No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/7 (x86_64), 1/7 (aarch64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-33-20201109.0):
ID: 719402 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL:
https://fedorapeople.org/groups/389ds/ci/nightly/2020/11/10/report-389-ds-base-2.0.1-20201110gitca8ac8e.fc32.x86_64.html
___
389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
Hi Mohan,
Thank you. There is a second stream for jmc in that update:
jmc-latest-3320200902194158.601d93de
Can it be removed as well?
Regards,
Jie Kang
Associate Manager : Java Monitoring Team
Red Hat Canada
On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 8:08 PM Mohan Boddu wrote:
>
> I fixed it
>
The following Fedora EPEL 6 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
7 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-6bc42544ca
wordpress-5.1.8-1.el6
The following builds have been pushed to Fedora EPEL 6 updates-testing
IP2Location-8.3.1-3.el6
ipv6calc-3.0.0-47.el6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895633
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2020-0bce4b6d8d has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895729
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #2 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895538
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2020-88e8dda220 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895672
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #2 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895538
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2020-7b02fd88a8 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895633
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2020-e33a01e36d has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade
The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
11 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-e816cf1fbc
containerd-1.2.14-1.el7
7 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-a5abe545c6
wordpress-5.1.8-1.el7
7
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895538
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #4 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895633
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #4 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1890587
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #3 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895679
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #3 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1890604
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #3 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1890605
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #3 from
I fixed it
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-MODULAR-2020-847691dbcf#comment-1723407
On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 5:16 PM Jie Kang wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I'm attempting to submit a critical bugfix update for my jmc module in
> F33, however I found that there is an open security update
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1890318
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Resolution|---
On Mon, 9 Nov 2020 at 17:31, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>
> There will be an outage starting at 2020-11-11 21:00UTC,
> which will last approximately 6 hours.
>
> To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto
> or run:
>
> date -d
On 11/9/20 11:29 PM, Tom Stellard wrote:
On 11/9/20 1:48 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Miro Hrončok:
On 11/9/20 7:05 PM, Tom Stellard wrote:
Thanks for clarifying. So it does sound like gcc will need at
dependency on make. If you do decide to use a weak dependency for this,
then I think I
There will be an outage starting at 2020-11-11 21:00UTC,
which will last approximately 6 hours.
To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto
or run:
date -d '2017-05-03 21:00UTC'
Reason for outage:
Apply updates and new kernels for all
There will be an outage starting at 2020-11-11 21:00UTC,
which will last approximately 6 hours.
To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto
or run:
date -d '2017-05-03 21:00UTC'
Reason for outage:
Apply updates and new kernels for all
On 11/9/20 1:48 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Miro Hrončok:
On 11/9/20 7:05 PM, Tom Stellard wrote:
Thanks for clarifying. So it does sound like gcc will need at
dependency on make. If you do decide to use a weak dependency for this,
then I think I will need to update the proposal to
Hi all,
I'm attempting to submit a critical bugfix update for my jmc module in
F33, however I found that there is an open security update which
includes it [1], which forces mine to also be seen as a security
update. I'm not sure what that update is sitting for at this time. I
noticed another
Hi,
Ian McInerney wrote:
> Why not split the cvs package like git and create a cvs-core package that
> actually contains the cvs executables/files and then only BR/require that
> from git/git-cvs? That would be the more immediate solution that prunes the
> affected packages from the xinetd
On Mon, 2020-11-09 at 21:14 +, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 9:04 PM Sérgio Basto
> wrote:
>
> > Like tftp we may replace xinetd by systemd service files [1] ,
> > if we replace cvs-inetd by a systemd service, the problem is
> > solved.
>
> I am pretty sure cvs already
On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 9:32 PM Todd Zullinger wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > Like tftp we may replace xinetd by systemd service files [1] ,
> > if we replace cvs-inetd by a systemd service, the problem is solved.
> >
> > [1]
> >
>
Hi,
I am trying to initiate the non-responsive maintainer process for avsej
for the package grpc.
I have filed the respective ticket in Bugzilla [1] as I have seen no
development in the tracking bug to update grpc[2]. The outdated version
of grpc is currently blocking me from updating Bear to
Hi,
Sérgio Basto wrote:
> Like tftp we may replace xinetd by systemd service files [1] ,
> if we replace cvs-inetd by a systemd service, the problem is solved.
>
> [1]
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/tftp/c/15a26fcde8a0078766b6bbba183d89f920e51535?branch=master
The cvs package has
On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 9:04 PM Sérgio Basto wrote:
> Like tftp we may replace xinetd by systemd service files [1] ,
> if we replace cvs-inetd by a systemd service, the problem is solved.
I am pretty sure cvs already ships systemd service files.
The issue is that there is also a sub-package
On Mon, 2020-11-09 at 16:59 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 11:50:06AM -0500, Todd Zullinger wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 11:17:38AM -0500, Todd Zullinger wrote:
> > > > The cvs and cvsps BR's are for the test suite,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1890604
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--- Comment #2 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1890587
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--- Comment #2 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1890605
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--- Comment #2 from
* Miro Hrončok:
> On 11/9/20 7:05 PM, Tom Stellard wrote:
>> Thanks for clarifying. So it does sound like gcc will need at
>> dependency on make. If you do decide to use a weak dependency for this,
>> then I think I will need to update the proposal to BuildRequire:
>> make when gcc is used, so
On 11/9/20 7:05 PM, Tom Stellard wrote:
Thanks for clarifying. So it does sound like gcc will need at
dependency on make. If you do decide to use a weak dependency for this,
then I think I will need to update the proposal to BuildRequire: make when gcc
is used, so that we don't cause a
On 11/4/20 3:46 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 12:43:13PM -0800, Tom Stellard wrote:
No, in that case gcc needs to Require: gas, because it is a run-time
dependency of that package.
CMake will still work if make is not installed. Packages that use
cmake + Ninja should
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 1/16 (x86_64), 1/15 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-IoT-33-20201106.0):
ID: 719046 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_clevis
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/719046
Old failures (same test failed in
* Marius Schwarz:
> Am 05.11.20 um 12:39 schrieb Petr Menšík:
>> There is no controversy with nscd, it just caches names and nothing
>> more. I think this is its advantage. Unless there is any stronger
>> reason, I am against this change in advance.
> It not only caches names, it also RANDOMIZES
Le lun. 9 nov. 2020 à 17:16, Gwyn Ciesla via devel
a écrit :
>
> We're updating libfilezilla and filezilla in Fedora 33 to their latest
> versions. This will bump the soname for libfilezilla, but filezilla is the
> only consumer.
Thanks for this update. This looks appropriate.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895679
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895679
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-EPEL-2020-e260bb1dbb has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-e260bb1dbb
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are
On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 11:50:06AM -0500, Todd Zullinger wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 11:17:38AM -0500, Todd Zullinger wrote:
> >> The cvs and cvsps BR's are for the test suite, since we
> >> prefer to use the comprehensive test suite that git
> >>
On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 04:46:39PM +, Sven Kieske wrote:
> On Mo, 2020-11-09 at 14:10 +0100, Robert-André Mauchin wrote:
> > On Monday, 9 November 2020 12:09:00 CET you wrote:
> > > numad orphan 1 weeks
> > > ago
> >
> > Any maintainer of
Hi,
Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 11:17:38AM -0500, Todd Zullinger wrote:
>> The cvs and cvsps BR's are for the test suite, since we
>> prefer to use the comprehensive test suite that git
>> includes. So dropping those BR's is not a useful option.
>
> The test suite still
On Mo, 2020-11-09 at 14:10 +0100, Robert-André Mauchin wrote:
> On Monday, 9 November 2020 12:09:00 CET you wrote:
> > numad orphan 1 weeks
> > ago
>
> Any maintainer of libvirt interested in taking this or breaking the
> dependency
> link?
On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 11:17:38AM -0500, Todd Zullinger wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 12:09:00PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >> rjones: xinetd, numad
> >
> > Your "packager dashboard"[1] which I found for the first time today is
> > very useful!
> >
>
Hi,
Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 12:09:00PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
>> rjones: xinetd, numad
>
> Your "packager dashboard"[1] which I found for the first time today is
> very useful!
>
> Turns out the problem for my package is this weird ol' dependency chain:
>
>
We're updating libfilezilla and filezilla in Fedora 33 to their latest
versions. This will bump the soname for libfilezilla, but filezilla is the only
consumer.
--
Gwyn Ciesla
she/her/hers
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895679
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Doc Type|---
Hi Marius,
If you want to randomize requests to different servers, please try
stubby package. I think it should offer best anonymity available.
It is not true nscd is the only one. I think unbound at least randomizes
queries, but I admit it is not configured via /etc/resolv.conf. With
I think
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1283764
--- Comment #31 from Tom "spot" Callaway ---
Fedora 32 scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=55243290
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 09:02:12PM +0800, Honggang LI wrote:
> The patch maybe useful or fix something. But the divergence between
> upstream and Fedora rawhide is what I don't want to see, because
> such divergence is source of regression issues.
On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 3:15 PM Tom Hughes via devel
wrote:
> Well that's a packaging issue so it's not something that
> would normally go upstream, or does upstream have a spec
> file that you are using?
For this package there are upstream (prototype) spec files
in the repo.
I don't know
Dne 09. 11. 20 v 15:50 Honggang LI napsal(a):
On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 02:39:22PM +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
On Monday, 09 November 2020 at 14:23, Honggang LI wrote:
On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 08:03:59AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 8:03 AM Honggang LI
On 09/11/2020 14:50, Honggang LI wrote:
On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 02:39:22PM +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
On Monday, 09 November 2020 at 14:23, Honggang LI wrote:
On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 08:03:59AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 8:03 AM Honggang LI wrote:
hi
On 11/8/20 11:21 PM, John Reiser wrote:
> Let's handle some preliminary errors in this thread on building nfs-utils,
> before they spread even more.
>
> 1. Be specific. State the package name in both the Subject and the first
> line of the body.
> This provides context which aids the
Missing expected images:
Xfce raw-xz armhfp
Compose PASSES proposed Rawhide gating check!
All required tests passed
Failed openQA tests: 11/181 (x86_64), 16/117 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20201108.n.0):
ID: 718432 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso
On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 02:39:22PM +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> On Monday, 09 November 2020 at 14:23, Honggang LI wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 08:03:59AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 8:03 AM Honggang LI wrote:
> > > >
> > > > hi
> > > >
> > > > I'm
Hi everyone,
I hope you enjoyed the F33 release party this weekend! Getting back to
the GitLab topic mail threads, this weeks topic from the GitLab AMA
session on September 10th is on Message Bus. As always, here are some
links to the resources I have been pulling content from as well:
*
The following packages are orphaned and will be retired when they
are orphaned for six weeks, unless someone adopts them. If you know for sure
that the package should be retired, please do so now with a proper reason:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_remove_a_package_at_end_of_life
Note: If
Hi everyone,
I hope you enjoyed the F33 release party this weekend! Getting back to
the GitLab topic mail threads, this weeks topic from the GitLab AMA
session on September 10th is on Message Bus. As always, here are some
links to the resources I have been pulling content from as well:
*
On Monday, 09 November 2020 at 14:23, Honggang LI wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 08:03:59AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 8:03 AM Honggang LI wrote:
> > >
> > > hi
> > >
> > > I'm one of package maintainers of rdma-core. There is a patch
> > > applied without any
On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 09:40:59AM +, Fabien Boucher wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I'm forwarding a mail I sent to the Fedora CI mailing list last week, as it
> might interest some folks on that mailing list too.
>
On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 08:03:59AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 8:03 AM Honggang LI wrote:
> >
> > hi
> >
> > I'm one of package maintainers of rdma-core. There is a patch
> > applied without any maintainers' review/approve. I had sent two emails
> > to patch committer to ask
On Monday, 9 November 2020 12:09:00 CET you wrote:
> numad orphan 1 weeks
> ago
Any maintainer of libvirt interested in taking this or breaking the dependency
link?
Best regards,
Robert-André
___
On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 8:03 AM Honggang LI wrote:
>
> hi
>
> I'm one of package maintainers of rdma-core. There is a patch
> applied without any maintainers' review/approve. I had sent two emails
> to patch committer to ask him/her to push the change to upstream.
> But never get response.
>
> The
hi
I'm one of package maintainers of rdma-core. There is a patch
applied without any maintainers' review/approve. I had sent two emails
to patch committer to ask him/her to push the change to upstream.
But never get response.
The patch maybe useful or fix something. But the divergence between
On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 12:25 PM Wolfgang Ulbrich wrote:
> > Affected (co)maintainers (either directly or via packages' dependencies):
>
> < cut >
> > raveit65: sgpio
>
> I am still wondering why i am listed here as (co)maintainers.
> I do not maintain this package.
>
> Cheers
> Wolfgang
>
It is
> Affected (co)maintainers (either directly or via packages' dependencies):
< cut >
> raveit65: sgpio
I am still wondering why i am listed here as (co)maintainers.
I do not maintain this package.
Cheers
Wolfgang
___
devel mailing list --
On 11/9/20 12:55 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
Turns out the problem for my package is this weird ol' dependency chain:
coccinelle -> git -> cvs -> xinetd
Well the first part of that is understandable, because Cocci uses git
to apply patches (ie. autosetup -S git).
cvs -> xinetd is sort of
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20201108.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20201109.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:1
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 1
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 120
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 82.48 KiB
Size of dropped packages:0
On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 12:09:00PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> rjones: xinetd, numad
Your "packager dashboard"[1] which I found for the first time today is
very useful!
Turns out the problem for my package is this weird ol' dependency chain:
coccinelle -> git -> cvs -> xinetd
Well the first
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895837
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1894917
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|perl|rxvt-unicode
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895786
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1894917
--- Comment #3 from Petr Pisar ---
I have:
# rpm -q rxvt-unicode perl-libs glibc
rxvt-unicode-9.22-25.fc33.x86_64
perl-libs-5.32.0-463.fc33.x86_64
glibc-2.32-1.fc33.x86_64
I cannot reproduce with executing "rxvt -e /bin/true" from an
The following packages are orphaned and will be retired when they
are orphaned for six weeks, unless someone adopts them. If you know for sure
that the package should be retired, please do so now with a proper reason:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_remove_a_package_at_end_of_life
Note: If
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895729
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2020-0ffe800f07 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-0ffe800f07
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1894917
--- Comment #2 from Petr Pisar ---
What's wrong with getenv() in an atexit() callback? Shouldn't rather urxwt
properly desctruct perl interpreter before calling exit()?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895729
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
Fixed In Version|
No missing expected images.
Passed openQA tests: 7/7 (x86_64), 7/7 (aarch64)
--
Mail generated by check-compose:
https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
On 11/9/20 10:40 AM, Fabien Boucher wrote:
Let us know if you think we can activate the CI for those projects ?
We will be glad to include more repositories to that list regularly.
+1.
Possibly email the affected maintainers directly once you do this so they know
what's going on.
--
Miro
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895331
Jan Pazdziora changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ON_QA
Doc Type|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895729
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895672
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version||perl-Test-Dependencies-0.30
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895672
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--- Comment #1 from
Hi folks,
I'm forwarding a mail I sent to the Fedora CI mailing list last week, as it
might interest some folks on that mailing list too.
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/c...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/7CK45NW5IDXU646AO5QPN2G7FEFOR5Y7/
---
As you may know we provide Zuul CI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895672
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Doc Type|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895649
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/7 (x86_64), 1/7 (aarch64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-32-20201108.0):
ID: 718340 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1890585
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppi...@redhat.com
--- Comment #3 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895633
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2020-0bce4b6d8d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-0bce4b6d8d
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System ---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895633
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2020-0bce4b6d8d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-0bce4b6d8d
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System ---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895633
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2020-0bce4b6d8d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-0bce4b6d8d
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895649
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895837
--- Comment #2 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
the-new-hotness/release-monitoring.org's scratch build of
perl-String-CRC32-2-1.fc32.src.rpm for rawhide completed
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=55220613
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895633
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1895837
--- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
Created attachment 1727703
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1727703=edit
[patch] Update to 2 (#1895837)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
