismatch issue

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 01:16:30PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > Starting with gcc-10, these are now fatal errors which look something > like this: > > > > Error: Rank mismatch in argument ‘array’ at (1) (rank-1 and scalar) Indeed, and https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-10/porting_to.html#argument-mismatch

Re: Announcing multi-builds updates gating

On 1/21/20 10:59 AM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: We are pleased to announce that the work to gate rawhide packages has leveled up! Thanks for your hard work! ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to

gcc-10 Fortran argument mismatch issue

So this is another issue that's going to be seen with gcc-10. I'd been hoping to get the time to fix packages correctly, but I think it's ultimately going to have to fall to the package maintainers. gcc has traditionally allowed certain type mismatches for arguments in Fortran code. GCC

Re: gcc 10: Default to -fno-common, multiple definitions of ...

On Tue, 2020-01-21 at 13:47 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 01:42:25PM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > I've seen this issue pop up in some other packages, as well. > > > > My elementary-files package is affected, and I think it broke > > rubygem-ffi, too (which is blocking

Re: gcc 10: Default to -fno-common, multiple definitions of ...

> Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 14:00:30 +0100 > From: Miro Hrončok > Subject: Re: gcc 10: Default to -fno-common, multiple definitions of > ... > To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org, Jakub Jelinek > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > On 21. 01. 20 13:47,

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 8:30 PM Leigh Griffin wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020, 17:17 Fabio Valentini wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 5:40 PM Leigh Griffin wrote: >> > >> > Hey Everyone, >> > >> > On behalf of the CPE team I want to draw the communities attention to a >> > recent blog

Re: Copr in 2020 - summary of votes

On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 2:39:32 PM CET Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 2:30 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > (snip) > > > On 21. 01. 20 14:24, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > > >> max successful builds option > > > This is already available. See previous thread. It is in chroot setting.

Re: gcc 10: Default to -fno-common, multiple definitions of

On Tue, 2020-01-21 at 19:16 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 21. 01. 20 19:04, Jeff Law wrote: > > > -- > > > > > > > > > Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 17:44:37 + > > > From: Peter Robinson > > > Subject: Re: gcc 10: Default to

Re: qpid-proton removal impact

I re-took the ownership of qpid-proton package yesterday, if this is not reflected in fedora package db, what do I need to do to hold on to it? On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 7:28 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 20. 01. 20 1:05, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 19. 01. 20 23:45, Miro Hrončok wrote: > >> On 13.

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020, 17:17 Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 5:40 PM Leigh Griffin wrote: > > > > Hey Everyone, > > > > On behalf of the CPE team I want to draw the communities attention to a > recent blog post which you may be impacted by: > >

Re: make 4.3 - F32 or F33?

* DJ Delorie: > * WARNING: Backward-incompatibility! > Number signs (#) appearing inside a macro reference or function invocation > no longer introduce comments and should not be escaped with backslashes: > thus a call such as: > foo := $(shell echo '#') > is legal. Previously the

Re: make 4.3 - F32 or F33?

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 2:03 PM DJ Delorie wrote: > > > I've taken a look at the new make release, and updating Fedora's make > won't be that tricky (aside from some noted backwards > incompatibilities[1], who knows) but I see no reason to rush it into a > last-minute update this close to

make 4.3 - F32 or F33?

I've taken a look at the new make release, and updating Fedora's make won't be that tricky (aside from some noted backwards incompatibilities[1], who knows) but I see no reason to rush it into a last-minute update this close to branching F32. My current plan is to introduce it to rawhide just

Re: gcc 10: Default to -fno-common, multiple definitions of

On Tue, 2020-01-21 at 13:33 -0500, Steve Grubb wrote: > On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 1:16:00 PM EST Miro Hrončok wrote: > > > > > > I proposed a change to redhat-rpm-config to handle this case by > > > > > > > > > > allowing package to add a single line to their .spec file to turn off > > > > >

Re: gcc 10: Default to -fno-common, multiple definitions of

On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 1:16:00 PM EST Miro Hrončok wrote: > I proposed a change to redhat-rpm-config to handle this case by > >>> > >>> allowing package to add a single line to their .spec file to turn off > >>> the new common symbol handling. Igor rejected that change arguing that >

Re: FYI: OCaml 4.10.0 beta1 will go into Fedora 32 soonish

On Tue, 21 Jan 2020, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >> https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/package/xen > > I didn't try rebuilding this package. The link is a bit unclear, but > maybe try kicking off a rebuild, or would you like me to try? For xen it looks like it is mostly

Re: gcc 10: Default to -fno-common, multiple definitions of

On 21. 01. 20 19:04, Jeff Law wrote: -- Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 17:44:37 + From: Peter Robinson Subject: Re: gcc 10: Default to -fno-common, multiple definitions of ... To: l...@redhat.com, Development

Re: gcc 10: Default to -fno-common, multiple definitions of

> > -- > > > Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 17:44:37 + > From: Peter Robinson > Subject: Re: gcc 10: Default to -fno-common, multiple definitions of > ... > To: l...@redhat.com, Development discussions related to Fedora

[EPEL-devel] [Fedocal] Reminder meeting : EPEL Steering Co

Dear all, You are kindly invited to the meeting: EPEL Steering Co on 2020-01-22 from 18:00:00 to 19:00:00 GMT At freenode@fedora-meeting The meeting will be about: This is the weekly EPEL Steering Committee Meeting. A general agenda is the following: #meetingname EPEL #topic

Re: Vague proposal: ship prebuilt initramfs images

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 12:57:50AM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: > a) Stick the config in UEFI variables. It's small enough that we > wouldn't run out. > b) Extend grub to read some config files and synthesise an initramfs > image for them. If we measure the paths that those images use

Re: gcc 10: Default to -fno-common, multiple definitions of ...

> > On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 7:35:03 AM EST Miro Hrončok wrote: > > > This is a known thing in gcc 10: > > > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-10/porting_to.html#common > > > > > > "Default to -fno-common > > > > > > A common mistake in C is omitting extern when declaring a global variable > > >

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 5:40 PM Leigh Griffin wrote: > > Hey Everyone, > > On behalf of the CPE team I want to draw the communities attention to a > recent blog post which you may be impacted by: > https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/git-forge-requirements/ > > We will be seeking input and

Announcing multi-builds updates gating

Good Morning Everyone, We are pleased to announce that the work to gate rawhide packages has leveled up! Back in July we announced the first phase where bodhi got the support to gate single-build updates. We can now officially announce that bodhi can gate multi-builds updates. This is achieved

Announcing multi-builds updates gating

Good Morning Everyone, We are pleased to announce that the work to gate rawhide packages has leveled up! Back in July we announced the first phase where bodhi got the support to gate single-build updates. We can now officially announce that bodhi can gate multi-builds updates. This is achieved

Re: gcc 10: Default to -fno-common, multiple definitions of ...

> > > > Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2020 11:05:37 -0500 > From: Steve Grubb > Subject: Re: gcc 10: Default to -fno-common, multiple definitions of > ... > To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > Cc: Jakub Jelinek > Message-ID: <4127758.jL2Gs7s9Fr@x2> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > >

Fedora 32 Self-Contained Change proposal: PostgreSQL 12

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/PostgreSQL_12 == Summary == Update of PostgreSQL (`postgresql` and `libpq` components) in Fedora from 11 to 12 version in the non-modular (main) builds. == Owner == * Name: [[User:panovotn| Patrik Novotny]] * Email: panov...@redhat.com == Detailed

Fedora 32 Self-Contained Change proposal: PostgreSQL 12

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/PostgreSQL_12 == Summary == Update of PostgreSQL (`postgresql` and `libpq` components) in Fedora from 11 to 12 version in the non-modular (main) builds. == Owner == * Name: [[User:panovotn| Patrik Novotny]] * Email: panov...@redhat.com == Detailed

Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

Hey Everyone, On behalf of the CPE team I want to draw the communities attention to a recent blog post which you may be impacted by: https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/git-forge-requirements/ We will be seeking input and requirements in an open and transparent manner on the future of a git

[Bug 1793586] perl-PPIx-Regexp-0.068 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1793586 --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-580bb5e256 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-580bb5e256 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list

[Bug 1793586] perl-PPIx-Regexp-0.068 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1793586 --- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-c76e5a5f53 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-c76e5a5f53 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list

[Bug 1793586] perl-PPIx-Regexp-0.068 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1793586 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED Fixed In Version|

Re: gcc 10: Default to -fno-common, multiple definitions of ...

On 21. 01. 20 17:05, Steve Grubb wrote: On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 7:35:03 AM EST Miro Hrončok wrote: This is a known thing in gcc 10: https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-10/porting_to.html#common "Default to -fno-common A common mistake in C is omitting extern when declaring a global variable in a

[Bug 1793586] perl-PPIx-Regexp-0.068 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1793586 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

Re: gcc 10: Default to -fno-common, multiple definitions of ...

On Tuesday, January 21, 2020 7:35:03 AM EST Miro Hrončok wrote: > This is a known thing in gcc 10: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-10/porting_to.html#common > > "Default to -fno-common > > A common mistake in C is omitting extern when declaring a global variable > in a header file. If the header is

[Bug 1793586] New: perl-PPIx-Regexp-0.068 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1793586 Bug ID: 1793586 Summary: perl-PPIx-Regexp-0.068 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-PPIx-Regexp Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged

Re: FYI: OCaml 4.10.0 beta1 will go into Fedora 32 soonish

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 04:20:48PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 18. 01. 20 13:03, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > >OCaml 4.10.0 beta1 was released upstream about a week ago > >(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1673688). I'm intending > >to build OCaml packages into a side tag starting

Re: FYI: OCaml 4.10.0 beta1 will go into Fedora 32 soonish

On 18. 01. 20 13:03, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: OCaml 4.10.0 beta1 was released upstream about a week ago (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1673688). I'm intending to build OCaml packages into a side tag starting today, and then if it seems to work well integrate it into F32. Hello.

[Bug 1788470] Upgrade perl-Data-ICal to 0.24

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1788470 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Fixed In Version|

[Bug 1772789] Upgrade perl-Type-Tiny to 1.008003

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1772789 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Fixed In Version|

[Bug 1791320] perl-XML-LibXML-Simple-1.01 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1791320 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED CC|

[Bug 1793505] New: perl-SOAP-WSDL-3.003-14.fc32 FTBFS: Failed test 'conversion with timezone' at t/SOAP/WSDL/XSD/Typelib/Builtin/dateTime.t line 35.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1793505 Bug ID: 1793505 Summary: perl-SOAP-WSDL-3.003-14.fc32 FTBFS: Failed test 'conversion with timezone' at t/SOAP/WSDL/XSD/Typelib/Builtin/dateTime.t line 35. Product: Fedora

[Bug 1793081] Upgrade perl-Term-ANSIColor to 5.01

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1793081 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Fixed In Version|

Re: Copr in 2020 - summary of votes

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 2:30 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: (snip) > On 21. 01. 20 14:24, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > >> max successful builds option > > This is already available. See previous thread. It is in chroot setting. > > AFAIK This is not available. max builds is, but not max successful builds.

Re: Copr in 2020 - summary of votes

On 21. 01. 20 14:24, Miroslav Suchý wrote: max successful builds option This is already available. See previous thread. It is in chroot setting. AFAIK This is not available. max builds is, but not max successful builds. See https://pagure.io/copr/copr/issue/840 -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone:

[modularity] Meeting on Jan 21, 2020 canceled ^z

As many of the people who would be at the meeting are tied up today, we are canceling. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct:

[modularity] Meeting Minutes - Jan 14, 2020

Minutes: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/teams/modularity/modularity.2020-01-14-15.00.html Minutes (text): https://meetbot-raw.fedoraproject.org/teams/modularity/modularity.2020-01-14-15.00.txt Log: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/teams/modularity/modularity.2020-01-14-15.00.log.html

Copr in 2020 - summary of votes

Here is the summary of recent voting: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DClOxQADo-KqC18KK-RPmz2awRNpRt1W5z_xnWfMFd8/edit?usp=sharing Quick summary - topics sorted by priority (higher got more votes for priority]: * better automatic builds triggered by github, gitlab... * More parallel

Re: gcc 10: Default to -fno-common, multiple definitions of ...

On 21. 01. 20 13:47, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 01:42:25PM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: I've seen this issue pop up in some other packages, as well. My elementary-files package is affected, and I think it broke rubygem-ffi, too (which is blocking the ruby 2.7 rebuild,

Re: gcc 10: Default to -fno-common, multiple definitions of ...

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 7:36 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > ... glusterfs... > > glusterfs and nfs-ganesha are already fixed upstream. They'll be fixed in their next minor release before it becomes necessary, or I will respin with patches sooner. -- Kaleb

[Bug 1793459] perl-ExtUtils-CBuilder-0.280234 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1793459 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-cb999ef990 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-cb999ef990 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list

[Bug 1793459] perl-ExtUtils-CBuilder-0.280234 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1793459 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-cd3ff91cc7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-cd3ff91cc7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list

Re: gcc 10: Default to -fno-common, multiple definitions of ...

On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 01:42:25PM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: > I've seen this issue pop up in some other packages, as well. > > My elementary-files package is affected, and I think it broke > rubygem-ffi, too (which is blocking the ruby 2.7 rebuild, breaking a > lot of ruby packages; though I

  1   2   >