https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2045929
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
pnemade commented on the pull-request: `Update hunspell directory path` that
you are following:
``
Thank you
``
To reply, visit the link below
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Text-SpellChecker/pull-request/1
___
perl-devel mailing list --
Hello team,
It has been a while about default fedora backgrounds need a refresh. The
current method requires a package review for each release, which deemed
cumbersome.
One of suggestions is making a package containing a set of 10 Fedora
release wallpaper. The issue will be the increase of
Quick update, I've made some new package reviews:
ROCm-Device-Libs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2044664
ROCm-CompilerSupport: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2045955
ROCm-Device-Libs is needed to update "rocm-runtime" and for
ROCm-CompilerSupport.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2045950
Bug ID: 2045950
Summary: perl-Future-0.48 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Future
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2045929
Bug ID: 2045929
Summary: perl-Linux-Inotify2 depends on perl(common::sense)
which isn't available for install
Product: Fedora EPEL
Version: epel8
Status: NEW
On Tue, 2022-01-25 at 17:58 -0500, Steven A. Falco wrote:
> I received an FTBFS email for KiCad. This has two causes - one is a code
> error that I'm correcting, the other is because of the well-known ppc64le
> compiler bug.
>
> Should I leave the FTBFS bug open until such time as the ppc64le
I received an FTBFS email for KiCad. This has two causes - one is a code error
that I'm correcting, the other is because of the well-known ppc64le compiler
bug.
Should I leave the FTBFS bug open until such time as the ppc64le compiler bug
is fixed, or can I close the FTBFS bug once I've
On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 8:00 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> Well, the obvious problem with that approach is that the packagers are
> otherwise active (at least the majority of them):
>
> Fabian Affolter (5 bugzillas)
> Dan Horák (4 bugzillas)
> Peter Robinson, Rust SIG, Mukundan Ragavan...
>
> And
Hi Miro,
Miro Hrončok writes:
> On 25. 01. 22 15:48, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 6:43 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> during the Fedora 34 development cycle a year ago, I've reported the
>>> following
>>> buzgillas about packages that don't install:
>>>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2045029
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-c0c11c4776 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-c0c11c4776
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2045029
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-cf4fee5aa6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-cf4fee5aa6
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are
On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 09:53:10AM +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> On 24/01/2022 21:53, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > We have a number of ideas how to improve this situation and hopefully we
> > will get to doing some of that soon.
>
> Is it possible to completely disable build notifications
Hi,
following the process at
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Retirement_Process/#claiming
this is to declare my intent to un-retire uwsgi.
I've filed a review request at
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2045884
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2045029
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-f3ab9c77bc has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-f3ab9c77bc
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 08:39:31PM +0100, Iñaki Ucar wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 19:13, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> >
> > Greetings.
> >
> > The mass rebuild finished it's first pass on saturday morning, leaving
> > 3448 failed builds.
> >
> > We then did a second pass yesterday ( 2022-01-24 ) of
Am 25.01.22 um 21:22 schrieb Miro Hrončok:
If I assume correctlty that both python-augeas and python-boto3 are in RHEL
7,
yes.
this exception applies:
"""
>
The package exists in both Fedora and RHEL, but the packager wants to
ship it in EPEL under an alternative name (as required by
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2045030
Tom "spot" Callaway changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2045028
Bug 2045028 depends on bug 2045030, which changed state.
Bug 2045030 Summary: CVE-2022-23935 perl-Image-ExifTool: lib/Image/ExifTool.pm
in ExifTool before 12.38 mishandles a $file =~ /\|$/ check [epel-all]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2045863
Bug ID: 2045863
Summary: biber-2.17 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: biber
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
Assignee:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2045029
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |MODIFIED
--- Comment #2 from
On 25. 01. 22 21:05, Felix Schwarz wrote:
Hi,
(I sent this to epel-devel but did not get any reply there so maybe
fedora-devel is a better place for this question even though this is about EPEL
packages?)
the packaging guidelines have a few excemptions for the package review process
[1].
Hi,
(I sent this to epel-devel but did not get any reply there so maybe fedora-devel
is a better place for this question even though this is about EPEL packages?)
the packaging guidelines have a few excemptions for the package review process
[1]. I'm working on updating certbot to Python 3
On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 at 19:13, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> Greetings.
>
> The mass rebuild finished it's first pass on saturday morning, leaving
> 3448 failed builds.
>
> We then did a second pass yesterday ( 2022-01-24 ) of all failed builds,
> and that resulted in 1282 failed builds.
>
> The
On 25. 01. 22 20:05, Robbie Harwood wrote:
Miro Hrončok writes:
On 25. 01. 22 19:53, Robbie Harwood wrote:
Miro Hrončok writes:
On 25. 01. 22 19:17, Robbie Harwood wrote:
Hello, we plan to orphan gnu-efi shortly after I finish fixing the
FTBFS. There do not appear to be any consumers:
Miro Hrončok writes:
> On 25. 01. 22 19:53, Robbie Harwood wrote:
>> Miro Hrončok writes:
>>
>>> On 25. 01. 22 19:17, Robbie Harwood wrote:
Hello, we plan to orphan gnu-efi shortly after I finish fixing the
FTBFS. There do not appear to be any consumers:
# dnf repoquery
On 25. 01. 22 15:48, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 6:43 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
Hello,
during the Fedora 34 development cycle a year ago, I've reported the following
buzgillas about packages that don't install:
On 25. 01. 22 19:53, Robbie Harwood wrote:
Miro Hrončok writes:
On 25. 01. 22 19:17, Robbie Harwood wrote:
Hello, we plan to orphan gnu-efi shortly after I finish fixing the
FTBFS. There do not appear to be any consumers:
# dnf repoquery --repo=rawhide{,-source} --whatrequires
Miro Hrončok writes:
> On 25. 01. 22 19:17, Robbie Harwood wrote:
>> Hello, we plan to orphan gnu-efi shortly after I finish fixing the
>> FTBFS. There do not appear to be any consumers:
>>
>> # dnf repoquery --repo=rawhide{,-source} --whatrequires gnu-efi{,-devel}
>> --source
>> Last
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031807
Xavier Bachelot changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(sander@hoentjen.e
On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 04:08:04PM +, Roberto Sassu via devel wrote:
> Hi everyone
>
> (note for the infrastructure mailing list: please check if the changes
> I'm proposing could be tested in the Fedora infrastructure, like Copr)
copr uses a different signing setup... so probibly won't work
On 1/25/22 19:20, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 25. 01. 22 19:17, Robbie Harwood wrote:
Hello, we plan to orphan gnu-efi shortly after I finish fixing the
FTBFS. There do not appear to be any consumers:
# dnf repoquery --repo=rawhide{,-source} --whatrequires gnu-efi{,-devel}
--source
Last metadata
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2037243
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions
changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|extras-orphan@fedoraproject
On 25. 01. 22 19:17, Robbie Harwood wrote:
Hello, we plan to orphan gnu-efi shortly after I finish fixing the
FTBFS. There do not appear to be any consumers:
# dnf repoquery --repo=rawhide{,-source} --whatrequires gnu-efi{,-devel}
--source
Last metadata expiration check: 0:05:32 ago on Tue 25
Hello, we plan to orphan gnu-efi shortly after I finish fixing the
FTBFS. There do not appear to be any consumers:
# dnf repoquery --repo=rawhide{,-source} --whatrequires gnu-efi{,-devel}
--source
Last metadata expiration check: 0:05:32 ago on Tue 25 Jan 2022 01:09:26 PM EST.
Greetings.
The mass rebuild finished it's first pass on saturday morning, leaving
3448 failed builds.
We then did a second pass yesterday ( 2022-01-24 ) of all failed builds,
and that resulted in 1282 failed builds.
The f36-rebuild tag is being merged now, but unfortunately our SOP had
it
Greetings.
The mass rebuild finished it's first pass on saturday morning, leaving
3448 failed builds.
We then did a second pass yesterday ( 2022-01-24 ) of all failed builds,
and that resulted in 1282 failed builds.
The f36-rebuild tag is being merged now, but unfortunately our SOP had
it
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2045028
Product Security DevOps Team changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |UPSTREAM
Hello Dave,
On Tuesday, January 25, 2022 9:29:53 AM EST David Malcolm wrote:
> Steve, thanks for putting together these cases.
>
> I've filed:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104224
> against the gcc analyzer upstream to help me track improving the
> analyzer on this.
>
> OK if
On Tue, 2022-01-25 at 08:50 -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 24 2022 at 03:19:00 PM -0800, Adam Williamson
> wrote:
> > I do hope this can be cleaned up soon. Dropping arches from packages
> > is
> > a very big hammer and should be wielded extremely sparingly. Unless
> > ceph was
Read it now, and did one more Kernel 5.16.2 test with the updated image :)
On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 5:07 PM Luna Jernberg wrote:
> Ah yeah, thanks :)
>
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 5:06 PM Peter Boy wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Am 25.01.2022 um 14:53 schrieb Luna Jernberg :
>>
>> Hey!
>>
>> Is the minutes of
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2045183
Bug ID: 2045183
Summary: perl-PAR-Packer-1.053 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-PAR-Packer
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
Ah yeah, thanks :)
On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 5:06 PM Peter Boy wrote:
>
>
> Am 25.01.2022 um 14:53 schrieb Luna Jernberg :
>
> Hey!
>
> Is the minutes of this meeting gonna be posted online somewhere so i can
> read up on them after the fact?
> forgot about it totally yesterday
>
>
>
> Are you
> Am 25.01.2022 um 14:53 schrieb Luna Jernberg :
>
> Hey!
>
> Is the minutes of this meeting gonna be posted online somewhere so i can read
> up on them after the fact?
> forgot about it totally yesterday
Are you looking for these?
Minutes:
On 1/25/22 07:36 AM, Dan Horák wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 15:55:47 -0500
"Steven A. Falco" wrote:
I've been able to rebuild KiCad using the new gcc-12.0.1-0.2 compiler rpms on
Rawhide via mock. While KiCad compiles, it doesn't quite run correctly.
As shown in the attached screenshot, all
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2037243
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |MODIFIED
--- Comment #6 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2043770
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-4cbb0688cf has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-4cbb0688cf
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2043770
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--- Comment #2 from
mspacek merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-Net-HTTP` that you are
following.
Merged pull-request:
``
6.22 bump
``
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Net-HTTP/pull-request/4
___
perl-devel mailing list --
On Mon, Jan 24 2022 at 03:19:00 PM -0800, Adam Williamson
wrote:
I do hope this can be cleaned up soon. Dropping arches from packages
is
a very big hammer and should be wielded extremely sparingly. Unless
ceph was unusable without a rebuild on the other arches, it would've
been better to wait
On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 6:43 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> during the Fedora 34 development cycle a year ago, I've reported the following
> buzgillas about packages that don't install:
>
>
Hi,
gcc-12.0.1-0.3.fc36 [1] is building now and in addition to the usual
updates from upstream it fixes at least 2 kinds of the ppc64le issues -
the segfaulting ICE with "during RTL pass: final" and the "not
assembling" one.
[1] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=81826627
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2045028
--- Comment #2 from Product Security DevOps Team ---
This CVE Bugzilla entry is for community support informational purposes only as
it does not affect a package in a commercially supported Red Hat product. Refer
to the dependent bugs for
On Sat, 2022-01-22 at 15:00 -0500, Steve Grubb wrote:
> On Saturday, January 22, 2022 6:36:01 AM EST Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
> wrote:
> > On 21/01/2022 19:04, Steve Grubb wrote:
> > > Uninitialized variables are a big problem.
> >
> > Yes, but as a package maintainer, I don't want to deal with
Hey!
Is the minutes of this meeting gonna be posted online somewhere so i can
read up on them after the fact?
forgot about it totally yesterday
On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 2:36 AM Adam Williamson
wrote:
> # Fedora Quality Assurance Meeting
> # Date: 2022-01-24
> # Time: 16:00 UTC
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2045029
Bug ID: 2045029
Summary: CVE-2022-23935 perl-Image-ExifTool:
lib/Image/ExifTool.pm in ExifTool before 12.38
mishandles a $file =~ /\|$/ check [fedora-all]
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2045030
Bug ID: 2045030
Summary: CVE-2022-23935 perl-Image-ExifTool:
lib/Image/ExifTool.pm in ExifTool before 12.38
mishandles a $file =~ /\|$/ check [epel-all]
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2045029
--- Comment #1 from Pedro Sampaio ---
Use the following template to for the 'fedpkg update' request to submit an
update for this issue as it contains the top-level parent bug(s) as well as
this tracking bug. This will ensure that all
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2045028
--- Comment #1 from Pedro Sampaio ---
Created perl-Image-ExifTool tracking bugs for this issue:
Affects: epel-all [bug 2045030]
Affects: fedora-all [bug 2045029]
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2045029
Pedro Sampaio changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||2045028 (CVE-2022-23935)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2045030
Pedro Sampaio changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||2045028 (CVE-2022-23935)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2045028
Pedro Sampaio changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||2045030, 2045029
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2045030
--- Comment #1 from Pedro Sampaio ---
Use the following template to for the 'fedpkg update' request to submit an
update for this issue as it contains the top-level parent bug(s) as well as
this tracking bug. This will ensure that all
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2045028
Bug ID: 2045028
Summary: CVE-2022-23935 perl-Image-ExifTool:
lib/Image/ExifTool.pm in ExifTool before 12.38
mishandles a $file =~ /\|$/ check
Product: Security Response
mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-Net-HTTP` that you
are following:
``
6.22 bump
``
To reply, visit the link below
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Net-HTTP/pull-request/4
___
perl-devel mailing list --
pghmcfc merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-Text-SpellChecker`
that you are following.
Merged pull-request:
``
Update hunspell directory path
``
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Text-SpellChecker/pull-request/1
___
perl-devel
On Fri, 21 Jan 2022 15:55:47 -0500
"Steven A. Falco" wrote:
> I've been able to rebuild KiCad using the new gcc-12.0.1-0.2 compiler rpms on
> Rawhide via mock. While KiCad compiles, it doesn't quite run correctly.
>
> As shown in the attached screenshot, all the icons are missing, and have
Mark Wielaard writes:
> Although I am not against trying to turn nondeterministic bugs into
> deterministic ones and getting rid off more undefined code, I am
> slightly worried it means those bugs will be harder to find in
> production. Also I really hope we do also encourage people to use the
Hello,
during the Fedora 34 development cycle a year ago, I've reported the following
buzgillas about packages that don't install:
pnemade opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-Text-SpellChecker`
that you are following:
``
Update hunspell directory path
``
To reply, visit the link below
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Text-SpellChecker/pull-request/1
___
Hi everyone,
First of all, thanks a lot for all the work that went into podman v4. The
release notes looks great and full of interesting changes!
As I understand it, the podman client and server remote API are version locked:
podman v3 clients can only speak with podman v3 servers, v4 clients
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2044825
--- Comment #3 from Paul Howarth ---
(In reply to Xavier Bachelot from comment #1)
> Also depends on perl-Test-Distribution, buut as you're the maintainer, I
> guess there's no need to file yet another bug.
Correct. I've already done the
mspacek merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-Net-HTTP` that you are
following.
Merged pull-request:
``
6.22 bump
``
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Net-HTTP/pull-request/3
___
perl-devel mailing list --
mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-Net-HTTP` that you
are following:
``
6.22 bump
``
To reply, visit the link below
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Net-HTTP/pull-request/3
___
perl-devel mailing list --
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2044825
--- Comment #1 from Xavier Bachelot ---
Also depends on perl-Test-Distribution, buut as you're the maintainer, I guess
there's no need to file yet another bug.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2044825
--- Comment #2 from Xavier Bachelot ---
Fwiw, this is needed for mhonarc.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2044825
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2044851
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||2044825
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2044825
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2044851
Bug ID: 2044851
Summary: Please branch and build perl-Unicode-Map8 for EPEL-9
Product: Fedora EPEL
Version: epel9
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Unicode-Map8
Assignee:
Hello all,
I'm the Fedora maintainer of the perl-HTML-Tidy package and its
underlying library, tidyp.
The upstream maintainer of these packages has now stopped work on
tidyp, and has archived the upstream repository in a read-only state:
https://github.com/petdance/tidyp
He has also stopped
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2044825
Bug ID: 2044825
Summary: perl-Unicode-MapUTF8 for EPEL 9
Product: Fedora EPEL
Version: epel9
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Unicode-MapUTF8
Assignee: p...@city-fan.org
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64), 1/8 (aarch64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-34-20220124.0):
ID: 1113065 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL:
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64), 1/8 (aarch64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-35-20220124.0):
ID: 1112990 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL:
Dne 21. 01. 22 v 23:22 Jeremy Newton napsal(a):
In order to update "rocm-runtime" to the latest, it requires a new
package "ROCm-Device-Libs" as a build requirement.
The issue is that the project installs files into /usr/amdgcn, which
seems incorrect to me based on the FHS and Fedora
On 24/01/2022 21:53, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
We have a number of ideas how to improve this situation and hopefully we
will get to doing some of that soon.
Is it possible to completely disable build notifications for my
packages? I think it's better to get nothing than to get dozens of late
emails
jplesnik merged a pull-request against the project:
`perl-DateTime-Format-Natural` that you are following.
Merged pull-request:
``
Tests
``
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-DateTime-Format-Natural/pull-request/1
___
perl-devel mailing list --
jplesnik opened a new pull-request against the project:
`perl-DateTime-Format-Natural` that you are following:
``
Tests
``
To reply, visit the link below
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-DateTime-Format-Natural/pull-request/1
___
perl-devel
87 matches
Mail list logo
