https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2225081
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|perl-Dist-Zilla-Plugin-Read |perl-Dist-Zilla-Plugin-Read
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2229332
Bug ID: 2229332
Summary: perl-App-cpm-0.997013 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-App-cpm
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2225081
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Fixed In
On 8/4/23 22:08, Scott Talbert wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Aug 2023, Susi Lehtola wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> it's been a while since I did active Python packaging. However, one of my
>> packages, python-qcelemental, https://github.com/MolSSI/QCElemental, has
>> switched over from setup.py to
>>
>> $ python -m pip
On Fri, 2023-08-04 at 23:43 +0100, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> Practically speaking, we should be able to just re-run the tests and it
> should come out good. I'll bonk that button now.
Ah, as the failure wasn't a gating one, Bodhi doesn't show the Re-
Trigger Tests button. So I can't do it.
On Fri, 2023-08-04 at 15:40 +0200, Dan Horák wrote:
> Hi,
>
> seems there is an issue with the test results presented in bodhi, please
> see https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-94f22746e1
>
> bodhi thinks fedora-ci.koji-build.rpmdeplint.functional failed (it's
> "red"), but when
On Fri, 2023-08-04 at 11:13 -0400, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
> 2. We need to work out 1-2 methods we 'support' for upgrading which of the
> ones below I would say D and A where certain tooling will check to see if
> the upgrade is possible and then alert if it isn't and try a method of
> turning
On Fri, 4 Aug 2023, Susi Lehtola wrote:
Hi,
it's been a while since I did active Python packaging. However, one of my
packages, python-qcelemental, https://github.com/MolSSI/QCElemental, has
switched over from setup.py to
$ python -m pip install qcelemental
I did not see anything in the
Hi,
it's been a while since I did active Python packaging. However, one of my
packages, python-qcelemental, https://github.com/MolSSI/QCElemental, has
switched over from setup.py to
$ python -m pip install qcelemental
I did not see anything in the Python packaging guidelines on how to handle
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2229212
Bug ID: 2229212
Summary: perl-Module-ScanDeps-1.33 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Module-ScanDeps
Keywords: FutureFeature,
I realized I have a package pending review[1] that uses
python-testing.postgresql for its tests, so I have picked it back up
(along with python-testing.common.database), and I will fix the
FTI/FTBFS in F39/Rawhide.
It’s unfortunate that upstream seems to have moved on from these
packages,
On Fri, 4 Aug 2023 at 06:16, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
> With the retirement of modularity, the modular dnf repositories for Fedora
> 39
> no longer exist. However, this will introduce a problem during upgrades.
> When
> users try to upgrade from previous Fedora releases with
>
Hi folks,
fedtex is now built, and updates pushed:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?packages=fedtex
--
Thanks,
Regards,
Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD" (He / Him / His) |
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha
Time zone: Europe/London
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Hi,
seems there is an issue with the test results presented in bodhi, please
see https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-94f22746e1
bodhi thinks fedora-ci.koji-build.rpmdeplint.functional failed (it's
"red"), but when I click on the test in bodhi testing farm say "passed".
What can
V Fri, Aug 04, 2023 at 12:16:14PM +0200, Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
> With the retirement of modularity, the modular dnf repositories for Fedora
> 39 no longer exist. However, this will introduce a problem during upgrades.
> When users try to upgrade from previous Fedora releases with
>
Once upon a time, Steve Grubb said:
> Yes, as one of the authors of xinetd, I pointed this out long ago. But they
> said they were not trying to replace xinetd and if people want a more full
> featured experience, use xinetd.
Except... wasn't there a big push to replace xinetd with systemd
Once upon a time, Miro Hrončok said:
> On 04. 08. 23 14:45, Chris Adams wrote:
> >Could the repo config be removed by having fedora-repos Obsolete:
> >fedora-repos-moduler <= 39?
>
> That has already been done. But when the upgrade happens, the repo
> config is still there, to be removed in the
On Friday, August 4, 2023 8:42:18 AM EDT Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Richard W.M. Jones said:
>
> > The DoS attack is described here:
> >
> > https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/62248
> >
> > ... and it sounds like a bug in systemd. Surely this same attack
> > applies to any
On 04. 08. 23 14:45, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Miro Hrončok said:
With the retirement of modularity, the modular dnf repositories for
Fedora 39 no longer exist. However, this will introduce a problem
during upgrades. When users try to upgrade from previous Fedora
releases with
Once upon a time, Miro Hrončok said:
> With the retirement of modularity, the modular dnf repositories for
> Fedora 39 no longer exist. However, this will introduce a problem
> during upgrades. When users try to upgrade from previous Fedora
> releases with fedora-repos-modular installed, they
Once upon a time, Richard W.M. Jones said:
> The DoS attack is described here:
>
> https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/62248
>
> ... and it sounds like a bug in systemd. Surely this same attack
> applies to any socket-activated service so should be fixed in systemd?
> I don't recall inetd having
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20230803.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20230804.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:1
Dropped images: 2
Added packages: 6
Dropped packages:1
Upgraded packages: 101
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 3.89 MiB
Size of dropped packages
On Fri, Aug 04, 2023 at 12:25:34PM +0100, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2023-08-04 at 12:16 +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > >
> > > It looks like the public 'rawhide' location *does* still have a Modular
> > > tree:
> > >
> > >
On Fri, 2023-08-04 at 12:16 +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> >
> > It looks like the public 'rawhide' location *does* still have a Modular
> > tree:
> >
> > https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/development/rawhide/Modular/
> >
> > but there's still a problem there, because...it's now
On Fri, Aug 04, 2023 at 11:42:07AM +0100, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2023-08-04 at 12:16 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > Hello folks,
> >
> > With the retirement of modularity, the modular dnf repositories for Fedora
> > 39
> > no longer exist. However, this will introduce a problem during
On Fri, 2023-08-04 at 12:16 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
> With the retirement of modularity, the modular dnf repositories for Fedora 39
> no longer exist. However, this will introduce a problem during upgrades. When
> users try to upgrade from previous Fedora releases with
Hello folks,
With the retirement of modularity, the modular dnf repositories for Fedora 39
no longer exist. However, this will introduce a problem during upgrades. When
users try to upgrade from previous Fedora releases with fedora-repos-modular
installed, they will hit fatal errors that will
Steve Grubb writes:
> On Monday, June 26, 2023 2:47:01 PM EDT Peter Robinson wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 5:15 PM Aoife Moloney wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/LibuserDeprecation
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > This document represents a proposed Change. As part of
On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 11:29:03AM +0200, Dmitry Belyavskiy wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> I've pushed a fresh build of OpenSSH to rawhide.
> We decided to drop the sshd.socket unit from rawhide. We don't think
> it's worth going through the changes process, but would like to
> provide a heads-up.
29 matches
Mail list logo
