Thanks Michael!
Aha, it seems the rawhide buildroot from 6/23 still contained glibc with
recommends on new package and not hard requires.
I've explicitly added glibc-gconv-extra as a buildrequires for vim now -
although as you told it is unnecessary right now, I guess it is a good
thing to
On June 22, 2021 1:26:30 PM UTC, "Miroslav Suchý" wrote:
>Dne 20. 06. 21 v 10:42 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
>> Rather than "no bots allowed" policy, we might need a "bots that
>violate our policies and guidelines or have a
>> tendency to break things will be disabled until fixed" policy.
>
On June 24, 2021 6:08:17 PM UTC, "Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek"
wrote:
>On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 03:48:54PM +0200, Tomas Tomecek wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 12:41 PM Miro Hrončok
>wrote:
>> >
>> > On 24. 06. 21 11:16, Tomas Tomecek wrote:
>> > > ## Choosing git forge to host source-git
On June 24, 2021 9:22:51 PM UTC, "Miro Hrončok" wrote:
>On 24. 06. 21 23:07, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>> Dne 24. 06. 21 v 15:48 Tomas Tomecek napsal(a):
One thing to consider is that the upstream tarballs might be
>cryptographically
signed and packages should verify the signature in
On Thu, 2021-06-24 at 15:40 -0700, Troy Dawson wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 9:25 AM Yaakov Selkowitz
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2021-06-23 at 08:56 -0700, Troy Dawson wrote:
> > > I'm updating/ rebuilding KDE Plasma Desktop on CentOS Stream 8, for the
> > > updated qt5 that is there. I am using
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1976029
Bug ID: 1976029
Summary: perl-IPC-Shareable-1.01 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-IPC-Shareable
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1976029
--- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
An HTTP error occurred downloading the package's new Source URLs: Getting
https://cpan.metacpan.org/authors/id/M/MS/MSOUTH/IPC-Shareable-1.01.tar.gz to
./IPC-Shareable-1.01.tar.gz
--
You
Howdy folks,
On behalf of the EPEL Steering Committee, I'm happy to announce the
availability of EPEL 8 Next. This is an additional repository that allows
package maintainers to build against CentOS Stream 8 instead of RHEL 8.
This is sometimes necessary when CentOS Stream contains an upcoming
The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
28 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-1f259a45ef
openjpeg2-2.3.1-11.el7
28 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-9eaea6f65c
audacious-plugins-4.0.5-4.el7 fluidsynth-2.1.8-4.el7
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1837988
Christian Horn changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ch...@redhat.com
--
You are
On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 9:25 AM Yaakov Selkowitz
wrote:
> On Wed, 2021-06-23 at 08:56 -0700, Troy Dawson wrote:
> > I'm updating/ rebuilding KDE Plasma Desktop on CentOS Stream 8, for the
> > updated qt5 that is there. I am using what is in F34 for the update.
> > I've got all the qt5 5.15.2
On Thu, Jun 24, 2021, at 5:22 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 24. 06. 21 23:07, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> > Dne 24. 06. 21 v 15:48 Tomas Tomecek napsal(a):
> >>> One thing to consider is that the upstream tarballs might be
> >>> cryptographically
> >>> signed and packages should verify the signature
On 24. 06. 21 23:07, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Dne 24. 06. 21 v 15:48 Tomas Tomecek napsal(a):
One thing to consider is that the upstream tarballs might be cryptographically
signed and packages should verify the signature in %prep.
This is a very good point - in such a case, we should always pull
Dne 24. 06. 21 v 15:48 Tomas Tomecek napsal(a):
One thing to consider is that the upstream tarballs might be cryptographically
signed and packages should verify the signature in %prep.
This is a very good point - in such a case, we should always pull the
official upstream tarball instead of
During our last round of proposals for solutions to missing devel packages,
it was noted that EPEL and CentOS has very different documentation for
requesting a package be put into RHEL 8.[1][2]
I am betting that CentOS's documentation is correct. It was written after
ours.
When I was talking to
I'm a little behind on this, but I've created side-tag
f35-build-side-42997 to perform any necessary nodejs-* rebuilds.
Currently I'm only aware of the `nodejs` and `R-V8` packages needing
to be rebuilt there. Most Node.js packages don't have a tight
dependency on the interpreter. If you have a
On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 03:48:54PM +0200, Tomas Tomecek wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 12:41 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >
> > On 24. 06. 21 11:16, Tomas Tomecek wrote:
> > > ## Choosing git forge to host source-git repositories
> > > We need to find a home for all the source-git repositories.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1975266
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-2df9389925 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1970380
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-ae3f5b1d01 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1975873
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1959040
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-05ccc9574c has been pushed to the Fedora 34 Modular stable
repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936048
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-05ccc9574c has been pushed to the Fedora 34 Modular stable
repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1940699
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-05ccc9574c has been pushed to the Fedora 34 Modular stable
repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1936221
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|perl-libwww-perl-6.53-1.fc3 |perl-libwww-perl-6.53-1.fc3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1935417
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-05ccc9574c has been pushed to the Fedora 34 Modular stable
repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1930887
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |ERRATA
--- Comment #4 from
The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
27 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-1f259a45ef
openjpeg2-2.3.1-11.el7
27 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-9eaea6f65c
audacious-plugins-4.0.5-4.el7 fluidsynth-2.1.8-4.el7
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1970380
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-084fd8b4b3 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
The “pyconfig.h” header lives in a python-version-specific subdirectory. Some
of the compiler invocations earlier in the build log contain
“-I/usr/include/python3.10”, but the one that is failing does not.
I haven’t tried it, but I would guess that something like the following would
resolve
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1970380
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-61fac447f9 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1970380
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #4 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1975266
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #4 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1932205
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|perl-IPTables-libiptc-0.52- |perl-IPTables-libiptc-0.52-
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1972637
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|perl-5.34.0-479.fc35|perl-5.34.0-479.fc35
In one week, I will update python-sure to 2.0.0 in Rawhide
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1974521). This includes the
following breaking API change:
> No longer patch the builtin `dir()` function, which fixes pytest in
some cases such as projects using gevent.
I do not think
On 23. 06. 21 19:52, Miro Hrončok wrote:
To compensate a rather ugly scriptlet is needed. The changes were proposed:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-psutil/pull-request/10
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python2-cairo/pull-request/1
The pull requests were adapted to include a
On 23. 06. 21 19:52, Miro Hrončok wrote:
To compensate a rather ugly scriptlet is needed. The changes were proposed:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-psutil/pull-request/10
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python2-cairo/pull-request/1
The pull requests were adapted to include a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1975578
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
jplesnik merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-Data-Dmp` that you
are following.
Merged pull-request:
``
Tests
``
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Data-Dmp/pull-request/1
___
perl-devel mailing list --
...
I still don't understand what Frankenstein buildroot we are using.
2 lines in a mock file allow to be aware of modules...
modules=1
...
config_opts['module_enable'] = ['php:7.4', ...
2h of work to find the proper configuration and
I was able to build such packages since the day
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/libmemcached-awesome
== Summary ==
Switch from libmemcached to libmemcached-awesome
== Owner ==
* Name: [[User:Remi| Remi Collet]]
* Email: remi at fedoraproject dot org
== Detailed Description ==
libmemcache 1.0.18 was released in February 2014, so
No missing expected images.
Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check!
3 of 43 required tests failed
openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING**
below
Failed openQA tests: 8/199 (x86_64), 12/134 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed in
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/libmemcached-awesome
== Summary ==
Switch from libmemcached to libmemcached-awesome
== Owner ==
* Name: [[User:Remi| Remi Collet]]
* Email: remi at fedoraproject dot org
== Detailed Description ==
libmemcache 1.0.18 was released in February 2014, so
On 24. 06. 21 17:30, Scott Talbert wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jun 2021, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote:
Hello team,
I am not sure why Blender failed to build recently. It seems some changes in
the repository affect the buildand
I am unable to find the cause. Can someone investigate please?
The build in
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1975873
--- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
Unable to resolve the hostname for one of the package's Source URLs
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1975873
Bug ID: 1975873
Summary: perltidy-20210625 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perltidy
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1975580
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
On Thu, 24 Jun 2021, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote:
Hello team,
I am not sure why Blender failed to build recently. It seems some changes in
the repository affect the buildand
I am unable to find the cause. Can someone investigate please?
The build in question is on
jplesnik opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-Data-Dmp` that
you are following:
``
Tests
``
To reply, visit the link below
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Data-Dmp/pull-request/1
___
perl-devel mailing list --
Hello team,
I am not sure why Blender failed to build recently. It seems some
changes in the repository affect the buildand
I am unable to find the cause. Can someone investigate please?
The build in question is on
In one week, I will update python-starlette to 0.15.0 in Rawhide
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1975613). This includes
some minor API changes; please see the release notes at
https://github.com/encode/starlette/releases/tag/0.15.0.
The following packages depend on this package,
On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 02:13:03AM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 12:52 AM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 08:52:02PM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> > ...snip...
> > >
> > > I see that the ansible SRPM in rawhide has already discarded any
> > >
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1974093
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-ee3a08c3c6 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1974101
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-d660cbdfae has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing
On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 at 10:03, Remi Collet wrote:
>
> Le 24/06/2021 à 15:33, Matthew Miller a écrit :
> > On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 03:08:42PM +0200, Remi Collet wrote:
> >> P.S. yes, I'm really disappointed by how Fedora evolves,
> >> not being able to use a proper build system (modules aware)
> >
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1975578
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Le 24/06/2021 à 15:33, Matthew Miller a écrit :
On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 03:08:42PM +0200, Remi Collet wrote:
P.S. yes, I'm really disappointed by how Fedora evolves,
not being able to use a proper build system (modules aware)
If you could wave a magic wand here, what would a proper build
On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 1:01 PM PGNet Dev wrote:
>
> On 6/24/21 6:40 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > On 24. 06. 21 11:16, Tomas Tomecek wrote:
> >> ## Choosing git forge to host source-git repositories
> >> We need to find a home for all the source-git repositories. This is
> >> actually a really
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 2/16 (x86_64), 3/15 (aarch64)
Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-IoT-34-20210623.0):
ID: 915604 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_zezere_server
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/915604
ID: 915608 Test: x86_64
On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 12:41 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> On 24. 06. 21 11:16, Tomas Tomecek wrote:
> > ## Choosing git forge to host source-git repositories
> > We need to find a home for all the source-git repositories. This is
> > actually a really hard task because we have many options
On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 3:39 PM Ben Cotton wrote:
>
> Hi Tomas,
>
> This is great. Do you mind if I republish this in the Fedora Community
> Blog? https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org
Go for it, Ben :)
My inspiration for the report comes from the Q1 update of the CentOS
Hyperscale SIG:
pghmcfc merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-Path-Tiny` that you
are following.
Merged pull-request:
``
Remove runtime depencendy for Digest::MD5
``
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Path-Tiny/pull-request/1
___
perl-devel mailing
>
>
>
> What *is* the purpose of RH Container Bot? A google search shows various
> repos seemingly used by it, but why and how?
>
I had set it up to package and push updates to repos under
https://github.com/containers . The gitlab job can be found here:
Hi Tomas,
This is great. Do you mind if I republish this in the Fedora Community
Blog? https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org
(Replying on-list to encourage others to submit this kind of content
to the CommBlog and to read it, too)
--
Ben Cotton
He / Him / His
Fedora Program Manager
Red Hat
>
> > * Sat Jun 19 2021 RH Container Bot
> - 0.7.8-2.dev.git5f666c1
> > - bump to 0.7.8
> > - autobuilt 5f666c1
>
I swear ... is rhcontainerbot at it again?
> https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2624
>
> Both of those look like obvious mistakes, since they're not just
> "versioning snafu"s but
On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 03:08:42PM +0200, Remi Collet wrote:
> P.S. yes, I'm really disappointed by how Fedora evolves,
> not being able to use a proper build system (modules aware)
If you could wave a magic wand here, what would a proper build system look
like?
--
Matthew Miller
Fedora
On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 11:16:11AM +0200, Tomas Tomecek wrote:
> Greetings from the Fedora source-git SIG! We are planning to start
> publishing reports of what we are working on so everyone can easily
> pay attention and get involved if interested. If you have any ideas,
> comments or requests,
On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 9:09 AM Remi Collet wrote:
>
> Le 23/06/2021 à 10:57, Nico Kadel-Garcia a écrit :
>
> > I can't find *anyone* who likes modularity.
>
> I like modules !
>
> BTW
>
> Community have killed SCL
> Community is killing modules
>
Software Collections made the assumption that
Le 23/06/2021 à 10:57, Nico Kadel-Garcia a écrit :
I can't find *anyone* who likes modularity.
I like modules !
BTW
Community have killed SCL
Community is killing modules
EPEL-8 is IMHO partially broken,
and perhaps should be consider as dead.
> I'm devoutly hoping that it is discarded
mspacek commented on the pull-request: `Remove runtime depencendy for
Digest::MD5` that you are following:
``
Yes, that's true, thanks.
``
To reply, visit the link below
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Path-Tiny/pull-request/1
___
perl-devel
On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 04:48:26PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Matthew was referring to a plan (AIUI) to have two locations where
> "Rawhide" composes would be synced, one where all completed composes
> would be synced (as today), one where only composes that passed gating
> would be synced. I
Hi,
I'm orphaning rubygem-fssm, since I don't have any use for this package.
It appears to be abandoned upstream, so probably better to let it go
completely.
Vít
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email
On 6/24/21 6:40 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 24. 06. 21 11:16, Tomas Tomecek wrote:
## Choosing git forge to host source-git repositories
We need to find a home for all the source-git repositories. This is
actually a really hard task because we have many options (github.com,
gitlab.com,
On 24. 06. 21 11:16, Tomas Tomecek wrote:
## Choosing git forge to host source-git repositories
We need to find a home for all the source-git repositories. This is
actually a really hard task because we have many options (github.com,
gitlab.com, pagure.io, src.fedoraproject.org, something custom
* Florian Weimer:
> We could use some basic GNOME SHell debugging help here. Ideally, we'd
> like to run GNOME Shell in such a way that it does not perform X
> fallback and does not re-exec itself, and uses a specified VT (so that
> we can launch it over an SSH session).
>
> (This is about bug
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64), 1/8 (aarch64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-34-20210623.0):
ID: 915159 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL:
Greetings from the Fedora source-git SIG! We are planning to start
publishing reports of what we are working on so everyone can easily
pay attention and get involved if interested. If you have any ideas,
comments or requests, don’t be shy and let us know :)
Here’s a short list of things which we
We could use some basic GNOME SHell debugging help here. Ideally, we'd
like to run GNOME Shell in such a way that it does not perform X
fallback and does not re-exec itself, and uses a specified VT (so that
we can launch it over an SSH session).
(This is about bug 1974970.)
Thanks,
Florian
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1975700
Bug ID: 1975700
Summary: start_server (or Server::Starter) should depend on
Net::Server::SS::PreFork
Product: Fedora
Version: 34
Status: NEW
Component:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1965763
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1965763
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--- Comment #6 from
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64), 1/8 (aarch64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-33-20210623.0):
ID: 915143 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL:
Dne 23. 06. 21 v 19:34 Joan Moreau via devel napsal(a):
Hello
How can I move forward on this ?
You have to address the issues in comment #1 of
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1953340#c1
And iterate until you get APPROVED comment and flag fedora-review+
And now, how to get
ppisar commented on the pull-request: `Remove runtime depencendy for
Digest::MD5` that you are following:
``
I also recommend moving "BuildRequires: perl(Digest::MD5)" from "Module
Runtime" to "Test Suite" section in the spec file. In the end, that's the
reason for the explicit "use
https://fedorapeople.org/groups/389ds/ci/nightly/2021/06/24/report-389-ds-base-2.0.6-20210624gitc0ca290ff.fc34.x86_64.html
___
389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 12:52 AM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 08:52:02PM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> ...snip...
> >
> > I see that the ansible SRPM in rawhide has already discarded any
> > support for python2, so that cannot be easily backported to RHEL 7
> > with
86 matches
Mail list logo
