[389-devel] Build failed in Jenkins: NIGHTLY #87

See -- [...truncated 5271 lines...] :assert: Should return error code 19 """ suffix = DEFAULT_SUFFIX subtree = "ou=people"

Re: Requires for local install

On 09/22/2017 06:47 PM, David Muse wrote: I have a package with many subpackages.  Some of the subpackages depend on libraries provided by other subpackages. When downloading with yum/dnf, the rpm's know what they depend on, and the dnf/yum can figure out what to install to satisfy the

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

The following Fedora EPEL 6 Security updates need testing: Age URL 807 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-7031 python-virtualenv-12.0.7-1.el6 801 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-7168 rubygem-crack-0.3.2-2.el6 691

Requires for local install

Hello list, I have a package with many subpackages. Some of the subpackages depend on libraries provided by other subpackages. When downloading with yum/dnf, the rpm's know what they depend on, and the dnf/yum can figure out what to install to satisfy the dependencies. No problem there.

[Bug 1494774] New: perl-System-Info-0.056 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1494774 Bug ID: 1494774 Summary: perl-System-Info-0.056 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: perl-System-Info Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged Assignee:

Re: How to chainbuild in a build override?

Petr Pisar wrote: > In rawhide, if you want a longer time isolation, you ask relengs for > a sige tag, you do all builds there without affecting others and then > you ask relengs to merge the builds back to rawhide. Of course this has > same races and one needs to reaply all rawhide changes into

Fedora 27 Beta 1.2 compose check report

Missing expected images: Workstation live i386 Server boot i386 Kde live i386 Failed openQA tests: 18/126 (x86_64), 1/18 (i386), 1/2 (arm) ID: 146228 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_role_deploy_domain_controller URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/146228 ID: 146234 Test:

Fedora Rawhide-20170922.n.0 compose check report

Missing expected images: Server dvd i386 Workstation live i386 Server boot i386 Kde live i386 Failed openQA tests: 17/128 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm) New failures (same test did not fail in Rawhide-20170921.n.1): ID: 145838 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_notifications_postinstall URL:

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

The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing: Age URL 929 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-1087 dokuwiki-0-0.24.20140929c.el7 691 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-dac7ed832f mcollective-2.8.4-1.el7 273

Fedora 27-20170922.n.0 compose check report

Missing expected images: Workstation live i386 Server boot i386 Kde live i386 Passed openQA tests: 2/128 (x86_64) Installed system changes in test x86_64 Atomic-dvd_ostree-iso install_default: System load changed from 0.05 to 0.33 Previous test data:

Re: Kernel 4.13 rebase plans

For what it's worth: I just installed the 4.13.2 kernel from the kernel-stabilization repo, and the nvidia akmod module (from negativo17 repo) failed to build (as expected). But after rebooting with the new kernel, the system uses the fallback to nouveau correctly - without any manual

Re: Kernel 4.13 rebase plans

On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 7:46 PM, wrote: > Oh boy. :) > > Does anyone know if the fallback is working properly? Because if so, then > everyone is happy and we don't need to be having this discussion. Sounds > like there's a good chance that's the case. (I don't have an

[Test-Announce] Fedora 27 Candidate Beta-1.2 Available Now!

According to the schedule [1], Fedora 27 Candidate Beta-1.2 is now available for testing. Please help us complete all the validation testing! For more information on release validation testing, see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Release_validation_test_plan Test coverage information for the

Re: Kernel 4.13 rebase plans

2017-09-22 20:46 GMT+02:00 : > Oh boy. :) > > Does anyone know if the fallback is working properly? Because if so, then Just restoring the fact here, because despite the fallback idea is hans/WG the implementation is "RPM Fusion Community" original works. (1) So yet as soon

Re: Kernel 4.13 rebase plans

On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 3:25 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Chris Adams wrote: >> >> On what grounds? There is nothing in the Fedora guidelines that makes >> package maintainers beholden to third-party (by definition,

Re: Kernel 4.13 rebase plans

Once upon a time, Michael Catanzaro said: > OK, I'll bite. The grounds are that FESCo has granted the WG full > control over the Workstation product Where is it documented that "full control" includes non-Fedora content? I would have assumed (unless otherwise stated)

Re: Kernel 4.13 rebase plans

On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Chris Adams wrote: On what grounds? There is nothing in the Fedora guidelines that makes package maintainers beholden to third-party (by definition, not part of Fedora) repos. There's nothing for FESCo to vote on, unless you are going to

Re: Kernel 4.13 rebase plans

Once upon a time, mcatanz...@gnome.org said: > If the fallback is not working, then FESCo will probably need to > decide indeed. On what grounds? There is nothing in the Fedora guidelines that makes package maintainers beholden to third-party (by definition, not part of

Re: Kernel 4.13 rebase plans

Oh boy. :) Does anyone know if the fallback is working properly? Because if so, then everyone is happy and we don't need to be having this discussion. Sounds like there's a good chance that's the case. (I don't have an nvidia card to test myself.) If the fallback is not working, then FESCo

Re: Kernel 4.13 rebase plans

On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 2:20 PM, Laura Abbott wrote: > On 09/22/2017 09:43 AM, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote: >> >> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 8:41 AM, James Hogarth >> wrote: >>> >>> Pretty sure the last testing I did with the details form Hans's blog[0]

Re: Kernel 4.13 rebase plans

On 09/22/2017 09:43 AM, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote: On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 8:41 AM, James Hogarth wrote: Pretty sure the last testing I did with the details form Hans's blog[0] the behaviour was that if the nvidia driver failed then the nouveau driver was a fallback

[389-devel] [lib389] Issue #98: Improve dbscan output

https://pagure.io/lib389/issue/98 https://pagure.io/lib389/issue/raw/files/bd77cfa7416a20e48ce1e1e62c163f229e06c879c58654dc8abd11b76a60530b-0001-fix-dbscan-out.patch ___ 389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an

Re: Kernel 4.13 rebase plans

On 12/09/17 02:47 PM, Laura Abbott wrote: > On 09/05/2017 09:41 AM, Laura Abbott wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Kernel 4.13 was released this past weekend. This kernel has been >> built for rawhide and is building for F27 as well. We will be >> following the same upgrade procedure as in the past. F25 and F26

[Bug 1494301] perl-Test-Moose-More-0.050 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1494301 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA

[Bug 1494297] perl-libwww-perl-6.27 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1494297 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA

Re: Kernel 4.13 rebase plans

Once upon a time, mcatanz...@gnome.org said: > But if Negativo users start complaining that their computers don't > boot anymore, then we'll definitely need to stop doing major kernel > updates ("taking the entire distro hostage" I guess) as the Negativo > support is

Re: Kernel 4.13 rebase plans

On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 1:06 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On 22 September 2017 at 12:43, wrote: >> But if Negativo users start complaining that their computers don't boot >> anymore, then we'll definitely need to stop doing major kernel updates >>

Re: Kernel 4.13 rebase plans

On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 11:43:21AM -0500, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote: > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 8:41 AM, James Hogarth > wrote: > > Pretty sure the last testing I did with the details form Hans's blog[0] > > the behaviour was that if the nvidia driver failed then the

Re: Kernel 4.13 rebase plans

On 22 September 2017 at 12:43, wrote: > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 8:41 AM, James Hogarth > wrote: >> >> Pretty sure the last testing I did with the details form Hans's blog[0] >> the behaviour was that if the nvidia driver failed then the nouveau

Re: Kernel 4.13 rebase plans

On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 8:41 AM, James Hogarth wrote: Pretty sure the last testing I did with the details form Hans's blog[0] the behaviour was that if the nvidia driver failed then the nouveau driver was a fallback (rather than the older instructions that totally

[Bug 1492093] CVE-2017-12883 perl: Buffer over-read in regular expression parser

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1492093 Cedric Buissart changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard|impact=moderate,public=2017

[Bug 1492093] CVE-2017-12883 perl: Buffer over-read in regular expression parser

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1492093 Cedric Buissart changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard|impact=moderate,public=2017

Re: Kernel 4.13 rebase plans

On 22 September 2017 at 15:02, James Hogarth wrote: > > > On 22 September 2017 at 14:50, Gary Gatling wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 9:41 AM, James Hogarth >> wrote: >> >>> >>> Pretty sure the last testing I

[EPEL-devel] Re: EOL for EPEL

On 22 September 2017 at 15:21, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On 22 September 2017 at 07:28, Somers-Harris, David | David | OPS > wrote: > > Hello, > > > > > > > > It is my understanding that the EOL for each EPEL is in line with RHEL. > > > > >

[Bug 1492093] CVE-2017-12883 perl: Buffer over-read in regular expression parser

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1492093 --- Doc Text *updated* by Cedric Buissart --- A heap buffer overread was found in perl's grok_bslash_N() function, which is used in the compilation of Unicode nodes in regular expressions, possibly leading to crash or

[Bug 1492093] CVE-2017-12883 perl: Buffer over-read in regular expression parser

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1492093 --- Doc Text *updated* by Cedric Buissart --- A heap buffer overread was found in perl's grok_bslash_N() function, which is used in the compilation of Unicode nodes in regular expressions, possibly leading to crash or

[389-devel] [lib389] Issue #98: Improve dbscan output

https://pagure.io/lib389/issue/98 https://pagure.io/lib389/issue/raw/files/b8852d368512f2bf5fcfb5912802bf8d18d2496e046bd12d29931495d9c69272-0001-fix-dbscan-out.patch ___ 389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an

[Bug 1492093] CVE-2017-12883 perl: Buffer over-read in regular expression parser

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1492093 Cedric Buissart changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|low |medium Fixed

[EPEL-devel] Re: EOL for EPEL

On 22 September 2017 at 07:28, Somers-Harris, David | David | OPS wrote: > Hello, > > > > It is my understanding that the EOL for each EPEL is in line with RHEL. > > 1. The EOL of any EPEL repository is the "public" lifetime of an upstream Red Hat Enterprise

Re: Kernel 4.13 rebase plans

On 22 September 2017 at 14:50, Gary Gatling wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 9:41 AM, James Hogarth > wrote: > >> >>> >> Pretty sure the last testing I did with the details form Hans's blog[0] >> the behaviour was that if the nvidia driver failed

Re: Kernel 4.13 rebase plans

On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 9:41 AM, James Hogarth wrote: > >> > Pretty sure the last testing I did with the details form Hans's blog[0] > the behaviour was that if the nvidia driver failed then the nouveau driver > was a fallback (rather than the older instructions that

Re: Kernel 4.13 rebase plans

On 22 September 2017 at 14:34, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 09:22:08AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > repo is supported and it needs to not break. We've been super super > lenient > > > > That's a completely untenable position. There is only one

Re: Kernel 4.13 rebase plans

On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 09:22:08AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > > repo is supported and it needs to not break. We've been super super lenient > > That's a completely untenable position. There is only one kernel for > all the Editions. There will be times where the kernel needs to be > updated to

Re: Kernel 4.13 rebase plans

On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 9:05 AM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 6:54 AM, Josh Boyer > wrote: >> >> Absolutely not. >> >> josh > > > If it breaks the Negativo repo, then yes it is. The Nvidia driver from that No, it's

Re: Kernel 4.13 rebase plans

On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 6:54 AM, Josh Boyer wrote: Absolutely not. josh If it breaks the Negativo repo, then yes it is. The Nvidia driver from that repo is supported and it needs to not break. We've been super super lenient with allowing kernel updates in the

[HEADS UP] Removing unnecessary dac_override capability in SELinux modules

Hi Everybody, I'll push builds with updated SELinux security policy into Rawhide soon, this build will remove unnecessary dac_override capability in domains where it's not needed. Because of this change, we're able to remove a lot of unnecessary rules allowing dac_override, which means

Re: How to chainbuild in a build override?

On 09/22/2017 01:07 PM, Petr Pisar wrote: On 2017-09-22, Ralf Corsepius wrote: How to build a sub tree of packages in fc27, when the root of this tree changed SONAME? In rawhide, if you want a longer time isolation, you ask relengs for a sige tag, you do all builds there

Re: Kernel 4.13 rebase plans

On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 4:42 AM, James Hogarth wrote: > > > On 15 September 2017 at 11:00, James Hogarth > wrote: >> >> >> >> On 13 September 2017 at 01:39, James Hogarth >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 12 Sep 2017 10:49

Broken perl-libwww-perl-6.27-1.fc28

I accidentally build perl-libwww-perl-6.27-1.fc28 that cannot be installed because of broken dependencies. There is already perl-libwww-perl-6.27-2.fc28 that fixes, but it still has not yet get into f28-build target. Hopefully next compose will resolve it because it looks like after introducing

[EPEL-devel] EOL for EPEL

Hello, It is my understanding that the EOL for each EPEL is in line with RHEL. For example, RHEL 6 EOL is 2020-11-30 so EPEL-6 EOL is also 2020-11-30. However, I can’t find this clearly documented anywhere. I found historical information which backs up my understanding, for example for EPEL-5:

Re: How to chainbuild in a build override?

On 2017-09-22, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > How to build a sub tree of packages in fc27, when the root of this tree > changed SONAME? > In rawhide, if you want a longer time isolation, you ask relengs for a sige tag, you do all builds there without affecting others and then you

[389-devel] [lib389] Issue #98: Improve dbscan output

https://pagure.io/lib389/issue/98 https://pagure.io/lib389/issue/raw/files/8e0ef32b53c7cb775d1a663a7c6e8669c908c296cbf8489680d64acf7d66f435-0001-fix-dbscan-out.patch ___ 389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an

[Bug 1494297] perl-libwww-perl-6.27 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1494297 --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- perl-libwww-perl-6.27-2.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-124d8d9481 -- You are receiving this mail

ppisar pushed to perl-libwww-perl (f27). "Provide hidden modules"

From 5f0972df100b38531969bf7902755c1e5a154075 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Petr Písař Date: Sep 22 2017 10:05:30 + Subject: Provide hidden modules --- diff --git a/perl-libwww-perl.spec b/perl-libwww-perl.spec index c54cc13..14741dd 100644 --- a/perl-libwww-perl.spec

ppisar pushed to perl-libwww-perl (master). "Provide hidden modules"

From 5f0972df100b38531969bf7902755c1e5a154075 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Petr Písař Date: Sep 22 2017 10:05:30 + Subject: Provide hidden modules --- diff --git a/perl-libwww-perl.spec b/perl-libwww-perl.spec index c54cc13..14741dd 100644 --- a/perl-libwww-perl.spec

[Bug 1494297] perl-libwww-perl-6.27 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1494297 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|perl-libwww-perl-6.27-1.fc2

[Bug 1494300] perl-Verilog-Perl-3.444 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1494300 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In

ppisar pushed to perl-Verilog-Perl (master). "3.444 bump"

From 39ae70b9d484026f16b33ab3b985cf9917635f46 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Petr Písař Date: Sep 22 2017 08:44:25 + Subject: 3.444 bump --- diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore index 198d7a7..2cf50db 100644 --- a/.gitignore +++ b/.gitignore @@ -17,3 +17,4 @@

ppisar uploaded Verilog-Perl-3.444.tar.gz for perl-Verilog-Perl

e3eeb0db2849f00c4621e083ae01b15f1224c31542f65453d273eb19ccf45c049cd81f2891a7cf67a568fd5cb03bb4d66d992842a69fe5dc68f188b94f2df5bc Verilog-Perl-3.444.tar.gz

Re: Kernel 4.13 rebase plans

On 15 September 2017 at 11:00, James Hogarth wrote: > > > On 13 September 2017 at 01:39, James Hogarth > wrote: > >> >> >> On 12 Sep 2017 10:49 pm, "Laura Abbott" wrote: >> >> On 09/05/2017 09:41 AM, Laura Abbott wrote: >>

[Bug 1494300] perl-Verilog-Perl-3.444 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1494300 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug 1494301] perl-Test-Moose-More-0.050 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1494301 --- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Test-Moose-More-0.050-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-7ee35d9cdd -- You are receiving this

dist.rpmdeplint FAILED for perl-libwww-perl-6.27-1.fc27

dist.rpmdeplint FAILED for perl-libwww-perl-6.27-1.fc27 https://taskotron.fedoraproject.org/artifacts/all/6f37c45a-9f70-11e7-86a7-525400817a8f/task_output/perl-libwww-perl-6.27-1.fc27.x86_64.log ___ perl-devel mailing list --

ppisar pushed to perl-Test-Moose-More (f27). "0.050 bump"

From bbcfd47132a87862e25f3117f993ad38bc96ba70 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Petr Písař Date: Sep 22 2017 08:26:01 + Subject: 0.050 bump --- diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore index 548ab4e..c14eb67 100644 --- a/.gitignore +++ b/.gitignore @@ -31,3 +31,4 @@

ppisar uploaded Test-Moose-More-0.050.tar.gz for perl-Test-Moose-More

03c3d71cbe903b7b7e74b6aa44950f6b3fb21f83d7f787d101bb53f2c245b41f9722300124c5bd98f9a32f455f014b34c89fda5394145aa08933099715374801 Test-Moose-More-0.050.tar.gz

ppisar pushed to perl-Test-Moose-More (master). "0.050 bump"

From bbcfd47132a87862e25f3117f993ad38bc96ba70 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Petr Písař Date: Sep 22 2017 08:26:01 + Subject: 0.050 bump --- diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore index 548ab4e..c14eb67 100644 --- a/.gitignore +++ b/.gitignore @@ -31,3 +31,4 @@

[Bug 1494301] perl-Test-Moose-More-0.050 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1494301 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED Fixed In

[Bug 1494297] perl-libwww-perl-6.27 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1494297 --- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System --- perl-libwww-perl-6.27-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-124d8d9481 -- You are receiving this mail

[Bug 1486717] abi-compliance-checker-2.2 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1486717 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|abi-compliance-checker-2.2-

ppisar pushed to perl-libwww-perl (f27). "6.27 bump"

From 81e677c73fc8acf8aaefbed302272100e33996bb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Petr Písař Date: Sep 22 2017 08:09:43 + Subject: 6.27 bump --- diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore index b1a36b1..a0ffa26 100644 --- a/.gitignore +++ b/.gitignore @@ -20,3 +20,4 @@

ppisar pushed to perl-libwww-perl (master). "6.27 bump"

From 81e677c73fc8acf8aaefbed302272100e33996bb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Petr Písař Date: Sep 22 2017 08:09:43 + Subject: 6.27 bump --- diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore index b1a36b1..a0ffa26 100644 --- a/.gitignore +++ b/.gitignore @@ -20,3 +20,4 @@

[Bug 1494297] perl-libwww-perl-6.27 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1494297 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED Fixed In

ppisar uploaded libwww-perl-6.27.tar.gz for perl-libwww-perl

ceb7df71ef2773752dfa8a46f6e48cfbe7501f543d53ddaf50ee97da2cb21025be4bb32bee62d6f6fa837a7b0726718b3b8470de0b8a9d789e40c16a42b894e7 libwww-perl-6.27.tar.gz

Re: How to chainbuild in a build override?

On 22/09/17 08:50, Ralf Corsepius wrote: How to build a sub tree of packages in fc27, when the root of this tree changed SONAME? Well it's painful - you have to build each one then add an override for it and wait for that to appear and then move on to the next one etc... Tom -- Tom Hughes

Re: How to chainbuild in a build override?

On 09/22/2017 09:32 AM, Tom Hughes wrote: On 22/09/17 08:03, Ralf Corsepius wrote: I am trying to build a chain of packages in a build override? I.e. a series of packages: A->B->C I set up a build override for A, and B built successfully. Now, I would have expect building C to pickup B from

Re: How to chainbuild in a build override?

On 22/09/17 08:03, Ralf Corsepius wrote: I am trying to build a chain of packages in a build override? I.e. a series of packages: A->B->C I set up a build override for A, and B built successfully. Now, I would have expect building C to pickup B from the A-override. You seem to be confused

[Bug 1493804] perl-Module-CoreList-5.20170920 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1493804 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Module-CoreList-5.20170920-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See

[Bug 1493797] perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-3.36 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1493797 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-3.36-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See

Re: State of Sparkeshare in Fedora

On 22 Sep 2017 4:46 am, "Luya Tshimbalanga" wrote: On 21/09/17 08:02 AM, James Hogarth wrote: On 21 September 2017 at 07:17, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: > Sparkleshare package is currently behind upstream which just reach > 2.0[1][2] > The

How to chainbuild in a build override?

Hi, I am trying to build a chain of packages in a build override? I.e. a series of packages: A->B->C I set up a build override for A, and B built successfully. Now, I would have expect building C to pickup B from the A-override. This does not seem to apply. C fails to build, apparently

ignatenkobrain pushed to perl-Alien-pkgconf (master). "Rebuild against pkgconf-1.3.9 (..more)"

From 861b88c67721937db1d0a2189320acd6a7c49935 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Igor Gnatenko Date: Sep 22 2017 06:37:18 + Subject: Rebuild against pkgconf-1.3.9 Signed-off-by: Igor Gnatenko --- diff --git

ignatenkobrain pushed to perl-Alien-pkgconf (f27). "Rebuild against pkgconf-1.3.9 (..more)"

From 861b88c67721937db1d0a2189320acd6a7c49935 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Igor Gnatenko Date: Sep 22 2017 06:37:18 + Subject: Rebuild against pkgconf-1.3.9 Signed-off-by: Igor Gnatenko --- diff --git