[Bug 1568433] perl-Config-Model-2.120-1.fc29 FTBFS: tests fail with Config-Model-Tester-3.006

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1568433 Emmanuel Seyman changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED

Re: Intel's Clear Linux optimizations

Would it be possible to mirror the Clear Linux kernel in copr or a third-party dnf repo? That would allow Fedora to keep it's general purpose kernel but then allow performance hounds to install the Clear Linux kernel. There is something similar already for people who want to use upstream

[Bug 1578364] abi-compliance-checker-2.3 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1578364 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- abi-compliance-checker-2.3-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See

[Bug 1575520] abi-compliance-checker doesn't work under F28

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1575520 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System --- abi-compliance-checker-2.3-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See

[Bug 1576567] abi-compliance-checker: misses find dependency

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1576567 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- abi-compliance-checker-2.3-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See

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

The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing: Age URL 38 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-2c81054303 remctl-3.14-1.el7 13 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-996cb2153b quassel-0.12.5-1.el7 13

[Bug 1578364] abi-compliance-checker-2.3 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1578364 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- abi-compliance-checker-2.3-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See

[Bug 1575520] abi-compliance-checker doesn't work under F28

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1575520 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System --- abi-compliance-checker-2.3-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See

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

The following Fedora EPEL 6 Security updates need testing: Age URL 38 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-5aca1d385d remctl-3.14-1.el6 35 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-dd6e4a3f0b python34-3.4.8-1.el6 10

[Bug 1576567] abi-compliance-checker: misses find dependency

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1576567 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- abi-compliance-checker-2.3-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See

[Bug 1576567] abi-compliance-checker: misses find dependency

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1576567 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA

[Bug 1575520] abi-compliance-checker doesn't work under F28

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1575520 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA

[Bug 1578364] abi-compliance-checker-2.3 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1578364 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA

[EPEL-devel] Re: Blue Sky Discussion: EPEL-next or EPIC

On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 9:12 PM Jim Perrin wrote: > I *think* the version of rpm has been bumped enough as of EL 7.5 to > support the tooling needed for modules. This would clearly need to be > verified, but if this is the case then modern version of dnf may be all > that's

[EPEL-devel] Re: Blue Sky Discussion: EPEL-next or EPIC

On 05/15/2018 12:06 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > Modules > > EPIC-6 > >Because EL-6’s tooling is locked at this point, it does not make >sense to investigate modules. > > EPIC-7 > >Currently EL-7 does not support Fedora modules and would require >updates to

[Bug 1578594] New: perl-BSON-v1.6.0 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1578594 Bug ID: 1578594 Summary: perl-BSON-v1.6.0 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: perl-BSON Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged Assignee: ppi...@redhat.com

May 2018 Elections: Nomination & Campaign period is open

Today we are starting the Nomination & Campaign period during which we accept nominations to the "steering bodies" of the following teams: * FESCo (Engineering) (4 seats) [1] * Fedora Council (1 seat) [2] * Mindshare (1 seat) [3] This period is open until 2018-May-22 at 23:59:59 UTC. The

May 2018 Elections: Nomination & Campaign period is open

Today we are starting the Nomination & Campaign period during which we accept nominations to the "steering bodies" of the following teams: * FESCo (Engineering) (4 seats) [1] * Fedora Council (1 seat) [2] * Mindshare (1 seat) [3] This period is open until 2018-May-22 at 23:59:59 UTC. The

[Bug 1578182] perl-SOAP-Lite-1.27 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1578182 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA

Re: marking all Python2 packages in Fedora rawhide as obsolete

On 15.5.2018 14:17, Matej Habrnal wrote:> Seems, there will be more such packages. Do you plan some massive marking of Python2 packages as obsolete in Rawhide? No. My plan was to make python3-foo obsolete python2-foo on python2-foo removal, but other FPC members are against that plan. See

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

The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing: Age URL 37 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-2c81054303 remctl-3.14-1.el7 13 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-996cb2153b quassel-0.12.5-1.el7 13

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

The following Fedora EPEL 6 Security updates need testing: Age URL 37 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-5aca1d385d remctl-3.14-1.el6 35 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-dd6e4a3f0b python34-3.4.8-1.el6 9

[Bug 1569985] perl-DBIx-RunSQL-0.19 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1569985 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA

Re: Fedora Media Writer for macOS, is not signed?

We know about the issue and hoping to fix it soon. On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 4:50 AM Jiri Eischmann wrote: > Chris Murphy píše v Pá 11. 05. 2018 v 16:42 -0600: > > Hi, > > > > The Fedora Media Writer for macOS at getfedora.org is not signed. I > > filed this bug a couple

Fedora Rawhide-20180515.n.2 compose check report

No missing expected images. Failed openQA tests: 23/137 (x86_64), 8/24 (i386), 1/2 (arm) New failures (same test did not fail in Rawhide-20180513.n.1): ID: 237471 Test: x86_64 Server-boot-iso install_default@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/237471 ID: 237492 Test:

[EPEL-devel] Blue Sky Discussion: EPEL-next or EPIC

EPIC Planning Document __ History / Background Since 2007, Fedora Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux (EPEL) has been rebuilding Fedora Project Linux packages for Red Hat Enterprise Linux

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

Dear all, You are kindly invited to the meeting: EPEL Steering Committee on 2018-05-16 from 18:00:00 to 19:00:00 GMT At fedora-meet...@irc.freenode.net The meeting will be about: The EPEL Steering Committee will have a weekly meeting to cover current tasks and problems needed to keep EPEL

Re: F29 System Wide Change: Let's Label Our Variants!

On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 01:15:53PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > That's different from counting "we have 87 Fedora Server installs!" based > on variant though. I'm simply suggesting that in our statistics gathering, > we take any measurement there with a grain of salt. With a mutable package > set

Re: F29 System Wide Change: Let's Label Our Variants!

On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 12:49:44PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > The fedora-release-$VARIANT subpackage also provides a set of Requires: > that indicates a minimum set of packages that must be on the system for it > to still call itself "Server Edition". (For example, if you tried to remove >

Re: F29 System Wide Change: Let's Label Our Variants!

On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 12:50 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 12:29 PM Josh Boyer wrote: >> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 12:21 PM Jan Kurik wrote: >> > = Proposed System Wide Change: Let's Label Our

Fop fonts issue in a freshly updated Fedora 28+

Hello All! Just got a strange issue while generating doc-files from sources with fop: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/763/26980763/build.log Exception in thread "main" java.lang.NoSuchMethodError: org.apache.fontbox.cff.CFFFont.getProperty(Ljava/lang/String;)Ljava/lang/Object; at

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20180515.n.2 changes

___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: F29 System Wide Change: Let's Label Our Variants!

On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 12:29 PM Josh Boyer wrote: > On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 12:21 PM Jan Kurik wrote: > > > = Proposed System Wide Change: Let's Label Our Variants! = > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Label_Our_Variants > > > > Owner(s): >

[Bug 1578364] abi-compliance-checker-2.3 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1578364 --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- abi-compliance-checker-2.3-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-21e393fe5c -- You are receiving this

[Bug 1575520] abi-compliance-checker doesn't work under F28

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1575520 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System --- abi-compliance-checker-2.3-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-21e393fe5c -- You are receiving

[Bug 1576567] abi-compliance-checker: misses find dependency

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1576567 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- abi-compliance-checker-2.3-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-21e393fe5c -- You are receiving this

[Bug 1576567] abi-compliance-checker: misses find dependency

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1576567 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- abi-compliance-checker-2.3-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-b68f0ba2c0 -- You are

[Bug 1578364] abi-compliance-checker-2.3 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1578364 --- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System --- abi-compliance-checker-2.3-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-b68f0ba2c0 -- You are

[Bug 1575520] abi-compliance-checker doesn't work under F28

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1575520 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System --- abi-compliance-checker-2.3-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-b68f0ba2c0 -- You are

[Bug 1576567] abi-compliance-checker: misses find dependency

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1576567 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- abi-compliance-checker-2.3-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-f38c8d8188 -- You are receiving this

[Bug 1575520] abi-compliance-checker doesn't work under F28

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1575520 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System --- abi-compliance-checker-2.3-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-f38c8d8188 -- You are receiving

[Bug 1578364] abi-compliance-checker-2.3 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1578364 --- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System --- abi-compliance-checker-2.3-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-f38c8d8188 -- You are receiving this

Re: F29 System Wide Change: Let's Label Our Variants!

On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 12:21 PM Jan Kurik wrote: > = Proposed System Wide Change: Let's Label Our Variants! = > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Label_Our_Variants > Owner(s): >* Matthew Miller >* Mohan Boddu > Start using the VARIANT and VARIANT_ID fields

F29 System Wide Change: Let's Label Our Variants!

= Proposed System Wide Change: Let's Label Our Variants! = https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Label_Our_Variants Owner(s): * Matthew Miller * Mohan Boddu Start using the VARIANT and VARIANT_ID fields in /etc/os-release for Spins, Labs and the base container image rather than just the

F29 System Wide Change: Let's Label Our Variants!

= Proposed System Wide Change: Let's Label Our Variants! = https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Label_Our_Variants Owner(s): * Matthew Miller * Mohan Boddu Start using the VARIANT and VARIANT_ID fields in /etc/os-release for Spins, Labs and the base container image rather than just the

Re: /etc/profile.d/lang.sh -- still needed?

On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 3:46 PM, R P Herrold wrote: > If you wish to 'clean out' initscripts, migrate the content > into the relevant bash, and tcsh packages, and be done with it > ​Yeah, you're right. Good point.​ Though I would prefer these scripts be moved into 'setup'

Re: /etc/profile.d/lang.sh -- still needed?

On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 3:30 PM, Akira TAGOH wrote: > how/what does those scripts "block"? > ​Right now, it depends on the "/usr/sbin/consoletype​", which is also part of initscripts. I hope it will be possible to just switch it to "tty" utility instead, so the dependency on

Re: [fedora-arm] armhfp builder instability

On 05/15/2018 01:34 PM, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote: On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 1:06 PM, Peter Robinson wrote: On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 12:02 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: Lately, I've seen quite a few spurious build failures. Random SIGBUS is particularly

[rpms/abi-compliance-checker] New Commits To "rpms/abi-compliance-checker" (epel7)

The following commits were pushed to the repo rpms/abi-compliance-checker on branch epel7, which you are following: 55ece21e412e7cbf98f406466be9c38eea1ffc20Richard ShawUpdate %%files for changes in doc names. To view more about the commits, visit:

[rpms/abi-compliance-checker] New Commits To "rpms/abi-compliance-checker" (f27)

The following commits were pushed to the repo rpms/abi-compliance-checker on branch f27, which you are following: 55ece21e412e7cbf98f406466be9c38eea1ffc20Richard ShawUpdate %%files for changes in doc names. 7e4baacaeedfa1afee0766c11c9d84f4b4245567Richard ShawRemove gcc8 patch

[rpms/abi-compliance-checker] New Commits To "rpms/abi-compliance-checker" (f28)

The following commits were pushed to the repo rpms/abi-compliance-checker on branch f28, which you are following: 55ece21e412e7cbf98f406466be9c38eea1ffc20Richard ShawUpdate %%files for changes in doc names. 7e4baacaeedfa1afee0766c11c9d84f4b4245567Richard ShawRemove gcc8 patch

[rpms/abi-compliance-checker] New Commits To "rpms/abi-compliance-checker" (master)

The following commits were pushed to the repo rpms/abi-compliance-checker on branch master, which you are following: 55ece21e412e7cbf98f406466be9c38eea1ffc20Richard ShawUpdate %%files for changes in doc names. To view more about the commits, visit:

[Bug 1578368] perl-ExtUtils-Manifest-1.71 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1578368 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED

[rpms/perl-ExtUtils-Manifest] New Commits To "rpms/perl-ExtUtils-Manifest" (master)

The following commits were pushed to the repo rpms/perl-ExtUtils-Manifest on branch master, which you are following: acb7852a7f291056247b189b1e70c0eb04b364bcJitka Plesnikova1.71 bump; Modernize spec file To view more about the commits, visit:

[Bug 1577939] Upgrade perl-Net-OpenSSH to 0.78

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1577939 Steve Traylen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED

[rpms/perl-Net-OpenSSH] New Commits To "rpms/perl-Net-OpenSSH" (master)

The following commits were pushed to the repo rpms/perl-Net-OpenSSH on branch master, which you are following: d13e7ad1362b11f4c7cc320d7301f556ba597aa6Steve Traylen0.78 update To view more about the commits, visit: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Net-OpenSSH/commits/master

Re: /etc/profile.d/lang.sh -- still needed?

On Tue, 15 May 2018, David Kaspar [Dee'Kej] wrote: > It could at least tell us the current state of things, and maybe create a > plan on how to fix things, so they could be eventually removed at some > point. > > In any case I would like to find a new home for these scripts, so they > don't

Re: /etc/profile.d/lang.sh -- still needed?

On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 8:39 PM, David Kaspar [Dee'Kej] wrote: > I still get the feeling like we are not totally sure these scripts are still > needed nowadays. We definitely need it as long as we are relying on the environment variable to set a locale. particularly to

[rpms/perl-HTTP-Daemon] New Commits To "rpms/perl-HTTP-Daemon" (f28)

The following commits were pushed to the repo rpms/perl-HTTP-Daemon on branch f28, which you are following: d592f9a5e0f014aa97a531e6a78b6f770f4f40cdJitka PlesnikovaCall sockhostname method on correct class object (bug #1578026) To view more about the commits, visit:

[rpms/perl-HTTP-Daemon] New Commits To "rpms/perl-HTTP-Daemon" (master)

The following commits were pushed to the repo rpms/perl-HTTP-Daemon on branch master, which you are following: d592f9a5e0f014aa97a531e6a78b6f770f4f40cdJitka PlesnikovaCall sockhostname method on correct class object (bug #1578026) To view more about the commits, visit:

[rpms/abi-compliance-checker] New Commits To "rpms/abi-compliance-checker" (master)

The following commits were pushed to the repo rpms/abi-compliance-checker on branch master, which you are following: 7e4baacaeedfa1afee0766c11c9d84f4b4245567Richard ShawRemove gcc8 patch as it is no longer needed. 4fd72b1b1c8fc6f0c5013f3fd5329843feb6b440Richard ShawRemove gcc8

[rpms/abi-compliance-checker] New Commits To "rpms/abi-compliance-checker" (epel7)

The following commits were pushed to the repo rpms/abi-compliance-checker on branch epel7, which you are following: 7e4baacaeedfa1afee0766c11c9d84f4b4245567Richard ShawRemove gcc8 patch as it is no longer needed. To view more about the commits, visit:

[rpms/abi-compliance-checker] New Commits To "rpms/abi-compliance-checker" (epel7)

The following commits were pushed to the repo rpms/abi-compliance-checker on branch epel7, which you are following: 4fd72b1b1c8fc6f0c5013f3fd5329843feb6b440Richard ShawRemove gcc8 patch as it is no longer needed. To view more about the commits, visit:

[rpms/abi-compliance-checker] New Commits To "rpms/abi-compliance-checker" (epel7)

The following commits were pushed to the repo rpms/abi-compliance-checker on branch epel7, which you are following: 57e62cc83251216778a9d44d24df414eb2f509aeRichard ShawUpdate to 2.3. To view more about the commits, visit:

marking all Python2 packages in Fedora rawhide as obsolete

Hi, today, I've received this bugzilla [1] which basically says, ABRT breaks Fedora upgrade because there are no longer builds of ABRT's Python2 packages in Rawhide. Seems, there will be more such packages. Do you plan some massive marking of Python2 packages as obsolete in Rawhide? Matej [1]

[Bug 1578368] New: perl-ExtUtils-Manifest-1.71 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1578368 Bug ID: 1578368 Summary: perl-ExtUtils-Manifest-1.71 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: perl-ExtUtils-Manifest Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged

[Bug 1578364] New: abi-compliance-checker-2.3 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1578364 Bug ID: 1578364 Summary: abi-compliance-checker-2.3 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: abi-compliance-checker Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged

Re: /etc/profile.d/lang.sh -- still needed?

On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 9:45 AM, Akira TAGOH wrote: > On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 12:41 AM, David Kaspar [Dee'Kej] > wrote: > > My question was more meant in a sense "are those files still necessary"? > :) > > I expect they were created to deal with some

Re: [fedora-arm] armhfp builder instability

On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 1:06 PM, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 12:02 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: >> Lately, I've seen quite a few spurious build failures. Random SIGBUS is >> particularly common, and gcc reports that it cannot reproduce

[389-devel] Please review: Issue 49684 - AC_PROG_CC clobbers CFLAGS set by --enable-debug

https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/issue/49684 https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/pull-request/49690 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to

Re: Removing python2-tox (second attempt)

On 8.5.2018 02:43, Miro Hrončok wrote: I see no point of offering the tox module to import and I would like to get rid of it. I'll merge the PRs in ~1 week and then I'll remove python2-tox once again. Please let me know if you think this is breaking anything. I will now merge all the

Re: [fedora-arm] armhfp builder instability

On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 12:02 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: > Lately, I've seen quite a few spurious build failures. Random SIGBUS is > particularly common, and gcc reports that it cannot reproduce the SIGBUS in > a second compilation, which usually points to a kernel/hardware

armhfp builder instability

Lately, I've seen quite a few spurious build failures. Random SIGBUS is particularly common, and gcc reports that it cannot reproduce the SIGBUS in a second compilation, which usually points to a kernel/hardware issue. The latest problem was a hang during a build (on

[rpms/perl-Net-LibIDN] New Commits To "rpms/perl-Net-LibIDN" (master)

The following commits were pushed to the repo rpms/perl-Net-LibIDN on branch master, which you are following: 53c88cb43964475de301418030ecfb6ebae9198dPaul HowarthRebuild for libidn 1.35 To view more about the commits, visit:

[Bug 1578182] perl-SOAP-Lite-1.27 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1578182 --- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System --- perl-SOAP-Lite-1.27-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-3ac808c810 -- You are receiving this mail

[rpms/perl-SOAP-Lite] New Commits To "rpms/perl-SOAP-Lite" (f28)

The following commits were pushed to the repo rpms/perl-SOAP-Lite on branch f28, which you are following: 74ca5c618048c2921c200507605b2aa491b5cafaJan Pazdziora1578182 - Rebase to upstream version 1.27. To view more about the commits, visit:

[rpms/perl-SOAP-Lite] New Commits To "rpms/perl-SOAP-Lite" (master)

The following commits were pushed to the repo rpms/perl-SOAP-Lite on branch master, which you are following: 74ca5c618048c2921c200507605b2aa491b5cafaJan Pazdziora1578182 - Rebase to upstream version 1.27. To view more about the commits, visit:

Re: Fedora Media Writer for macOS, is not signed?

Chris Murphy píše v Pá 11. 05. 2018 v 16:42 -0600: > Hi, > > The Fedora Media Writer for macOS at getfedora.org is not signed. I > filed this bug a couple weeks ago but somehow lost track of it, and > also it's possibly not the right location for the bug report as it > relates to what's offered

[Bug 1577941] Upgrade perl-XML-FeedPP to 0.95

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1577941 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Fixed

[rpms/perl-XML-FeedPP] New Commits To "rpms/perl-XML-FeedPP" (master)

The following commits were pushed to the repo rpms/perl-XML-FeedPP on branch master, which you are following: 93807087415923f3261e42c904c5dc591bffe3b7Jitka Plesnikova0.95 bump To view more about the commits, visit: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-XML-FeedPP/commits/master

Re: /etc/profile.d/lang.sh -- still needed?

On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 12:41 AM, David Kaspar [Dee'Kej] wrote: > My question was more meant in a sense "are those files still necessary"? :) > I expect they were created to deal with some problems with locale setting, > but from just looking into them it's hard for me to

Re: Taskotron test failures (dist.rpmlint)

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 1:39 PM, Alexander Ploumistos < alex.ploumis...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Well, rpmlint is the one that failed and only on two arches, that's why I > wanted it to be run again, just in case something was off the first time. I > thought that if library-without-ldconfig-postin

Re: /etc/profile.d/lang.sh -- still needed?

On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 12:19 AM, David Kaspar [Dee'Kej] wrote: > does anybody know if the files /etc/profile.d/lang.{csh,sh} are still used > these days, and what for? > Do we still need them in Fedora? > They are needed for example to not run Asian and Middle Eastern