Re: More prominent link to verification hashes

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 6:35 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > Well, I agree the instructions could do better, but how would that help > if the site was compromised? The attackers would write their own > instructions. > > In addition to the verify link, the

Re: Fedora mass rebuild 2016

On 02/22/2016 04:55 AM, Marek Polacek wrote: In the past few days and weeks we did a mass rebuild of Fedora rawhide packages in mock with GCC 6 (and corresponding libtool) and for those packages that failed also rebuilt the same package with gcc-5.3.1-2.fc23.x86_64 to quickly remove from the

Koschei false positives?

I occasionally get notifications from Koschei about my packages failing to build. When I look ( http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13071213), I see a python stack trace which looks like it has nothing to do with my package's build. Rather, it looks like Koschei itself failed.

Re: Koschei false positives?

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 08:59:24PM +, Christopher wrote: > I occasionally get notifications from Koschei about my packages failing to > build. When I look ( > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13071213), I see a > python stack trace which looks like it has nothing to do with

Re: More prominent link to verification hashes

> If the site is compromised, most bets are off sadly. Yes, for people who look only in one place, the manipulated web server. But that is the reason why the fingerprint has to pop up in different places where it is hard to fake. Even if this one user can be tricked, others can discover that

Re: More prominent link to verification hashes

On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 19:22:24 - "Ralf Senderek" wrote: > > If the site is compromised, most bets are off sadly. > > Yes, for people who look only in one place, the manipulated web > server. But that is the reason why the fingerprint has to pop up in > different places

Re: More prominent link to verification hashes

> The Fedora team could get a profile and verify the key(s) through > github, the Fedora and Red Hat web sites, the Fedora magazine twitter > account, and by having the Fedora team all sign publicly. Every little helps. The important step would be if the Fedora devs state the fingerprints in a

Re: Declining package maintenance requests? (Was Re: Large number of packages to be orphaned on Feb 26)

> "FAL" == Fabio Alessandro Locati writes: FAL> If a person is not able to make a click in 7 days (maybe vacation FAL> periods could be excluded from the count), why should he be able to FAL> do so in the following 21 days? I think that a better question is: If a

Re: More prominent link to verification hashes

On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 11:31:05AM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 7:32 AM, Sam Varshavchik > wrote: > > So, I see that someone hacked Linux Mint, and slipped in some trojaned ISO > > download images. > > > > Since Fedora looks to be moving to Live

Re: More prominent link to verification hashes

On 02/22/2016 02:22 PM, Ralf Senderek wrote: If the site is compromised, most bets are off sadly. Yes, for people who look only in one place, the manipulated web server. But that is the reason why the fingerprint has to pop up in different places where it is hard to fake. Even if this one

Re: More prominent link to verification hashes

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 7:42 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > My point was that you can get the signatures off the key from the > keyserver and see if any of them are someone you trust. If not, are > they connected to someone you trust (hey, look, web of trust). I think > expanding the

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

On 22 February 2016 at 17:38, Corey Sheldon wrote: > > Kevin, et al. > > I am willing to help with the re-write but admittedly some of it will require a crash course for me. > > > On 02/22/2016 11:31 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 15:02:45 + > Mat

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

> RWMJ> Is that new? > > Not really. The change relating to what's in the buildroot was made > about nine months ago: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/497 I created my first COPR over this weekend. I worked according to: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package because

Re: openbabel update in rawhide

On Monday, 22 February 2016 at 01:47, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > Hi! > While fixing the FTBFS in openbabel, I rebased it to current git HEAD. > There seem to be some minor ABI changes, as expected with C++ libraries, > so a rebuild of the dependent packages is required. I found the >

Re: More prominent link to verification hashes

Adam Williamson writes: On Sun, 2016-02-21 at 23:08 +0100, Jens Lody wrote: > Am Sun, 21 Feb 2016 21:35:32 + > schrieb Tom Hughes : > > > > > On 21/02/16 21:31, Jens Lody wrote: > > > > > > > > I don't see any hint about verification, if I go to the > > > download-site from

Fedora mass rebuild 2016

In the past few days and weeks we did a mass rebuild of Fedora rawhide packages in mock with GCC 6 (and corresponding libtool) and for those packages that failed also rebuilt the same package with gcc-5.3.1-2.fc23.x86_64 to quickly remove from the list packages that fail for non-GCC related

Re: bash completion dirs

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Thomas Moschny wrote: > However, for the same reasons, shouldn't the filesystem package also > own the "new" /usr/share/bash-completion/completions location? Why not. Note however that if going this route, the dirs

bash completion dirs

Hi, the "old" bash completion dir /etc/bash_completion.d is now owned by the filesystem package, so packages don't need (actually: are forbidden) to own that dir and also don't have to depend on the bash-completion package. This perfectly makes sense. However, for the same reasons, shouldn't the

rawhide report: 20160222 changes

Compose started at Mon Feb 22 05:15:03 UTC 2016 Broken deps for i386 -- [3Depict] 3Depict-0.0.18-3.fc24.i686 requires libmgl.so.7.4.0 [IQmol] IQmol-2.3.0-9.fc24.i686 requires libboost_serialization.so.1.58.0

Minimizing the fedora docker base image footprint

Hi everyone, I've spent some time trying to minimize the footprint of the Fedora docker base image. Overall, I managed to reduce its size by 39.9%. A summary of the work I did can be found here: https://gist.github.com/iamcourtney/1a4af7c4289014f57080 If you're interested, you can find a

Re: Proposal: spins-kickstarts workflow changes

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > Greetings. > > I am sending this to the devel and spins lists. Feel free to forward to > other places people who might be affected by it should see it. > > Some history: > > We setup the spin-kickstart project on fedorahosted

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Fedora support for Vulkan

On Wed, 2016-02-17 at 14:30 -0600, Richard Shaw wrote: > I read the readme in the Vulkan branch on the mesa git but how do you > tell if your chipset is specifically supported? The driver emits a warning chirp if the chipset isn't fully supported, and will refuse to initialize on devices that are

Re: Fedora mass rebuild 2016

I've pretty much addressed all my packages except for cqrlog which I guess wasn't on the list since it will compile with gcc 5. Upstream has stated they will address gcc 6 issues on the next release. My other two packages that I could find in your list, smesh & OCE, have both been addressed and

Re: kmods and Fedora

- Original Message - > Josh Boyer wrote: > > If you are creating a cert to sign the out-of-tree modules and expect > > it to be accepted by the kernel, it cannot be ephemeral. A user would > > need someway to import it into their kernel or have it passed from > > grub. The only way to

Re: Koschei false positives?

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Ralph Bean wrote: > Good idea! Can you open a ticket on the koschei issue tracker about it? > https://github.com/msimacek/koschei/issues Done, and thanks: https://github.com/msimacek/koschei/issues/73 -- devel mailing list

Re: bash completion dirs

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Ondřej Vašík wrote: > Ville Skyttä píše v Po 22. 02. 2016 v 14:12 +0200: >> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Thomas Moschny >> wrote: >> > However, for the same reasons, shouldn't the filesystem package also >> > own

Re: Minimizing the fedora docker base image footprint

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Courtney Pacheco wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I've spent some time trying to minimize the footprint of the Fedora docker > base image. Overall, I managed to reduce its size by 39.9%. Thanks for doing this. It is great to see someone working on

Re: Minimizing the fedora docker base image footprint

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 11:04:40AM -0500, Adam Jackson wrote: > On Mon, 2016-02-22 at 09:54 -0500, Courtney Pacheco wrote: > > > If possible, I'd like some feedback on the work I did. Comments and  > > criticism are more than welcomed! I realize there may be some  > > controversy in terms of what

Re: More prominent link to verification hashes

On Sun, 21 Feb 2016 23:21:58 +0100 Jens Lody wrote: > This can also be done before clicking the link-button, or the download > splash is also shown without javascript. This should not be too hard > to implement. https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-websites awaits your ticket.

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 15:02:45 + Mat Booth wrote: > Wow, that "HOWTO" is a really old page -- not changed since being > imported from the old moin moin wiki. My feeling is that page should > be deleted and the "How to create an RPM package" page should be > updated. > >

Re: Minimizing the fedora docker base image footprint

On 02/22/2016 11:26 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote: Courtney Pacheco (cpach...@redhat.com) said: Hi everyone, I've spent some time trying to minimize the footprint of the Fedora docker base image. Overall, I managed to reduce its size by 39.9%. A summary of the work I did can be found here:

Re: Minimizing the fedora docker base image footprint

Courtney Pacheco (cpach...@redhat.com) said: > Hi everyone, > > I've spent some time trying to minimize the footprint of the Fedora docker > base image. Overall, I managed to reduce its size by 39.9%. > > A summary of the work I did can be found here: >

Re: More prominent link to verification hashes

On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote: > One has to jump into the installation guide, in order to find a buried link > to https://getfedora.org/verify The instructions here have you download a set of PGP keys from the same https webserver which could have

Re: Fedora mass rebuild 2016

On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 12:55:56 +0100, Marek Polacek wrote: > audiofile-0.3.6-9.fc24.src.rpm This one was left-shifting a negative integer and also triggered narrowing-conversion errors. Fixed in Rawhide already. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: kmods and Fedora

Bastien Nocera writes: >> > If you are creating a cert to sign the out-of-tree modules and expect >> > it to be accepted by the kernel, it cannot be ephemeral. A user would >> > need someway to import it into their kernel or have it passed from >> > grub. [...] >> >> That

Re: Minimizing the fedora docker base image footprint

On Mon, 2016-02-22 at 09:54 -0500, Courtney Pacheco wrote: > If possible, I'd like some feedback on the work I did. Comments and  > criticism are more than welcomed! I realize there may be some  > controversy in terms of what I chose to remove and what I chose to turn  > into weak dependencies,

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

On 22 February 2016 at 10:54, Kamil Paral wrote: > > RWMJ> Is that new? > > > > Not really. The change relating to what's in the buildroot was made > > about nine months ago: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/497 > > I created my first COPR over this weekend. I worked

Re: bash completion dirs

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 10:16 AM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: > > On Feb 22, 2016 7:14 AM, "Neal Gompa" wrote: >> >> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Ondřej Vašík wrote: >> > Ville Skyttä píše v Po 22. 02. 2016 v 14:12 +0200: >> >> On Mon, Feb

Re: Fedora mass rebuild 2016

On Mon, 2016-02-22 at 12:55 +0100, Marek Polacek wrote: > blktap-3.0.0-4.fc24.git0.9.2.src.rpm > crda-3.18_2015.10.22-1.fc24.src.rpm > dahdi-tools-2.10.0-6.fc24.src.rpm > gmqcc-0.3.5-8.fc23.src.rpm > gstreamer1-plugins-good-1.7.1-1.fc24.src.rpm > ipv6calc-0.99.1-13.fc24.src.rpm >

Re: Fedora mass rebuild 2016

On 22/02/16 08:35 -0700, Jerry James wrote: polymake-2.14r1-4.fc24.src.rpm.log I already added -std=gnu++98 to this package, but the build still fails. I don't understand the gcc error. GCC appears to be producing non-const temporaries, and then complaining that the temporaries are

Re: bash completion dirs

On Feb 22, 2016 7:14 AM, "Neal Gompa" wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Ondřej Vašík wrote: > > Ville Skyttä píše v Po 22. 02. 2016 v 14:12 +0200: > >> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Thomas Moschny > >> wrote: > >> >

Re: kmods and Fedora

On Feb 22, 2016 6:33 AM, "Bastien Nocera" wrote: > > > > - Original Message - > > Josh Boyer wrote: > > > If you are creating a cert to sign the out-of-tree modules and expect > > > it to be accepted by the kernel, it cannot be ephemeral. A user would > > > need

Re: Fedora mass rebuild 2016

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 08:35:34AM -0700, Jerry James wrote: > I don't think this has been fixed. I updated ntl over the weekend, > and rebuilt Macaulay2 as part of that work. Macaulay2 still failed > with this same error, using gcc-6.0.0-0.11.fc24, so I added a patch to > workaround the issue,

Re: bash completion dirs

Ville Skyttä píše v Po 22. 02. 2016 v 14:12 +0200: > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Thomas Moschny > wrote: > > However, for the same reasons, shouldn't the filesystem package also > > own the "new" /usr/share/bash-completion/completions location? > > Why not. Note

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Fedora support for Vulkan

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 8:52 AM, Adam Jackson wrote: > On Wed, 2016-02-17 at 14:30 -0600, Richard Shaw wrote: > > I read the readme in the Vulkan branch on the mesa git but how do you > > tell if your chipset is specifically supported? > > The driver emits a warning chirp if the

Re: Fedora mass rebuild 2016

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 4:55 AM, Marek Polacek wrote: > Macaulay2-1.6-22.fc24.src.rpm > bogus errors with static data member template > http://gcc.gnu.org/PR69098 > fixed upstream and in gcc-6.0.0-0.11.fc24 I don't think this has been fixed. I updated

Fedora Rawhide 20160222 compose check report

No missing expected images. Images in this compose but not Rawhide 20160221: Cloud_atomic disk raw x86_64 Games live x86_64 Design_suite live x86_64 Games live i386 Kde disk raw armhfp Kde live i386 Scientific_kde live x86_64 Cloud_atomic disk qcow x86_64 Scientific_kde live i386 Design_suite

Re: Large number of packages to be orphaned on Feb 26

2016-02-19 19:09 GMT+01:00 Josh Boyer : [cut] As a heads up to the greater community, the packages are listed below. > In the event that we have to go through with the orphaning, please > review them for packages you may wish to take over as the primary > point of

Re: More prominent link to verification hashes

On 22 February 2016 at 13:00, Ralf Senderek wrote: > >> The Fedora team could get a profile and verify the key(s) through >> github, the Fedora and Red Hat web sites, the Fedora magazine twitter >> account, and by having the Fedora team all sign publicly. > > Every little

Re: More prominent link to verification hashes

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 07:47:51PM +, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 7:42 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > My point was that you can get the signatures off the key from the > > keyserver and see if any of them are someone you trust. If not, are > > they connected

Re: More prominent link to verification hashes

On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 16:48:29 + Gregory Maxwell wrote: > On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Sam Varshavchik > wrote: > > One has to jump into the installation guide, in order to find a > > buried link to https://getfedora.org/verify > > The

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

Kevin, et al. I am willing to help with the re-write but admittedly some of it will require a crash course for me. On 02/22/2016 11:31 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 15:02:45 + > Mat Booth wrote: > >> Wow, that "HOWTO" is a really old page -- not changed

Self Introduction: Paulo Henrique Rodrigues Pinheiro

Hi! My name is Paulo, I am a developer and administrator of Linux systems. Ago many years I worked (for a short time) in a Brazilian Linux distribution (Conectiva Linux), and after that I did not contribute more with open source projects. Finally I found a project that encouraged me, and

Re: More prominent link to verification hashes

Am Mon, 22 Feb 2016 09:29:37 -0700 schrieb Kevin Fenzi : > On Sun, 21 Feb 2016 23:21:58 +0100 > Jens Lody wrote: > > > This can also be done before clicking the link-button, or the > > download splash is also shown without javascript. This should not > > be

Re: Large number of packages to be orphaned on Feb 26

I can take lilypond, linode-cli, jwm, mopac7, and mscore John. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Minimizing the fedora docker base image footprint

On Mon, 2016-02-22 at 11:26 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Courtney Pacheco (cpach...@redhat.com) said:  > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > I've spent some time trying to minimize the footprint of the Fedora > > docker > > base image. Overall, I managed to reduce its size by 39.9%. > > > > A summary

Re: More prominent link to verification hashes

> On Sun, Feb 21, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > The Fedora 24 key inside it is not signed by any other key. ... > Authenticating keys is hard in general; but existing fedora users > should at least be able to trust-on-first-use chain from earlier keys > to later ones-- assuming the fedora keys are

Re: More prominent link to verification hashes

For what it is worth, not signing the key is bug 1043276: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1043276 > Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 19:47:51 + > From: Gregory Maxwell > Subject: Re: More prominent link to verification hashes > To: Development discussions related to

[POC-change] Fedora packages point of contact updates

Change in package status over the last 168 hours 22 packages were orphaned - backintime [el6, epel7] was orphaned by kevin Simple backup tool inspired from the Flyback project and TimeVault

Re: More prominent link to verification hashes

On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 18:21:04 - "Ralf Senderek" wrote: > While signing new keys with old release keys would certainly help to > make the attacker's job harder, it doesn't solve the trust problem. I don't think it even makes their job harder. > The one thing people

Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines

On 22 February 2016 at 16:31, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 15:02:45 + > Mat Booth wrote: > > > Wow, that "HOWTO" is a really old page -- not changed since being > > imported from the old moin moin wiki. My feeling is that page should > >

greenisland license change

Hi, greenisland changed license from 'BSD and LGPLv2.1' to 'LGPLv3 or GPLv2 or GPLv3' Coming to a Fedora near you. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Large number of packages to be orphaned on Feb 26

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 8:15 PM, Fabio Alessandro Locati wrote: > If Christopher will not respond, I can take care of: > snip > - rpms/tiptop -- Performance monitoring tool based on hardware counters Hi Fabio, I'm already a co-maintainer on this one, I can take tiptop.

Re: Large number of packages to be orphaned on Feb 26

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 09:19:50AM +0100, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote: > On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 8:15 PM, Fabio Alessandro Locati > wrote: > > If Christopher will not respond, I can take care of: > > > snip > > - rpms/tiptop -- Performance monitoring tool based on hardware

Re: More prominent link to verification hashes

On Sun, 2016-02-21 at 23:08 +0100, Jens Lody wrote: > Am Sun, 21 Feb 2016 21:35:32 + > schrieb Tom Hughes : > > > > > On 21/02/16 21:31, Jens Lody wrote: > > > > > > > > I don't see any hint about verification, if I go to the > > > download-site from germany: > > > > > >

[Bug 1305186] perl-Business-CreditCard-0.34 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305186 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Business-CreditCard-0.35-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You

[Bug 1306245] perl-Business-CreditCard-0.35 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1306245 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Business-CreditCard-0.35-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You

[Bug 1304913] perl-Lingua-Stem-Ru-0.03 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1304913 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Lingua-Stem-Ru-0.03-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are

pghmcfc pushed to perl-YAML-LibYAML (perl-YAML-LibYAML-0.62-1.fc24). "Update to 0.62 (..more)"

From c0847ec58b84136f59317be2fcd8db476fe229bf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Paul Howarth Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 18:36:54 + Subject: Update to 0.62 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit - New upstream release 0.62 - Fix

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

The following Fedora EPEL 6 Security updates need testing: Age URL 247 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-6828 chicken-4.9.0.1-4.el6 229 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-7031 python-virtualenv-12.0.7-1.el6 223

[Bug 1308272] perl-Text-Levenshtein-Damerau-XS: additional builds

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308272 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Text-Levenshtein-Damerau-XS-3.1-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. --

[Bug 1308272] perl-Text-Levenshtein-Damerau-XS: additional builds

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1308272 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA

pghmcfc uploaded YAML-LibYAML-0.62.tar.gz for perl-YAML-LibYAML

e8e0ba8c9f589c809ee04bb526ae03d7 YAML-LibYAML-0.62.tar.gz http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/lookaside/pkgs/perl-YAML-LibYAML/YAML-LibYAML-0.62.tar.gz/md5/e8e0ba8c9f589c809ee04bb526ae03d7/YAML-LibYAML-0.62.tar.gz -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl

pghmcfc pushed to perl-YAML-LibYAML (master). "Update to 0.62 (..more)"

From c0847ec58b84136f59317be2fcd8db476fe229bf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Paul Howarth Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 18:36:54 + Subject: Update to 0.62 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit - New upstream release 0.62 - Fix

[Bug 1304359] perl-Lingua-Stem-Ru-0.02 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1304359 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Lingua-Stem-Ru-0.03-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are

jplesnik uploaded Pod-Spell-1.19.tar.gz for perl-Pod-Spell

a9d0c4885ff799bfac4ab82f0ed70de8 Pod-Spell-1.19.tar.gz http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/lookaside/pkgs/perl-Pod-Spell/Pod-Spell-1.19.tar.gz/md5/a9d0c4885ff799bfac4ab82f0ed70de8/Pod-Spell-1.19.tar.gz -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel

Re: 2016-02-22 @ 15:00 UTC - Fedora QA Devel Meeting

I too won't be able to attend. 2016-02-22 10:52 GMT+01:00 Kamil Paral : > > # Fedora QA Devel Meeting > > # Date: 2016-02-22 > > # Time: 15:00 UTC > > (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto) > > # Location: #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net > > Sorry, I

[Bug 1310414] perl-podlinkcheck-13 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310414 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In

[Bug 1310365] perl-Pod-Spell-1.19 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310365 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Fixed

jplesnik pushed to perl-Pod-Spell (master). "1.19 bump"

From f204821537e703633df78340c5a4d75175f935a2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jitka Plesnikova Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 12:09:10 +0100 Subject: 1.19 bump --- .gitignore | 1 + perl-Pod-Spell.spec | 13 ++--- sources | 2 +- 3 files changed, 12

[Bug 1310479] perl-MooseX-App-1.34 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310479 --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- perl-MooseX-App-1.34-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-0cdd85b0db -- You are receiving this mail

ppisar pushed to perl-Module-Install (master). "Recommend CPANPLUS instead of hard-requiring it"

From eee63d4f345da4539a1136eda4426e7728b74b9e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =?UTF-8?q?Petr=20P=C3=ADsa=C5=99?= Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 14:08:45 +0100 Subject: Recommend CPANPLUS instead of hard-requiring it --- perl-Module-Install.spec | 12 ++-- 1 file changed, 10

jplesnik pushed to perl-XML-XPath (master). "1.31 bump"

From f02eb71d4777d726fb0050a483c32206701773fd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jitka Plesnikova Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 14:14:57 +0100 Subject: 1.31 bump --- .gitignore | 1 + perl-XML-XPath.spec | 5 - sources | 2 +- 3 files changed, 6 insertions(+),

psabata pushed to perl-DateTime-Format-Strptime (master). "1.64 bump"

From e10d98d64eb50cb83b08deb0f0f55b14a4edb0d7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =?UTF-8?q?Petr=20=C5=A0abata?= Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 14:13:56 +0100 Subject: 1.64 bump --- perl-DateTime-Format-Strptime.spec | 7 +-- sources| 2 +- 2 files changed,

[Bug 1310475] perl-DateTime-Format-Strptime-1.64 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310475 Petr Šabata changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In

[Bug 1310360] perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-2.58 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310360 Petr Šabata changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In

[Bug 1310479] perl-MooseX-App-1.34 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310479 --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- perl-MooseX-App-1.34-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-0cdd85b0db --- Comment #4 from Fedora

psabata uploaded CPAN-Perl-Releases-2.58.tar.gz for perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases

92b48064be4727e40f72be5a7ac0c880 CPAN-Perl-Releases-2.58.tar.gz http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/lookaside/pkgs/perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases/CPAN-Perl-Releases-2.58.tar.gz/md5/92b48064be4727e40f72be5a7ac0c880/CPAN-Perl-Releases-2.58.tar.gz -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG

psabata pushed to perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases (master). "2.58 bump, updated for v5.23.8"

From c9bd08819643a380e16f6dc846399f89d8da3b44 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =?UTF-8?q?Petr=20=C5=A0abata?= Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 14:30:02 +0100 Subject: 2.58 bump, updated for v5.23.8 --- .gitignore | 1 + perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases.spec | 7 +-- sources

[Bug 1310646] perl-XML-XPath-1.31 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310646 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Fixed

psabata pushed to perl-MooseX-App (f22). "- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_24_Mass_Rebuild"

From e9f94ae5d6c13c021ca4939642351802e79a454e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Fedora Release Engineering Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2016 14:46:38 + Subject: - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_24_Mass_Rebuild --- perl-MooseX-App.spec | 5 - 1 file changed,

psabata pushed to perl-MooseX-App (f22). "1.34 bump"

From d5ef0deac03fc4455f59261ba3fcd1a52364a337 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =?UTF-8?q?Petr=20=C5=A0abata?= Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 14:49:53 +0100 Subject: 1.34 bump --- .gitignore | 1 + perl-MooseX-App.spec | 8 ++-- sources | 2 +- 3 files

psabata pushed to perl-MooseX-App (f22). "Perl 5.22 rebuild"

From ccc0c2eeb8d6927eeba51f34e80ced54224642f1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jitka Plesnikova Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 20:22:09 +0200 Subject: Perl 5.22 rebuild --- perl-MooseX-App.spec | 5 - 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git

psabata pushed to perl-MooseX-App (f22). "- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_23_Mass_Rebuild"

From 50574ef712b7357788343b821f337fa191a3e880 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Dennis Gilmore Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 04:39:59 + Subject: - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_23_Mass_Rebuild --- perl-MooseX-App.spec | 5 - 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1

psabata pushed to perl-MooseX-App (f23). "- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_24_Mass_Rebuild"

From e9f94ae5d6c13c021ca4939642351802e79a454e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Fedora Release Engineering Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2016 14:46:38 + Subject: - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_24_Mass_Rebuild --- perl-MooseX-App.spec | 5 - 1 file changed,

[Bug 1310646] New: perl-XML-XPath-1.31 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1310646 Bug ID: 1310646 Summary: perl-XML-XPath-1.31 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: perl-XML-XPath Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged Assignee:

jplesnik uploaded XML-XPath-1.31.tar.gz for perl-XML-XPath

de2afbc69c5baf9c8c3d4b53a51c4863 XML-XPath-1.31.tar.gz http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/lookaside/pkgs/perl-XML-XPath/XML-XPath-1.31.tar.gz/md5/de2afbc69c5baf9c8c3d4b53a51c4863/XML-XPath-1.31.tar.gz -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel

psabata uploaded DateTime-Format-Strptime-1.64.tar.gz for perl-DateTime-Format-Strptime

4599cb0b80e4b3bb2d22848b0e540321 DateTime-Format-Strptime-1.64.tar.gz http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/lookaside/pkgs/perl-DateTime-Format-Strptime/DateTime-Format-Strptime-1.64.tar.gz/md5/4599cb0b80e4b3bb2d22848b0e540321/DateTime-Format-Strptime-1.64.tar.gz -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG

psabata pushed to perl-MooseX-App (master). "1.34 bump"

From d5ef0deac03fc4455f59261ba3fcd1a52364a337 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =?UTF-8?q?Petr=20=C5=A0abata?= Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 14:49:53 +0100 Subject: 1.34 bump --- .gitignore | 1 + perl-MooseX-App.spec | 8 ++-- sources | 2 +- 3 files

psabata uploaded MooseX-App-1.34.tar.gz for perl-MooseX-App

97ac9c24967fefdbd6bf1311574b9301 MooseX-App-1.34.tar.gz http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/lookaside/pkgs/perl-MooseX-App/MooseX-App-1.34.tar.gz/md5/97ac9c24967fefdbd6bf1311574b9301/MooseX-App-1.34.tar.gz -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel

  1   2   >