https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1647620
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #2 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645195
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #2 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1644249
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #2 from
Kevin,
>* that no package may ever be module-only, but
> modules can only be used for non-default
> versions.
That statement doesn't make any sense for me. Can you explain, please? How
should modules live without packages in background? We'd already discussed this
in another thread.
> Neal Gompa wrote:
…
> But obviously, I think this is a very poor tradeoff. Helping packagers must
> not happen at the end users' expense!
>
> Kevin Kofler
+1
Can you think about a time when modules can or will (hopefully) bring benefits
to our users? Well, it's just seen as an
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1643844
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-3.8 |perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-3.8
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1644244
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Fixed In
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1641955
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-3.8 |perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-3.8
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1643856
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Fixed In
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1643850
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|perl-DateTime-TimeZone-2.21 |perl-DateTime-TimeZone-2.21
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1643849
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Fixed In
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1640990
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|perl-DateTime-TimeZone-2.20 |perl-DateTime-TimeZone-2.20
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1643406
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Fixed In
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1640990
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|perl-DateTime-TimeZone-2.20 |perl-DateTime-TimeZone-2.20
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1641955
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-3.8 |perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-3.8
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1643850
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|perl-DateTime-TimeZone-2.21 |perl-DateTime-TimeZone-2.21
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1643844
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-3.8 |perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-3.8
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1640990
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Fixed In
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1641955
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1643844
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Fixed In
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1643850
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Fixed In
Hi,
This is for an issue we encountered while building Ursa-Major on EPEL7
branch [1], the build task failed due to missing libmodulemd, seems
libmodulemd was retired on EPEL7 because it's available in RHEL7.6,
but our buildroot is still RHEL7.5, see log from task 30747718 which
shows the os
Neal Gompa wrote:
> Moreover, as it stands, I don't think modularity provides any quality
> of life improvements for packagers within Fedora (it adds extra steps
> and makes it confusing to figure out what is maintained),
There is one I can see in that it allows packagers to make their packages
Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> The feedback that we (Red Hat) got about SCLs that was filtered down
> to Engineering was this:
But is that feedback relevant for Fedora, as opposed to RHEL?
> 1) Customers really like having the option to install the version of
> software that their applications needs
On Wed, Nov 07, 2018 at 11:44:29AM -0500, Mohan Boddu wrote:
> Now, the pushes are automated and are pushed everyday at 00:00 UTC. If
> anything fails there will be an oncall person (same person who used to do
> the pushes) who will take care of the failure.
Amazing! Congratulations!
--
On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 12:56 PM Troy Dawson wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I'm going through the lists of EPEL7 packages that are not able to be
> installed on RHEL 7.6, and opening bugzilla's for them. I am keeping
> track of all those bugs with a tracker bug.[1]
> My apologies to the epel-release
On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 10:40 AM Richard W.M. Jones
wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 12:59:40PM +0100, Felipe Borges wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 8:19 PM Samuel Sieb wrote:
> > >
> > > On 11/6/18 6:21 AM, Jiri Eischmann wrote:
> > > > Samuel Sieb píše v Po 05. 11. 2018 v 17:07 -0800:
> > >
Hi,
There was some communication gap and I didn't pay much attention to that
package.
I am very much interested in maintaining the package going forward.
Sorry for the confusion that I have caused. Please create the PR's if
anything is needed,
and I will take care of it.
I will also go ahead
On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 12:59:40PM +0100, Felipe Borges wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 8:19 PM Samuel Sieb wrote:
> >
> > On 11/6/18 6:21 AM, Jiri Eischmann wrote:
> > > Samuel Sieb píše v Po 05. 11. 2018 v 17:07 -0800:
> > >> On 11/5/18 12:47 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > >>> On Sun,
I am working with Cisco on fixing this. We got an email from Cisco that the
rpms are available on their CDN.
So, we pushed the repodata on our end. But it seems they are still not
available on their CDN.
On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 6:03 AM Peter Robinson wrote:
> https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7590
On Thu, 2018-11-08 at 08:07 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> The 'Autopush' happens when the update reaches the karma threshold.
> It
> > is not applied based on days in testing.
>
> That's what I thought. This seems bad to me, because it is yet
> another
> thing that I need to poke
I did a quick local test. If caribou from F29[1] is branched for EPEL7
cinnamon works as before and gnome-shell continues to function.
Pat
[1] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1093269
On 11/7/18 9:10 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
The package will need a new sponsor
Hi Vagrant users,
If you are using Vagrant together with libvirt backend (default on
Fedora), please be warned that today, I have updated fog-libvirt
(dependency of vagrant-libvrit) and its dependencies in Rawhide. Because
fog upstream is currently a bit of a mess, where some major
sub-components
On 08/11/2018 14:00, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 08. 11. 18 v 13:04 Tom Hughes napsal(a):
On 08/11/2018 11:44, Daiki Ueno wrote:
The question is, is there any documented procedure to do this kind of
package merge safely? I guess at least the unnecessary packages
(nss-util and nss-softokn) would
Dne 08. 11. 18 v 13:04 Tom Hughes napsal(a):
> On 08/11/2018 11:44, Daiki Ueno wrote:
>
>> The question is, is there any documented procedure to do this kind of
>> package merge safely? I guess at least the unnecessary packages
>> (nss-util and nss-softokn) would need to be retired.
>
> Just
On 08/11/2018 11:44, Daiki Ueno wrote:
The question is, is there any documented procedure to do this kind of
package merge safely? I guess at least the unnecessary packages
(nss-util and nss-softokn) would need to be retired.
Just follow the normal procedures for replacing packages:
On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 8:19 PM Samuel Sieb wrote:
>
> On 11/6/18 6:21 AM, Jiri Eischmann wrote:
> > Samuel Sieb píše v Po 05. 11. 2018 v 17:07 -0800:
> >> On 11/5/18 12:47 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 2018-11-04 at 16:42 -0800, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> I don't know about the other
Hello,
We currently have 3 source packages for NSS (nss-util, nss-softokn, and
nss), split from upstream release tarball. This splitting was
introduced for FIPS certification purposes in RHEL, where only
nss-softokn part is certified.
In Fedora, however, this doesn't apply (as we don't
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7590
On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 10:51 AM Jan Pokorný wrote:
>
> Not sure where to report this for the Fedora side, but there seems to
> be some synchronization issue regarding the built artifacts hosted at
> http://ciscobinary.openh264.org, since older packages can be
The following commits were pushed to the repo rpms/fusioninventory-agent on
branch
f29, which you are following:
426d25abba522bec04b98216eabbd8e653a3e302Johan CwiklinskiNew upstream
release
To view more about the commits, visit:
* Kevin Fenzi:
> On 11/1/18 6:51 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> On src.fedoraproject.org, I selected “Watch Issues, PRs, and Commits”
>> for various packages and assumed that I would receive notifications for
>> new commits. But nothing arrives anymore, as far as I can tell.
>>
>> Obviously, this
On Thursday, 08 November 2018 at 10:32, Vít Ondruch wrote:
[...]
> Just browsing the upstream, these should be removed or updated:
>
>
> https://pagure.io/fedora-packager/blob/master/f/src/rpmbuild-md5
>
> (What was is good for anyway??)
Building RPMs for RHEL5.
Regards,
Dominik
--
Fedora
On Thu, Nov 8, 2018 at 11:00 AM Jan Pokorný wrote:
> Not sure where to report this for the Fedora side, but there seems to
> be some synchronization issue regarding the built artifacts hosted at
> http://ciscobinary.openh264.org, since older packages can be obtained
> just fine:
>
Not sure where to report this for the Fedora side, but there seems to
be some synchronization issue regarding the built artifacts hosted at
http://ciscobinary.openh264.org, since older packages can be obtained
just fine:
https://github.com/cisco/openh264/issues/3037#issuecomment-436932562
--
Jan
ok, rpmlint give me a hint:
vdr-osd2web.x86_64: E: executable-marked-as-config-file
/etc/vdr/plugins/osd2web/startBrowser.sh
Executables must not be marked as config files because that may prevent
upgrades from working correctly. If you need to be able to customize an
executable, make it for
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645195
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System ---
perl-DBD-ODBC-1.60-1.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-6ec61e5d28
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
The following commits were pushed to the repo rpms/perl-DBD-ODBC on branch
f29, which you are following:
2f5940c2fb279b40f4143cfd86f701847982326dJitka Plesnikova1.60 bump
To view more about the commits, visit:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-DBD-ODBC/commits/f29
The following commits were pushed to the repo rpms/perl-DBD-ODBC on branch
master, which you are following:
2f5940c2fb279b40f4143cfd86f701847982326dJitka Plesnikova1.60 bump
To view more about the commits, visit:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-DBD-ODBC/commits/master
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1645195
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |MODIFIED
Fixed In Version|
Dne 08. 11. 18 v 10:03 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
>
>
> Dne 08. 11. 18 v 1:57 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a):
>> On 11/7/18 9:22 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
>>> On 05. 09. 18 9:38, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 4.9.2018 v 21:46 Rex Dieter napsal(a):
> Ben Rosser wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 2:59
In favour of the libreoffice-gtk3 which has already been the default
for the last few fedora releases
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
Hi,
i get this message, when building the package with spec file:
Processing files: vdr-osd2web-debugsource-0.2.48-1.fc29.x86_64
error: Empty %files file
/home/martin/rpmbuild/BUILD/vdr-plugin-osd2web-0.2.48/debugsourcefiles.list
RPM build errors:
Macro expanded in comment on line 3:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1644249
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System ---
perl-SNMP-Info-3.62-1.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-3947b50bc6
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1644249
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |MODIFIED
Fixed In Version|
The following commits were pushed to the repo rpms/perl-SNMP-Info on branch
f29, which you are following:
5db7e06fce0cf049f5c3be1aeea36424152262a5Jitka Plesnikova3.62 bump
To view more about the commits, visit:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-SNMP-Info/commits/f29
The following commits were pushed to the repo rpms/perl-SNMP-Info on branch
master, which you are following:
5db7e06fce0cf049f5c3be1aeea36424152262a5Jitka Plesnikova3.62 bump
To view more about the commits, visit:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-SNMP-Info/commits/master
Dne 08. 11. 18 v 1:57 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a):
> On 11/7/18 9:22 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
>> On 05. 09. 18 9:38, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>>>
>>> Dne 4.9.2018 v 21:46 Rex Dieter napsal(a):
Ben Rosser wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 2:59 PM, Rex Dieter
> wrote:
>> Vít Ondruch wrote:
Il 11/8/18 9:07 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ha scritto:
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 07:25:10AM +, Mattia Verga wrote:
>
> That's what I thought. This seems bad to me, because it is yet another
> thing that I need to poke by hand. What I want is that after the update
> is filed, I never have
On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 07:25:10AM +, Mattia Verga wrote:
> Il 11/8/18 8:00 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ha scritto:
> >
> > What about this part? There's an "Autopush — enabled" item in bodhi, but
> > afaict, it doesn't do anything and I always click "push to batched" manually
> > on all
59 matches
Mail list logo
