[Bug 1653180] New: Upgrade perl-SNMP-Info to 3.63

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1653180 Bug ID: 1653180 Summary: Upgrade perl-SNMP-Info to 3.63 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: perl-SNMP-Info Assignee: w...@gouldfamily.org Reporter:

[Bug 1653175] New: Upgrade perl-Git-Repository to 1.323

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1653175 Bug ID: 1653175 Summary: Upgrade perl-Git-Repository to 1.323 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: perl-Git-Repository Assignee: jpazdzi...@redhat.com Reporter:

[Bug 1653176] New: Upgrade perl-Imager to 1.007

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1653176 Bug ID: 1653176 Summary: Upgrade perl-Imager to 1.007 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: perl-Imager Assignee: jples...@redhat.com Reporter: jples...@redhat.com

[Bug 1653174] New: Upgrade perl-ExtUtils-F77 to 1.21

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1653174 Bug ID: 1653174 Summary: Upgrade perl-ExtUtils-F77 to 1.21 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: perl-ExtUtils-F77 Assignee: or...@nwra.com Reporter:

[Bug 1584159] perl-Crypt-OpenSSL-X509-1.812 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1584159 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|perl-Crypt-OpenSSL-X509-1.8 |perl-Crypt-OpenSSL-X509-1.8

Broken EPEL updates due to Centos 7.6 delay?

Anybody know what's going on with Centos 7.6-1810? Some packages in EPEL depend on it, but it is apparently not yet available. This discrepancy is breaking yum updates for me. For example, xorgxrdp-0.2.8-3.el7 depends on xorg-x11-server-Xorg 1.20.1, which isn't yet available (rather, available on

Re: Last dbus upgrade issues

Hi On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 10:53 PM Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > > On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 at 11:35, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > [..] > > I’m talking about F30 recent change in which has been implemented switch to > > dubs-broker. > > Ps. If this change has been propagated to F29 (hopefully not) more

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

The following Fedora EPEL 6 Security updates need testing: Age URL 169 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-b6c663378c unrtf-0.21.9-8.el6 25 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-4b684248e8 drupal7-7.60-2.el6 8

[389-devel] 389 DS nightly 2018-11-26 - 90% PASS

https://fedorapeople.org/groups/389ds/ci/nightly/2018/11/26/report-389-ds-base-1.4.0.19-20181126git683bc57.fc29.x86_64.html ___ 389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to

Re: Last dbus upgrade issues

On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 at 11:35, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: [..] > I’m talking about F30 recent change in which has been implemented switch to > dubs-broker. > Ps. If this change has been propagated to F29 (hopefully not) more things > will be screwed. Seems I found what caused the issue. I've been

Re: Update a package with new upstream release

Thanks a lot Alex So, "old wiki" is still relevant... I was searching in https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 7:47 PM Alexander Ploumistos < alex.ploumis...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Alain, > > I believe these two documents should come in handy: >

[Bug 1651495] Upgrade perl-libintl-perl to 1.31

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1651495 Emmanuel Seyman changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Fixed In Version|

Re: Update a package with new upstream release

Hi Alain, I believe these two documents should come in handy: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_maintenance_guide https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_update_HOWTO (the second one is mostly about the update process) Source packages are not part of the "usual" git transactions, they are

[Bug 1651164] Upgrade perl-Mojolicious to 8.07

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1651164 Emmanuel Seyman changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Fixed In Version|

[Bug 1651162] Upgrade perl-Mail-SPF-Iterator to 1.119

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1651162 Emmanuel Seyman changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Fixed In Version|

Update a package with new upstream release

Upstream releases a new version. I changed the .spec file, generate a srpm file, then perform again $ fedpgk import This creates a tar.gz file in my git dir, and I did commit this file. https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pcb-rnd/blob/master/f/pcb-rnd-2.1.0.tar.gz I think this is wrong, so: 1.

[Test-Announce] Proposal to CANCEL: 2018-11-26 Fedora QA Meeting

Hi folks! I'm proposing we cancel the QA meeting tomorrow. We met the last two weeks and I don't see anything urgent to discuss, so let's take the time off. If you're aware of anything important we have to discuss this week, please do reply to this mail and we can go ahead and run the meeting. --

Re: How much is dnf's minimum memory requirement?

On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 4:54 PM Benjamin Kircher wrote: > > What are dnf’s minimum memory requirements? It came as a surprise to me that > a simple `dnf check-update` is getting OOM’ed by the kernel on a (ok, fairly > small) 512MB VM. > > > [root@node ~]# dnf check-update > Killed > >

How much is dnf's minimum memory requirement?

What are dnf’s minimum memory requirements? It came as a surprise to me that a simple `dnf check-update` is getting OOM’ed by the kernel on a (ok, fairly small) 512MB VM. [root@node ~]# dnf check-update Killed [root@node ~]# free -h totalusedfree shared

Fedora Rawhide-20181125.n.0 compose check report

No missing expected images. Failed openQA tests: 15/142 (x86_64), 4/24 (i386), 1/2 (arm) New failures (same test did not fail in Rawhide-20181123.n.1): ID: 311779 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_default_upload URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/311779 ID: 311780 Test:

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20181125.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20181123.n.1 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20181125.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:2 Dropped images: 0 Added packages: 0 Dropped packages:0 Upgraded packages: 41 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 0 B Size of dropped packages:0 B Size

[rpms/perl-Mail-DKIM] PR #1: Drop Group tag

eseyman merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-Mail-DKIM` that you are following. Merged pull-request: `` Drop Group tag `` https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Mail-DKIM/pull-request/1 ___ perl-devel mailing list --

Re: Last dbus upgrade issues

On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 at 11:19, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 02:36:31AM +0100, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > > After last dbus upgrade gdm found that is not able to start. > > What Fedora version? Ideally provide specific rpm versions. > dbus-in-F29 != dbus-in-F30 now. >

Re: Upgraded from F28 x96_64 XFCE Spin to F29 => rough audio

On Sat, Nov 17, 2018 at 07:17:44PM +1100, Philip Rhoades wrote: > Leigh, > > > On 2018-11-17 18:19, Leigh Scott wrote: > >Try > > > >https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_debug_PulseAudio_problems#Playback_problems.2C_crackling_or_skipping > > > My problem is not crackling_or_skipping - it is

Re: Last dbus upgrade issues

On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 02:36:31AM +0100, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > After last dbus upgrade gdm found that is not able to start. What Fedora version? Ideally provide specific rpm versions. dbus-in-F29 != dbus-in-F30 now. Zbyszek > NM basen network configuration as well is broker because it needs