Re: GNOME 3.34.0 megaupdate

[Olivier Fourdan]

Hi Kalev,

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 9:51 PM Kalev Lember  wrote:
>
> On 9/9/19 12:17, Kalev Lember wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Last week was 3.33.92, and this week is the final 3.34.0 release. I'm
> > wrangling the Fedora side of the release this time around as well. Same
> > as last week, we have a koji side tag to prepare the update, and then
> > I'll submit all of the builds together in a single megaupdate once ready.
> >
> > Please use 'fedpkg build --target f31-gnome' to submit any builds that
> > should be part of the 3.34.0 update.
> >
> > I'll collect all the builds on Wednesday or Thursday and submit them to
> > Bodhi.
>
> It's in updates-testing now:
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-6cc7585333

Not sure if this is just me, but with this update, most if not all
icons are missing. Was working fine before the update to GNOME 3.34.

Cheers
Olivier
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: GNOME 3.34.0 megaupdate

[Kalev Lember]

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 9:16 AM Olivier Fourdan  wrote:

> Hi Kalev,
>
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 9:51 PM Kalev Lember 
> wrote:
> >
> > On 9/9/19 12:17, Kalev Lember wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Last week was 3.33.92, and this week is the final 3.34.0 release. I'm
> > > wrangling the Fedora side of the release this time around as well. Same
> > > as last week, we have a koji side tag to prepare the update, and then
> > > I'll submit all of the builds together in a single megaupdate once
> ready.
> > >
> > > Please use 'fedpkg build --target f31-gnome' to submit any builds that
> > > should be part of the 3.34.0 update.
> > >
> > > I'll collect all the builds on Wednesday or Thursday and submit them to
> > > Bodhi.
> >
> > It's in updates-testing now:
> > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-6cc7585333
>
> Not sure if this is just me, but with this update, most if not all
> icons are missing. Was working fine before the update to GNOME 3.34.
>

I believe that's not a regression from the GNOME 3.34.0 update, but a
broken shared-mime-info update. See
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-b5c8297c68
This should be fixed in next updates-testing push.

-- 
Kalev
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F30 to F31

[Dridi Boukelmoune]

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 12:55 PM Miroslav Suchý  wrote:
>
> Do you want to make Fedora 31 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and 
> try to run [*]:
>
>   sudo dnf --releasever=31 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f31 
> --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
>
> If you get this prompt:
>
>   ...
>   Total download size: XXX M
>   Is this ok [y/N]:
>
> you can answer N and nothing happens, no need to test the actual upgrade.

My problem listing is so large it will probably account for noise
here. It all boils down to the coccinelle package
(coccinelle-1.0.7-5.fc30.x86_64 on my machine) generating 8 verbose
problems. If you can't reproduce it I will reluctantly dump the whole
thing ;)

Quick peek shows that it hasn't been rebuilt yet for f31 or rawhide:

https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/coccinelle

So I assume it's only a matter of time until it is rebuilt against f31's OCaml.

I also had another package causing a problem, but I removed it from my system:

> Problem 2: package python3-html2text-2019.8.11-1.fc31.noarch obsoletes 
> python2-html2text <= 2019.8.11-1.fc31 provided by 
> python2-html2text-2018.1.9-2.fc31.noarch
>  - package rss2email-2.71-14.fc29.noarch requires python2-html2text >= 3.01, 
> but none of the providers can be installed
>  - cannot install the best update candidate for package 
> python2-html2text-2018.1.9-1.fc30.noarch
>  - python2-html2text-2018.1.9-1.fc30.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade 
> repository
>  - problem with installed package rss2email-2.71-14.fc29.noarch

I removed rss2email from my installation, smells like missing py2 obsoletes.

Dridi
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F30 to F31

[Benson Muite]

On 9/12/19 9:52 AM, Miroslav Suchý wrote:

Dne 11. 09. 19 v 17:14 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a):

sudo dnf module disable libgit2 standard-test-roles
sudo dnf remove rust-libgit2-sys-devel
sudo dnf upgrade libgit2

   sudo dnf module reset libgit2
is option as well.

Thanks this worked.

The question is how to handle this generally.
https://pagure.io/modularity/issue/151


Perhaps DNF can issue a warning or more information during package 
upgrades, for example indicating available streams.


___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F30 to F31

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 03:51:42PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:48:51AM -0400, Solomon Peachy wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 03:16:28PM +0100, Phil Wyett wrote:
> > > > Do you want to make Fedora 31 better? Please spend 1 minute of your
> > > > time and try to run [*]:
> > > > 
> > > >   sudo dnf --releasever=31 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f31
> > > > --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
> > 
> > Here's an upgrade run against five systems.  There's a few more I can 
> > test but they're not accessible from here.
> > 
> > System 1:  (Laptop)
> > 
> > Error: 
> >  Problem 1: problem with installed package 0ad-0.0.23b-6.fc30.x86_64
> >   - 0ad-0.0.23b-6.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
> >   - nothing provides libmozjs38-ps-release.so()(64bit) needed by 
> > 0ad-0.0.23b-8.fc31.x86_64
> >   - nothing provides libmozjs38-ps-release.so(js)(64bit) needed by 
> > 0ad-0.0.23b-8.fc31.x86_64
> 
> I see kalev is building 0ad right now, so hopefully this will be resolved 
> soon.
> 
> >  Problem 2: package python2-pillow-qt-5.4.1-2.fc30.x86_64 requires 
> > python2-pillow(x86-64) = 5.4.1-2.fc30, but none of the providers can be 
> > installed
> >   - python2-pillow-5.4.1-2.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade 
> > repository
> >   - problem with installed package python2-pillow-qt-5.4.1-2.fc30.x86_64
> 
> So the python2-pillow-qt subpackage was dropped, but not all
> python2-pillow subpackages. It'd be best if pillow maintainers either
> do the obsoletes internally or file a bug against f-o-p.

I filed https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1751570 now.

> > System 2:  (Workstation)
> > 
> > Modular dependency problems:
> > 
> >  Problem 1: conflicting requests
> >   - nothing provides module(platform:f30) needed by module 
> > eclipse:2019-06:3020190807134759:6ebe2c0f-0.x86_64
> >  Problem 2: module jmc:latest:3120190813124555:7188e41a-0.x86_64 requires 
> > module(eclipse), but none of the providers can be installed
> >   - conflicting requests
> >   - nothing provides module(platform:f30) needed by module 
> > eclipse:2019-06:3020190807134759:6ebe2c0f-0.x86_64
> 
> >  Problem 2: package aeskulap-0.2.2-0.37.beta2.fc30.x86_64 requires 
> > libdcmdata.so.12()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
> 
> aeskulap is gone. I'll add it to f-o-p.
> 
> >   - dcmtk-3.6.2-4.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
> 
> This either needs a rebuild or an update.

Actually, no. dcmtk should be fixed when aeskulap is obsoleted.

> >  Problem 3: package gegl03-0.3.30-5.fc30.x86_64 requires 
> > libIlmImf-2_2.so.22()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1703828

> >  Problem 8: package openshot-2.4.4-2.fc31.noarch requires 
> > python3-libopenshot >= 0.2.3, but none of the providers can be installed
> >   - package python3-libopenshot-0.2.3-2.20190406git101f25a.fc30.x86_64 
> > requires libjsoncpp.so.19()(64bit), but none of the providers can be 
> > installed
> >   - package python3-libopenshot-0.2.3-2.20190406git101f25a.fc31.x86_64 
> > requires libjsoncpp.so.19()(64bit), but none of the providers can be 
> > installed

openshot is from rpmfusion.

> >   - cannot install both jsoncpp-1.9.1-1.fc31.x86_64 and 
> > jsoncpp-1.8.4-6.fc30.x86_64
> >   - package vtk-8.2.0-6.fc31.x86_64 requires libjsoncpp.so.21()(64bit), but 
> > none of the providers can be installed
> 
> Looks like this needs another rebuild and an update.

Actually, no. vtk should be fixed when jsoncpp is upgraded.

Zbyszek
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F30 to F31

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 10:10:41AM -0400, Steven A. Falco wrote:
> On 9/11/19 8:54 AM, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> > Do you want to make Fedora 31 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time 
> > and try to run [*]:
> > 
> >   sudo dnf --releasever=31 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f31 
> > --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
> > 
> > If you get this prompt:
> > 
> >   ...
> >   Total download size: XXX M
> >   Is this ok [y/N]:
> > 
> > you can answer N and nothing happens, no need to test the actual upgrade.
> > 
> > But very likely you get some dependency problem now. In that case, please 
> > report it against the appropriate package. Or
> > against fedora-obsolete-packages if that package should be removed in 
> > Fedora 31. Please check existing reports first:
> > https://red.ht/2kuBDPu
> > 
> > Thank you
> > 
> > [*] this command does not replace `dnf system-upgrade`, but it will reveal 
> > potential problems. You may also run `dnf
> > upgrade` before running this command.
> > 
> 
> Below are the three problems that I get.  There are already bugs filed 
> against chirp for python2, but I didn't see any relating to PyQwt or 
> crypto-utils.  Should I create new bugs for them?
> 
>   Steve
> 
> Error: 
>  Problem 1: package PyQwt-devel-5.2.0-42.fc30.x86_64 requires PyQwt(x86-64) = 
> 5.2.0-42.fc30, but none of the providers can be installed
>   - PyQwt-5.2.0-42.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
>   - problem with installed package PyQwt-devel-5.2.0-42.fc30.x86_64

pyqwt was retired. I'll add it to fedora-obsolete-packages.

>  Problem 2: package crypto-utils-2.5-4.fc29.x86_64 requires 
> libperl.so.5.28()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>   - package crypto-utils-2.5-4.fc29.x86_64 requires 
> perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.28.0), but none of the providers can be installed
>   - perl-libs-4:5.28.2-438.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade 
> repository
>   - problem with installed package crypto-utils-2.5-4.fc29.x86_64

crypto-utils was retired. I'll add it to fedora-obsolete-packages.

>  Problem 3: package chirp-20190812-1.fc31.noarch requires 
> python2dist(future), but none of the providers can be installed
>   - problem with installed package chirp-20190812-1.fc30.noarch
>   - python2-future-0.17.0-2.fc30.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade 
> repository
>   - chirp-20190812-1.fc30.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1737641
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F30 to F31

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 05:18:36PM +0100, chedi toueiti wrote:
> Error:
>  Problem 1: problem with installed package
> mono-tools-gendarme-4.2-12.fc30.x86_64
>   - mono-tools-gendarme-4.2-12.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
> repository
>   - nothing provides mono(ICSharpCode.SharpZipLib) = 1.1.0.0 needed by
> mono-tools-gendarme-4.2-15.fc31.x86_64

Hmm, mono-core-5.20.1-1.fc31 provides mono(ICSharpCode.SharpZipLib) = 4.84.0.0,
but mono-tools-4.2-15.fc31 was built later.

tpokorra, can you take a look?

>  Problem 2: package kupfer-208-15.fc28.noarch requires python2-keybinder,
> but none of the providers can be installed
>   - python2-keybinder-0.3.1-13.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
> repository
>   - problem with installed package kupfer-208-15.fc28.noarch

kupfer is gone: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1675241.
I'll add it to f-o-p.

>  Problem 3: package mono-debugger-2.10-21.fc30.x86_64 requires
> mono(Mono.Cecil) = 0.9.6.0, but none of the providers can be installed
>   - mono-cecil-0.9.6-12.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
> repository
>   - problem with installed package mono-debugger-2.10-21.fc30.x86_64

More mono issues. tpokorra?

>  Problem 4: package python2-pillow-tk-5.4.1-2.fc30.x86_64 requires
> python2-pillow(x86-64) = 5.4.1-2.fc30, but none of the providers can be
> installed
>   - python2-pillow-5.4.1-2.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
> repository
>   - problem with installed package python2-pillow-tk-5.4.1-2.fc30.x86_64

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1751570

>  Problem 5: package python2-virtualenv-clone-0.2.6-12.fc29.noarch requires
> python2-virtualenv, but none of the providers can be installed
>   - python2-virtualenv-16.0.0-7.fc30.noarch does not belong to a
> distupgrade repository
>   - problem with installed package
> python2-virtualenv-clone-0.2.6-12.fc29.noarch

Added to f-o-p.

Zbyszek
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F30 to F31

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 09:30:51AM -0500, Ron Olson wrote:
> This is what I got:
> 
> Error:
>  Problem 1: package gegl03-0.3.30-5.fc30.x86_64 requires
> libIlmImf-2_2.so.22()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
> installed
>   - OpenEXR-libs-2.2.0-16.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a
> distupgrade repository
>   - problem with installed package gegl03-0.3.30-5.fc30.x86_64

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1703828

>  Problem 2: problem with installed package
> exa-0.8.0-13.module_f30+4041+ebfd9240.x86_64
>   - package exa-0.9.0-2.module_f31+5365+04413d87.x86_64 requires
> libgit2.so.28()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>   - exa-0.8.0-13.module_f30+4041+ebfd9240.x86_64 does not belong to
> a distupgrade repository
>   - package libgit2-0.28.2-2.module_f31+5411+fa1856a4.x86_64 is
> excluded
>   - package libgit2-0.28.2-3.fc31.x86_64 is excluded

dnf module reset libgit2

> (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)
> 
> I was going to open tickets, per the request, but I guess I don’t
> know what “excluded” means, and whether “not being to a distupgrade
> repository” is a temporary thing, or something that really should
> have a ticket created.

Zbyszek
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [EXT] Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F30 to F31

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 02:56:37PM +, Anderson, Charles R wrote:
> I know you didn't ask about F29 upgrades, but it looks like it might work:

Upgrades from F29 are supported too, so this check is very useful.

> Install   135 Packages
> Upgrade  2417 Packages
> Remove  4 Packages

Nice!

Zbyszek
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: GNOME 3.34.0 megaupdate

[Olivier Fourdan]

Hi Kalev,

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 9:20 AM Kalev Lember  wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 9:16 AM Olivier Fourdan  wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> Not sure if this is just me, but with this update, most if not all
>> icons are missing. Was working fine before the update to GNOME 3.34.
>
>
> I believe that's not a regression from the GNOME 3.34.0 update, but a broken 
> shared-mime-info update. See 
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-b5c8297c68
> This should be fixed in next updates-testing push.

Ah yes, you're right, the same occurred on my F30 install as well
after the update of shared-mime-info!

Sorry for the false alarm!

Cheers
Olivier
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

F31+ i386 chroots build against Koji buildroots [was Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories]

[Pavel Raiskup]

On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 3:23:29 PM CEST Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Dne 09. 09. 19 v 21:01 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a):
> > The koji buildroot repo will continue to be available if you want to
> > copy something, but as far as work to be done to move back to
> > distributing a i686 set of trees? I guess doing the release blocking
> > tests on i686 at Beta and Final might be a good start, but thats a ton
> > of work for one person... is there anyone else you have talked to that
> > wants to do this?
> 
> I want to state one consequence. As there is no compose, the mock configs 
> fedora-31-i386 and fedora-rawhide-i386 will
> point directly to Koji.
> 
> https://github.com/rpm-software-management/mock/commit/a0c5d493c362c993d69619261cdba3a0f3e4cb99
> 
> All local builds into this chroot will likely be slow.
> And I will likely remove (or move to /etc/mock/eol/ ) those files in near 
> future.
> 
> This may affect CI of 3rd parties.

FTR, we changed this in Copr as well - otherwise _all_ the builds in
fedora-31-i386+ would already fail.  So please note that the fedora 31+
`i386` build chroot are _different_ from other architectures (in
copr/mock), and really re-consider whether you want to build against them.

Pavel


___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F30 to F31

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 02:42:27PM -0400, Code Zombie wrote:
> Hi
> 
> Here's my output (I am running F30):
> 
>  Problem 1: problem with installed package eclipse-jgit-5.4.0-4.fc30.noarch
>   - eclipse-jgit-5.4.0-4.fc30.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade
> repository
>   - nothing provides jgit = 5.3.0-5.fc31 needed by
> eclipse-jgit-5.3.0-5.fc31.noarch

eclipse-jgit ftbfs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1735128

>  Problem 2: package crypto-utils-2.5-4.fc29.x86_64 requires
> libperl.so.5.28()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>   - package crypto-utils-2.5-4.fc29.x86_64 requires
> perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.28.0), but none of the providers can be installed
>   - perl-libs-4:5.28.2-439.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
> repository
>   - problem with installed package crypto-utils-2.5-4.fc29.x86_64
>   - package perl-libs-4:5.28.2-439.module_f31+6019+b24e098f.x86_64 is
> excluded
>   - package perl-libs-4:5.28.2-439.module_f31+6050+a462f342.x86_64 is
> excluded

>  Problem 3: package xfce4-hamster-plugin-1.7-21.fc30.x86_64 requires
> hamster-time-tracker, but none of the providers can be installed
>   - hamster-time-tracker-2.0-0.16.rc1.fc30.noarch does not belong to a
> distupgrade repository
>   - problem with installed package xfce4-hamster-plugin-1.7-21.fc30.x86_64

hamster-time-tracker is gone:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/hamster-time-tracker/c/02aaa10ecbdc8fa8a39496464f8b3844a6f3de44.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1751591

>  Problem 4: problem with installed package
> gnome-builder-3.32.3-1.fc30.x86_64
>   - package gnome-builder-3.34.0-1.fc31.x86_64 requires
> libgit2.so.28()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>   - package gnome-builder-3.33.92-1.fc31.x86_64 requires
> libgit2.so.28()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>   - gnome-builder-3.32.3-1.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
> repository
>   - package libgit2-0.28.2-2.module_f31+5411+fa1856a4.x86_64 is excluded
>   - package libgit2-0.28.2-3.fc31.x86_64 is excluded
>  Problem 5: problem with installed package
> kf5-ktexteditor-5.59.0-1.fc30.x86_64
>   - package kf5-ktexteditor-5.61.0-1.fc31.x86_64 requires
> libgit2.so.28()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>   - kf5-ktexteditor-5.59.0-1.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
> repository
>   - package libgit2-0.28.2-2.module_f31+5411+fa1856a4.x86_64 is excluded
>   - package libgit2-0.28.2-3.fc31.x86_64 is excluded
>  Problem 6: problem with installed package
> libgit2-glib-0.28.0.1-1.fc30.x86_64
>   - package libgit2-glib-0.28.0.1-3.fc31.x86_64 requires
> libgit2.so.28()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>   - libgit2-glib-0.28.0.1-1.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
> repository
>   - package libgit2-0.28.2-2.module_f31+5411+fa1856a4.x86_64 is excluded
>   - package libgit2-0.28.2-3.fc31.x86_64 is excluded
> (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)

dnf module reset libgit2

Zbyszek
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F30 to F31

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 03:30:12PM -0400, Jared K. Smith wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 9:01 AM Miroslav Suchý  wrote:
> 
> > Do you want to make Fedora 31 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time
> > and try to run [*]:
> >
> >   sudo dnf --releasever=31 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f31
> > --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
> >
> 
> Error:
>  Problem 1: package gegl03-0.3.30-5.fc30.x86_64 requires
> libIlmImf-2_2.so.22()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>   - OpenEXR-libs-2.2.0-16.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
> repository
>   - problem with installed package gegl03-0.3.30-5.fc30.x86_64

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1703828

>  Problem 2: package python2-pkgwat-0.11-12.fc29.noarch requires
> python2-cliff, but none of the providers can be installed
>   - python2-cliff-2.13.0-2.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade
> repository
>   - problem with installed package python2-pkgwat-0.11-12.fc29.noarch

Added to f-o-p now.

>  Problem 3: problem with installed package
> exa-0.8.0-13.module_f30+4041+ebfd9240.x86_64
>   - package exa-0.9.0-2.module_f31+5365+04413d87.x86_64 requires
> libgit2.so.28()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>   - exa-0.8.0-13.module_f30+4041+ebfd9240.x86_64 does not belong to a
> distupgrade repository
>   - package libgit2-0.28.2-2.module_f31+5411+fa1856a4.x86_64 is excluded
>   - package libgit2-0.28.2-3.fc31.x86_64 is excluded

dnf module reset libgit2

Zbyszek
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F30 to F31

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 07:14:43PM -0600, Jerry James wrote:
> The third one, python3-parso, has builds for 0.5.1-2.fc30 and
> 0.5.1-2.fc32, but there is no 0.5.1-2 build for fc31.

File a bug please. It's against the guidelines to have a
higher-numbered build in F30 compared to F31. Maintainers need
to file an update for F31.

Zbyszek
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F30 to F31

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 07:12:37AM +0200, Franta Hanzlík wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 14:54:45 +0200
> Miroslav Suchý  wrote:
> 
> > Do you want to make Fedora 31 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time 
> > and try to run [*]:
> > 
> >   sudo dnf --releasever=31 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f31 
> > --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
> > ...
> 
> # dnf --releasever=31 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f31 
> --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
> Adobe Systems Incorporated 5.5 kB/s | 2.9 kB 00:00
> Fedora Modular 31 -i38  42 kB/s |  54 kB 00:01
> Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'fedora-modular'
> Error: Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'fedora-modular'

For some reason (maybe somebody from either infra or the modular camp
can provide more info), the metadata for fedora-modular repositories fails
to download much more often than regular fedora.

Just kick it again.

Zbyszek
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

F29 liberations-fonts dependencies are messed in several packages(or it's dnf)

[Marius Schwarz]

Hi,

pls refer to *Bug 1751699*
 for more informations.

(in short: no update to 2.00.5-3 was possible via dnf, as packages refer
to 2.00.3-1 directly)

to name some:

cups
flute
foomatic
gstreamer
libreoffice
tons of lib packages
poppler
samba
wine

180 packages in total were found on this installation, there could be more.

If or If-Not F30/31/32 have the same problem, is unknown yet.

Link: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1751699

best regards,
Marius
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Intent to unretire ladspa-swh-plugins

[Ryan Walklin]

Thanks for the clarification, I hadn't realised the LV2 versions of the plugins 
weren't working. I've managed to get the F29 version as you suggest, and 
patched (attached) the scripts to force Python 2 so I can run the  GUI from the 
launcher. Upstream seems to have updated the GUI to Python 3, but as mentioned 
there are some bugs with their config parser currently.

Regards,

Ryan

On Wed, 11 Sep 2019, at 3:44 PM, stan via devel wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 22:50:32 +0100
> "Ryan Walklin"  wrote:
> 
> > I built pulseaudio-equalizer directly from github today and it
> > doesn't seem to be able to parse it's own config files? Which is a
> > pain because I'd prefer something lighter than pulseeffects for a
> > simple EQ.
> 
> I built it on f31 from the f29 src.rpm in koji.  I had to build
> the f29 src.rpm for ladspa-swh-plugins first, and install it, then
> everything built fine, and works as usual.  But, pulseaudio-equalizer is
> a python2 program, so has to be explicitly started as 
> python2 pulseaudio-equalizer
> in a terminal now that python2 is deprecated and replaced as default
> python.
> 
> pulseaudio-equalizer
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1121317
> 
> ladspa-swh-plugins
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1112542
> 
> How to build rpm from src.rpm
> 
> http://fedoranews.org/hoyt/rpm/
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: 
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives: 
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
>diff -ru pulseaudio-equalizer-2.7/usr/bin/pulseaudio-equalizer-gtk pulseaudio-equalizer-2.7-py2/usr/bin/pulseaudio-equalizer-gtk
--- pulseaudio-equalizer-2.7/usr/bin/pulseaudio-equalizer-gtk	2010-02-07 13:18:41.0 +
+++ pulseaudio-equalizer-2.7-py2/usr/bin/pulseaudio-equalizer-gtk	2019-09-12 12:17:37.847045921 +0100
@@ -4,4 +4,4 @@
 # Author: Conn O'Griofa 
 # Version: (see '/usr/pulseaudio-equalizer' script)
 
-python /usr/share/pulseaudio-equalizer/pulseaudio-equalizer.py
+python2 /usr/share/pulseaudio-equalizer/pulseaudio-equalizer.py
diff -ru pulseaudio-equalizer-2.7/usr/share/pulseaudio-equalizer/pulseaudio-equalizer.py pulseaudio-equalizer-2.7-py2/usr/share/pulseaudio-equalizer/pulseaudio-equalizer.py
--- pulseaudio-equalizer-2.7/usr/share/pulseaudio-equalizer/pulseaudio-equalizer.py	2010-02-07 13:18:41.0 +
+++ pulseaudio-equalizer-2.7-py2/usr/share/pulseaudio-equalizer/pulseaudio-equalizer.py	2019-09-12 12:17:32.608024590 +0100
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-#!/usr/bin/env python
+#!/usr/bin/env python2
 
 # PulseAudio Equalizer (PyGTK Interface)
 #
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Fedora-31-20190912.n.0 compose check report

[Fedora compose checker]

No missing expected images.

Failed openQA tests: 4/152 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm)

New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-31-20190911.n.0):

ID: 449292  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso apps_startstop
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/449292

Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-31-20190911.n.0):

ID: 449256  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso modularity_tests
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/449256
ID: 449291  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_background
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/449291
ID: 449294  Test: arm Minimal-raw_xz-raw.xz 
install_arm_image_deployment_upload
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/449294
ID: 449297  Test: x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso release_identification
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/449297

Soft failed openQA tests: 3/152 (x86_64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)

Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-31-20190911.n.0):

ID: 449272  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_update_graphical
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/449272
ID: 449288  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_update_graphical
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/449288
ID: 449369  Test: x86_64 universal install_asian_language
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/449369

Passed openQA tests: 145/152 (x86_64)

New passes (same test not passed in Fedora-31-20190911.n.0):

ID: 449368  Test: x86_64 universal install_arabic_language
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/449368

Skipped non-gating openQA tests: 1 of 154

Installed system changes in test x86_64 Server-boot-iso install_default: 
1 packages(s) added since previous compose: wpa_supplicant
2 packages(s) removed since previous compose: iwd, libell
1 services(s) removed since previous compose: systemd-modules-load.service
Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/447768#downloads
Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/449227#downloads

Installed system changes in test x86_64 Server-boot-iso install_default@uefi: 
1 packages(s) added since previous compose: wpa_supplicant
2 packages(s) removed since previous compose: iwd, libell
1 services(s) removed since previous compose: systemd-modules-load.service
Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/447769#downloads
Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/449228#downloads

Installed system changes in test x86_64 Workstation-live-iso 
install_default_upload: 
Used mem changed from 746 MiB to 882 MiB
1 services(s) added since previous compose: 
dbus-:1.7-org.freedesktop.problems@0.service
  loaded active running dbus-:1.7-org.freedesktop.problems@0.service
1 services(s) removed since previous compose: 
dbus-:1.6-org.freedesktop.problems@0.service
  loaded active running dbus-:1.6-org.freedesktop.problems@0.service
System load changed from 0.36 to 0.47
Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/447805#downloads
Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/449264#downloads

Installed system changes in test x86_64 Workstation-live-iso 
install_default@uefi: 
Used mem changed from 882 MiB to 741 MiB
System load changed from 0.50 to 0.28
Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/447807#downloads
Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/449266#downloads

Installed system changes in test x86_64 KDE-live-iso install_default_upload: 
1 services(s) added since previous compose: 
dbus-:1.5-org.freedesktop.problems@0.service
  loaded active running dbus-:1.5-org.freedesktop.problems@0.service
1 services(s) removed since previous compose: 
dbus-:1.6-org.freedesktop.problems@0.service
  loaded active running dbus-:1.6-org.freedesktop.problems@0.service
System load changed from 0.27 to 2.07
Average CPU usage changed from 2.1333 to 74.60952381
Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/447820#downloads
Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/449279#downloads

Installed system changes in test x86_64 KDE-live-iso install_default@uefi: 
1 services(s) added since previous compose: pcscd.service
System load changed from 0.38 to 0.64
Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/447822#downloads
Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/449281#downloads

Installed system changes in test x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso 
install_default_upload: 
Used swap changed from 6 MiB to 7 MiB
System load changed from 0.40 to 0.55
Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/447837#downloads
Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/449296#downloads

Installed system changes in test x86_64 universal install_package_set_kd

Fedora 31 compose report: 20190912.n.0 changes

[Fedora Branched Report]

OLD: Fedora-31-20190911.n.0
NEW: Fedora-31-20190912.n.0

= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images:  0
Added packages:  1
Dropped packages:2
Upgraded packages:   0
Downgraded packages: 0

Size of added packages:  8.71 MiB
Size of dropped packages:55.09 MiB
Size of upgraded packages:   0 B
Size of downgraded packages: 0 B

Size change of upgraded packages:   0 B
Size change of downgraded packages: 0 B

= ADDED IMAGES =

= DROPPED IMAGES =

= ADDED PACKAGES =
Package: gstreamer-0.10.36-18.fc27
Summary: GStreamer streaming media framework runtime
RPMs:gstreamer gstreamer-devel gstreamer-devel-docs gstreamer-tools
Size:8.71 MiB


= DROPPED PACKAGES =
Package: compat-libicu62-62.1-3.fc31
Summary: Compat package with icu libraries
RPMs:compat-libicu62
Size:55.07 MiB

Package: fedora-screensaver-theme-1.0.0-12.fc23
Summary: Fedora screensaver theme
RPMs:fedora-screensaver-theme
Size:15.23 KiB


= UPGRADED PACKAGES =

= DOWNGRADED PACKAGES =
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Fedora 32 Self-Contained Change proposal: PHP 7.4

[Ben Cotton]

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/php74

== Summary ==
Update the PHP stack in Fedora to latest version 7.4.x

== Owner ==
* Name: Remi Collet and PHP SIG
* Email: remi at fedoraproject dot org

== Current status ==
* An testing module is available in my
[https://blog.remirepo.net/post/2019/09/06/PHP-on-the-road-to-the-7.4.0-release
repository]
* List of 
[https://blog.remirepo.net/post/2019/05/23/PHP-extensions-status-with-upcoming-PHP-7.4
extensions compatibility list]

== Detailed Description ==

Update the PHP stack in Fedora to latest version 7.4.x.

* [https://www.php.net/archive/2019.php#2019-09-05-1 First RC] was
released on Sept 5th
* PHP 7.4.0 is [https://wiki.php.net/todo/php74 planed] for end of
year, which seems compatible with Fedora roadmap.

Compatibility for PHP code is very good.


== Benefit to Fedora ==

Provides the latest PHP version to developers and system administrators.

== Scope ==
* Proposal owners: Check Koschei status. Test with latest version to
ensure compatibility. Work with upstream on bug fixing. Needed mass
rebuild (C extensions) done by change owner.

* Other developers: N/A (not a System Wide Change)

== Upgrade/compatibility impact ==
N/A (not a System Wide Change)

== How To Test ==

* The PHP stack (extensions and libraries) are monitored by Koschei,
see the 
[https://apps.fedoraproject.org/koschei/groups/php?order_by=state%2C-started
Koschei PHP group]
* install and play with your web applications

== User Experience ==
Developers and system administrators will have the great benefit or
running the latest PHP version.


== Dependencies ==
All php-* packages (and some *-php)

== Contingency Plan ==
* Contingency mechanism: Drop not compatible packages.


== Documentation ==
* https://raw.githubusercontent.com/php/php-src/PHP-7.4/UPGRADING
* https://raw.githubusercontent.com/php/php-src/PHP-7.4/UPGRADING.INTERNALS

-- 
Ben Cotton
He / Him / His
Fedora Program Manager
Red Hat
TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [Design-team] Re: Badges virtual hackfest

[Ben Cotton]

Forwarding to mindshare and devel lists on Marie's behalf to reach as
many possible contributors who may be interested in helping out this
weekend.

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 6:43 AM Marie Nordin  wrote:
>
> Hi everybody!
>
> This weekend I will be running a badges virtual hackfest. We can use as much 
> help as possible! I will be hanging out in the design and badges irc to help 
> give direction. We have multiple things to work on including:
>
> - badge design
> - ticket triage
> - updating style guide
> - revising current badges that are incorrectly sized or could use some love
> - brainstorming
> - review and update wiki if needed
> - review and update docs page if needed
>
> I will be around roughly during the following times, and you’re welcome to 
> message me on telegram as well :)
>
> Friday 7PM-?? EST
> Saturday 10AM-?? EST
>
> If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or reply to this email. 
> Hope to see you there!
>
> - riecatnor
>

-- 
Ben Cotton
He / Him / His
Fedora Program Manager
Red Hat
TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F30 to F31

[Ankur Sinha]

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 10:48:51 -0400, Solomon Peachy wrote:
>  Problem 2: package aeskulap-0.2.2-0.37.beta2.fc30.x86_64 requires 
> libdcmdata.so.12()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>   - package aeskulap-0.2.2-0.37.beta2.fc30.x86_64 requires 
> libdcmimage.so.12()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>   - package aeskulap-0.2.2-0.37.beta2.fc30.x86_64 requires 
> libdcmimgle.so.12()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>   - package aeskulap-0.2.2-0.37.beta2.fc30.x86_64 requires 
> libdcmjpeg.so.12()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>   - package aeskulap-0.2.2-0.37.beta2.fc30.x86_64 requires 
> libdcmnet.so.12()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>   - package aeskulap-0.2.2-0.37.beta2.fc30.x86_64 requires 
> libijg12.so.12()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>   - package aeskulap-0.2.2-0.37.beta2.fc30.x86_64 requires 
> libijg16.so.12()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>   - package aeskulap-0.2.2-0.37.beta2.fc30.x86_64 requires 
> libijg8.so.12()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>   - package aeskulap-0.2.2-0.37.beta2.fc30.x86_64 requires 
> liboflog.so.12()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>   - package aeskulap-0.2.2-0.37.beta2.fc30.x86_64 requires 
> libofstd.so.12()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed

So, aeskulap was orphaned. I don't even see an F31 branch somehow:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/aeskulap/branches?branchname=master

What should be done here?

>   - dcmtk-3.6.2-4.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository

There's certainly a build for F31 for dcmtk.
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1322503

I don't see an update for F31 on bodhi, though. Maybe that got skipped?

>   - vtk-8.1.1-5.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository

There's vtk 8.2.0-6 that is already in F31 stable. So not sure what this
implies:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-986bbe4d7f

In general what does "does not belong to a distupgrade repository" mean?

-- 
Thanks,
Regards,
Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD" (He / Him / His) | 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha
Time zone: Europe/London


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F30 to F31

[Scott Talbert]

On Thu, 12 Sep 2019, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:


The third one, python3-parso, has builds for 0.5.1-2.fc30 and
0.5.1-2.fc32, but there is no 0.5.1-2 build for fc31.


File a bug please. It's against the guidelines to have a
higher-numbered build in F30 compared to F31. Maintainers need
to file an update for F31.


I filed this one already:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1751448___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F30 to F31

[Martin Kolman]

Looks like I have something uniqe I haven't seen in the other mails, related to 
packit:

$ LANG=en_US sudo dnf --releasever=31 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f31 
--enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
RCM Tools for Fedora 31 (RPMs)  
  284  B/s | 286  B 00:01
Failed to download metadata for repo 'rcm-tools-fedora-rpms'
RPM Fusion for Fedora 31 - Free - Updates   
  310 kB/s |  76 kB 00:00
Failed to download metadata for repo 'rpmfusion-free-updates'
RPM Fusion for Fedora 31 - Nonfree - NVIDIA Driver  
  259 kB/s |  76 kB 00:00
Failed to download metadata for repo 'rpmfusion-nonfree-nvidia-driver'
RPM Fusion for Fedora 31 - Nonfree - Updates
   67 kB/s |  76 kB 00:01
Failed to download metadata for repo 'rpmfusion-nonfree-updates'
Ignoring repositories: rcm-tools-fedora-rpms, rpmfusion-free-updates, 
rpmfusion-nonfree-nvidia-driver, rpmfusion-
nonfree-updates
Last metadata expiration check: 0:02:43 ago on Thu 12 Sep 2019 12:06:55 PM CEST.
Error: 
 Problem 1: problem with installed package python3-packit-0.5.0-1.fc30.noarch
  - python3-packit-0.5.0-1.fc30.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
  - nothing provides python3.7dist(koji) needed by 
python3-packit-0.5.1-1.fc31.noarch
 Problem 2: package python2-pyglet-1.3.2-3.fc29.noarch requires python2-future, 
but none of the providers can be
installed
  - python2-future-0.17.0-2.fc30.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade 
repository
  - problem with installed package python2-pyglet-1.3.2-3.fc29.noarch
 Problem 3: problem with installed package packit-0.5.0-1.fc30.noarch
  - package packit-0.5.1-1.fc31.noarch requires python3-packit = 0.5.1-1.fc31, 
but none of the providers can be
installed
  - packit-0.5.0-1.fc30.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
  - nothing provides python3.7dist(koji) needed by 
python3-packit-0.5.1-1.fc31.noarch
(try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)

CCing one of the packit maintainers.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

[Simon Farnsworth]

> On 11 Sep 2019, at 21:03, vvs vvs  wrote:
> 
> Yes, that's understandable. But this is beating of a dead horse.
> 
> But what matters now is that by doing some small investigation i686 users can 
> still get support for their bugs which are common for both platforms. This 
> doesn't require any formalities like SIG or commitments which they can't make 
> and it is always available for anyone who can afford to spend some additional 
> time if such bug affects them bad enough.
> 

That's literally all the x86 SIG was asked to do - get some small investigation 
work going so that between all of them, packages that had i686-unique bugs 
could be fixed in a timely fashion. They couldn't get enough interest going to 
even keep the kernel building for i686 as well as x86-64.

Everything else, including commitments from individuals and the mailing list, 
was secondary to that goal, and was only looked at because the x86 SIG was 
failing to help resolve FTBFS bugs that were blocking S390, x86-64 and other 
arches.

> I think this could work better than previous attempts at keeping x86 SIG 
> alive. Of course nothing prevents some volunteers to do above work on behalf 
> of other users or create mirrors for distribution of i686 packages. But this 
> is not critical to keep things running.

The problem is that you're discussing what the x86 SIG was formed to do - the 
only reason to form a SIG to begin with was so that there was a bit of Fedora 
infrastructure (mailing lists etc) devoted to connecting packagers with 
i686-only problems to people who were willing to try and solve them.

If no-one's willing to actually do anything to fix i686 FTBFS issues, then 
Fedora will drop i686 support eventually. That's all that's happening here - 
no-one wants to do anything to keep i686 alive as an architecture for Fedora, 
so Fedora is dropping i686.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F30 to F31

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 03:23:43PM +0100, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> So, aeskulap was orphaned. I don't even see an F31 branch somehow:
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/aeskulap/branches?branchname=master
> 
> What should be done here?
> 
> >   - dcmtk-3.6.2-4.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
> 
> There's certainly a build for F31 for dcmtk.
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1322503
> 
> I don't see an update for F31 on bodhi, though. Maybe that got skipped?
> 
> >   - vtk-8.1.1-5.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
> 
> There's vtk 8.2.0-6 that is already in F31 stable. So not sure what this
> implies:
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-986bbe4d7f

This was already resolved elsewhere in the thread:
both issues are resolved by obsoleting aeskulap. Latest update
to fedora-obsolete-packages does that.

> In general what does "does not belong to a distupgrade repository" mean?

Dunno. dnf output could use some love here.

Zbyszek
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F30 to F31

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 04:37:42PM +0200, Martin Kolman wrote:
> Looks like I have something uniqe I haven't seen in the other mails, related 
> to packit:
> 
> $ LANG=en_US sudo dnf --releasever=31 
> --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f31 --enablerepo=updates-testing 
> distro-sync
> RCM Tools for Fedora 31 (RPMs)
> 284  B/s | 286  B 00:01
> Failed to download metadata for repo 'rcm-tools-fedora-rpms'
> RPM Fusion for Fedora 31 - Free - Updates 
> 310 kB/s |  76 kB 00:00
> Failed to download metadata for repo 'rpmfusion-free-updates'
> RPM Fusion for Fedora 31 - Nonfree - NVIDIA Driver
> 259 kB/s |  76 kB 00:00
> Failed to download metadata for repo 'rpmfusion-nonfree-nvidia-driver'
> RPM Fusion for Fedora 31 - Nonfree - Updates  
>  67 kB/s |  76 kB 00:01
> Failed to download metadata for repo 'rpmfusion-nonfree-updates'
> Ignoring repositories: rcm-tools-fedora-rpms, rpmfusion-free-updates, 
> rpmfusion-nonfree-nvidia-driver, rpmfusion-
> nonfree-updates
> Last metadata expiration check: 0:02:43 ago on Thu 12 Sep 2019 12:06:55 PM 
> CEST.
> Error: 
>  Problem 1: problem with installed package python3-packit-0.5.0-1.fc30.noarch
>   - python3-packit-0.5.0-1.fc30.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade 
> repository
>   - nothing provides python3.7dist(koji) needed by 
> python3-packit-0.5.1-1.fc31.noarch

packit needs to be rebuilt for python3.8.

>  Problem 2: package python2-pyglet-1.3.2-3.fc29.noarch requires 
> python2-future, but none of the providers can be
> installed
>   - python2-future-0.17.0-2.fc30.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade 
> repository
>   - problem with installed package python2-pyglet-1.3.2-3.fc29.noarch

python2-pyglet will be obsoleted.

>  Problem 3: problem with installed package packit-0.5.0-1.fc30.noarch
>   - package packit-0.5.1-1.fc31.noarch requires python3-packit = 
> 0.5.1-1.fc31, but none of the providers can be
> installed
>   - packit-0.5.0-1.fc30.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
>   - nothing provides python3.7dist(koji) needed by 
> python3-packit-0.5.1-1.fc31.noarch
> (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)

This is the same as Problem 1.

Zbyszek
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F30 to F31

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 02:57:55PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 04:37:42PM +0200, Martin Kolman wrote:
> > Looks like I have something uniqe I haven't seen in the other mails, 
> > related to packit:
> > 
> > $ LANG=en_US sudo dnf --releasever=31 
> > --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f31 --enablerepo=updates-testing 
> > distro-sync
> > RCM Tools for Fedora 31 (RPMs)  
> >   284  B/s | 286  B 00:01
> > Failed to download metadata for repo 'rcm-tools-fedora-rpms'
> > RPM Fusion for Fedora 31 - Free - Updates   
> >   310 kB/s |  76 kB 00:00
> > Failed to download metadata for repo 'rpmfusion-free-updates'
> > RPM Fusion for Fedora 31 - Nonfree - NVIDIA Driver  
> >   259 kB/s |  76 kB 00:00
> > Failed to download metadata for repo 'rpmfusion-nonfree-nvidia-driver'
> > RPM Fusion for Fedora 31 - Nonfree - Updates
> >67 kB/s |  76 kB 00:01
> > Failed to download metadata for repo 'rpmfusion-nonfree-updates'
> > Ignoring repositories: rcm-tools-fedora-rpms, rpmfusion-free-updates, 
> > rpmfusion-nonfree-nvidia-driver, rpmfusion-
> > nonfree-updates
> > Last metadata expiration check: 0:02:43 ago on Thu 12 Sep 2019 12:06:55 PM 
> > CEST.
> > Error: 
> >  Problem 1: problem with installed package 
> > python3-packit-0.5.0-1.fc30.noarch
> >   - python3-packit-0.5.0-1.fc30.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade 
> > repository
> >   - nothing provides python3.7dist(koji) needed by 
> > python3-packit-0.5.1-1.fc31.noarch
> 
> packit needs to be rebuilt for python3.8.

Sorry, brain fart. This is F31, so we have python3.7.
packit-0.6.0-1.fc31 is the latest build, and there's an update:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-e260b49ac9
But it needs to go to stable.
Please file a bug and ask for a freeze exception.

Zbyszek
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Intent to unretire ladspa-swh-plugins

[stan via devel]

On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 13:32:45 +0100
"Ryan Walklin"  wrote:

> Thanks for the clarification, I hadn't realised the LV2 versions of
> the plugins weren't working. I've managed to get the F29 version as
> you suggest, and patched (attached) the scripts to force Python 2 so
> I can run the  GUI from the launcher. Upstream seems to have updated
> the GUI to Python 3, but as mentioned there are some bugs with their
> config parser currently.

Thanks for the patch.  I had caught the generic python reference in the
python file, but not the one in the gtk file.  Now, I can have normal
operation.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Need help: SWIG related build error for python-pivy?

[Richard Shaw]

On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 9:18 PM Jerry James  wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 7:53 PM Richard Shaw  wrote:
> > I have both SoQt and SIMVoleon buliding with it but I'm getting an error
> with Pivy:
> >
> > + /usr/bin/python3 setup.py build '--executable=/usr/bin/python3 -s'
> > running build
> > BUILDSTDERR: Deprecated command line option: -modern. This option is now
> always on.
> > BUILDSTDERR: Inventor/SbDict.h:53: Error: Unable to find 'cstddef'
>
> The errors indicate that the compiler cannot find the standard C++
> headers.  These are the first things I would check:
> 1. Does the spec file include BuildRequires: gcc-c++?
>

I didn't (hadn't needed it before) but I added it with no change to the
errors...



> 2. Is setup.py choosing g++ as the compiler?
>

I can't tell, it's just running swig with the -c++ option which is correct.
I don't know what swig is doing in the background...



> 3. Is -nostdinc++ showing up in the build flags?
>

Not that I can tell...

Thanks,
Richard
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F30 to F31

[Miroslav Suchý]

Dne 12. 09. 19 v 5:02 Harish Pillay napsal(a):
> after adding --allowerasing to the commandline.

Try it without it. The point is not to "pass it somehow", but pass it properly 
according documentation. If erasing is
needed, then there is likely missing some obsolete somewhere.

-- 
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Associate Manager ABRT/Copr, #brno, #fedora-buildsys



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F30 to F31

[Miroslav Suchý]

Dne 11. 09. 19 v 17:04 Solomon Peachy napsal(a):
>  There are a couple 
> of F29 stragglers left behind from the last upgrade too.  Not sure what 
> I should file tickets about here..

If the package does not cause an issue, then it can be left behind. But it can 
be removed using
fedora-obsolete-packages. The general approach is: if it does not cause an 
issue during an upgrade, then do not remove
it and leave it on the user.

-- 
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Associate Manager ABRT/Copr, #brno, #fedora-buildsys



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Intention to retire Release Notes RPM

[Miroslav Suchý]

Dne 02. 09. 19 v 13:57 Brian (bex) Exelbierd napsal(a):
> Closing the loop: This package has been retired via `fedpkg retire` in f31 
> and rawhide.

Can you add it to fedora-obsolete-packages? Otherwise the old version will 
remain on every Fedora machine.

-- 
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Associate Manager ABRT/Copr, #brno, #fedora-buildsys
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Test-Announce] Fedora 31 Beta is GO

[Ben Cotton]

The Fedora 31 Beta RC1 compose[1] is GO and is will be shipped live on
Tuesday, 17 September 2019.

For more information please check the Go/No-Go meeting minutes [2] or log [3].

Thank you to everyone who has and still is working on this release!

[1] https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/31_Beta-1.1/
[2] 
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2019-09-12/f31-beta-go_no_go-meeting.2019-09-12-17.00.html
[3] 
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2019-09-12/f31-beta-go_no_go-meeting.2019-09-12-17.00.log.html

--
Ben Cotton
He / Him / His
Fedora Program Manager
Red Hat
TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis
___
test-announce mailing list -- test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-announce-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F30 to F31

[Nathanael D. Noblet]

Hello,

  I had a few problems. To clear some I had to run.

sudo dnf module reset libgit2

  This resulted in the rest of the errors.

Modular dependency problems:

 Problem 1: conflicting requests
  - nothing provides module(platform:f30) needed by module
eclipse:2019-06:3020190807134759:6ebe2c0f-0.x86_64
 Problem 2: module jmc:latest:3120190813124555:7188e41a-0.x86_64
requires module(eclipse), but none of the providers can be installed
  - conflicting requests
  - nothing provides module(platform:f30) needed by module
eclipse:2019-06:3020190807134759:6ebe2c0f-0.x86_64
Error: 
 Problem: package gegl03-0.3.30-5.fc30.x86_64 requires libIlmImf-
2_2.so.22()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - OpenEXR-libs-2.2.0-16.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - problem with installed package gegl03-0.3.30-5.fc30.x86_64
(try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)


I used to use eclipse but no longer do so I'm unsure as to the actually
issue here. Nor do I know what is actually the problem with the
potential upgrade.

Sincerely,
-- 
Nathanael

___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F30 to F31

[Nathanael D. Noblet]

I've since run

sudo dnf module reset eclipse

Which results in the following error when trying a distro-sync.

 Problem: conflicting requests
  - nothing provides module(eclipse) needed by module
jmc:latest:3120190813124555:7188e41a-0.x86_64
Error: 
 Problem: package gegl03-0.3.30-5.fc30.x86_64 requires libIlmImf-
2_2.so.22()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
  - OpenEXR-libs-2.2.0-16.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
  - problem with installed package gegl03-0.3.30-5.fc30.x86_64
(try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)

Is this an error with gegl03?

Sincerely,
-- 
Nathanael


___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F30 to F31

[Kevin Fenzi]

On 9/12/19 1:37 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 07:12:37AM +0200, Franta Hanzlík wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 14:54:45 +0200
>> Miroslav Suchý  wrote:
>>
>>> Do you want to make Fedora 31 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time 
>>> and try to run [*]:
>>>
>>>   sudo dnf --releasever=31 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f31 
>>> --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
>>> ...
>>
>> # dnf --releasever=31 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f31 
>> --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
>> Adobe Systems Incorporated 5.5 kB/s | 2.9 kB 00:00
>> Fedora Modular 31 -i38  42 kB/s |  54 kB 00:01
>> Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'fedora-modular'
>> Error: Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'fedora-modular'
> 
> For some reason (maybe somebody from either infra or the modular camp
> can provide more info), the metadata for fedora-modular repositories fails
> to download much more often than regular fedora.

I'm not sure why that would be. It's smaller repodata, mirrored the same
way.

Perhaps check /var/log/dnf.librepo.log the next time it does this and
see if there's anything there to help track it down?

kevin




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F30 to F31

[Elliott Sales de Andrade]

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 10:24 AM Ankur Sinha,  wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 10:48:51 -0400, Solomon Peachy wrote:
> >   - vtk-8.1.1-5.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
>
> There's vtk 8.2.0-6 that is already in F31 stable. So not sure what this
> implies:
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-986bbe4d7f
>
> In general what does "does not belong to a distupgrade repository" mean?
>

>From the dist tag, you can see this package is from F30, the old (and to be
deleted from the system) repo. "Not belong to a distupgrade repository"
means it didn't come from F31, the _new_ repo. It's a leftover that is
either pulling in old (unsatisfiable) Requires or is pulled in by some
other leftover.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: "Modifying /etc/os-release for re-branding?"

[Kevin Fenzi]

On 9/10/19 11:50 PM, jkone...@redhat.com wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-09-11 at 09:54 +0530, Danishka Navin wrote:
>> Is it ok to modify /etc/os-release for re-branding purpose? 

I would think so yes. There's a lot of things there that you would want
to point elsehwere if you are remixing.

kevin
--
> 
> Hi Danishka Navin,
> Good question on a bad place. Adding Fedora devel list here, there
> could be someone who is able to answer you this question.
> Jirka
>> On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 6:11 PM Vendula Poncova 
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 7:29 PM Danishka Navin 
>>> wrote:
 On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 6:16 PM Vendula Poncova <
 vponc...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 9:56 AM Danishka Navin <
> danis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Jirka,
>>
>> I used the following command but did't use --product and --
>> version at all.
>> Btw, does livecd-creator read from /etc/os-release when we
>> ignore both --product and --version?
>>
>> livecd-creator --verbose --config=hanthana-live-
>> workstation.ks --fslabel=h30 --cache=cache --tmpdir=tmp
>>
>> Then I copied fresh kisktars shipped by fedora and rerun with
>> my custom configs.
>> I could not reproduce the issue.
>>
>> I wonder if the issue caused by following entries in the
>> /etc/os-release file. 
>>
>> REDHAT_BUGZILLA_PRODUCT="Fedora"
>> REDHAT_SUPPORT_PRODUCT="Fedora"
>>
>>
>> Btw, there is a new issue occurred.
>> As in this image, Anaconda keeps duplicating the values of
>> redhat-release file.
>> I am not sure if its a bug or I mage a mistake.
>>
>>
>> https://pasteboard.co/IvvT4nf.png
>>
>> Added Hanthana Workstation (Vishwa)' in to the redhat-release 
>> file.
>> https://pasteboard.co/IvvSiU5.png
>>
>> If you have digital at the end, it only repeats the digit.
>> When using "Hanthana 30" 
>>
>> https://pasteboard.co/IvvTyBT.png
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Anaconda reads the product name and the product version from
>>> /etc/system-release on Live ISO or from the .buildstamp file in
>>> network installations. See my comment about the .buildstamp file
>>> below. I think that all these problems are related.
>>>  
>> On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 1:06 PM  wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>> You have probably used bad parameters when you were
>>> invoking lorax. You have to use correct --product and --
>>> version parameters otherwise we will be handling your ISO
>>> as Rawhide.
>>> Could you please tell us what command did you used to
>>> create your ISO?
>>> Regards,Jirka
>>> On Sat, 2019-08-31 at 18:12 +0530, Danishka Navin wrote:
 Hi there,

 When I was trying to install f30 based remixed ISO, 
 "PRE-RELEASE/TESTING" text appearing in top-right hand
 side of anaconda GUI.
 May I know what could cause this?

>
> Hello,
>
> for Live ISO, there is a little crazy logic that sets up the
> flag for a final release:
> https://github.com/rhinstaller/anaconda/blob/master/data/liveinst/liveinst#L93
>
> Basically, it is determined by a version of a package that
> provides system-release, so I would check that.
>
> What is the output of these commands, when you run them on your
> ISO?
>
>
> rpm -q  --whatprovides system-release
> rpm -q --qf '%{Release}' --whatprovides system-release

 $ rpm -q  --whatprovides system-release
 fedora-release-workstation-30-900.noarch
 $ rpm -q --qf '%{Release}' --whatprovides system-release
 900[


>>>
>>> It seems to be correct. The liveinst script should set the
>>> environment variable ANACONDA_ISFINAL to True before Anaconda is
>>> started.
>>> Network installations use the IsFinal attribute of the .buildstamp
>>> file to determine the value of the flag, but Live ISO shouldn't
>>> have this file and should use ANACONDA_ISFINAL instead. The path to
>>> the .buildstamp file can be /.buildstamp, /tmp/product/.buildstamp
>>> or set by the environment variable PRODBUILDPATH. Could you check
>>> that these files do not exist on your ISO?
>>> Otherwise, I would recommend to report a bug at 
>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/ and attach the Anaconda logs from the
>>> installation.
>>>  
  
> Vendy
>  
 both os-release and redhat-release updated and I can see
 given values.
 both fedora and fedora-update repos used during the ISO
 build along with few 3rd party repos.  

 Regards,
 -- 
 Danishka Navin







 ___Anaconda-
 devel-list mailing listanaconda-devel-l...@redhat.com
 https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Anaconda-devel-lis

Re: F29 liberations-fonts dependencies are messed in several packages(or it's dnf)

[Kevin Kofler]

Marius Schwarz wrote:
> (in short: no update to 2.00.5-3 was possible via dnf, as packages refer
> to 2.00.3-1 directly)

They don't actually refer to liberation-fonts-2.00.3-1, but to liberation-
narrow-fonts, which liberation-fonts-2.00.3-1 claims to Provide, but does 
not actually provide.

So the correct fix is to force the installation of liberation-narrow-fonts 
and then to ignore the invalid "broken dependency" warning from DNF that 
wants to downgrade liberation-fonts because it processes obsolete Obsoletes 
(a DNF bug that the DNF developers refuse to fix), see:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748187

But the good news is that the liberation-narrow-fonts maintainers have 
reacted and bumped the Epoch of liberation-narrow-fonts so that the broken 
Obsoletes in liberation-fonts-2.00.3-1 no longer apply:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-2b29cee6f9
and this update was pushed to stable a few minutes ago, so hopefully DNF 
will be able to resolve the dependencies when the mirrors sync up.

Kevin Kofler
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories

[vvs vvs]

But there should be some reason for that lack of interested volunteers in 
Fedora. Right now I'm looking at stats for other distributions which are not 
going to drop i686 any time soon, e.g. Debian, NixOS, Gentoo. There must me 
some very fundamental difference with how they operate. Of course one of the 
reasons might be that some are relying on users to build packages themselves. 
OTOH they have their own CI, binary repositories/caches and Debian only has 
binaries for its package management. Why the difference? I'm not sure...
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Fedora-Rawhide-20190912.n.2 compose check report

[Fedora compose checker]

No missing expected images.

Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check!
4 of 45 required tests failed, 2 results missing
openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING** 
below
Unsatisfied gating requirements that could not be mapped to openQA tests:
MISSING: fedora.Workstation-boot-iso.x86_64.64bit - compose.install_default
MISSING: fedora.Workstation-boot-iso.x86_64.uefi - compose.install_default

Failed openQA tests: 20/152 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm)

New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20190911.n.0):

ID: 449604  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_browser **GATING**
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/449604

Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20190911.n.0):

ID: 449575  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso 
server_role_deploy_domain_controller **GATING**
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/449575
ID: 449576  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_freeipa_replication_master
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/449576
ID: 449577  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_freeipa_replication_replica
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/449577
ID: 449578  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_realmd_join_kickstart 
**GATING**
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/449578
ID: 449580  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso realmd_join_sssd **GATING**
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/449580
ID: 449581  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_freeipa_replication_client
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/449581
ID: 449586  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso modularity_tests
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/449586
ID: 449590  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso realmd_join_cockpit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/449590
ID: 449598  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso base_services_start
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/449598
ID: 449606  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso apps_startstop
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/449606
ID: 449614  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso base_services_start
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/449614
ID: 449622  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso apps_startstop
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/449622
ID: 449623  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_notifications_postinstall
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/449623
ID: 449624  Test: arm Minimal-raw_xz-raw.xz 
install_arm_image_deployment_upload
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/449624
ID: 449627  Test: x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso release_identification
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/449627
ID: 449630  Test: x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso base_services_start
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/449630
ID: 449690  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_server_domain_controller
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/449690
ID: 449691  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_realmd_client
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/449691
ID: 449697  Test: x86_64 universal install_cyrillic_language
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/449697
ID: 449698  Test: x86_64 universal install_arabic_language
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/449698

Soft failed openQA tests: 8/152 (x86_64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)

Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20190911.n.0):

ID: 449594  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_default_upload
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/449594
ID: 449596  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/449596
ID: 449602  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_update_graphical
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/449602
ID: 449626  Test: x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso install_default_upload
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/449626
ID: 449628  Test: x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/449628
ID: 449692  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_kde_64bit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/449692
ID: 449694  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_kde_64bit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/449694
ID: 449699  Test: x86_64 universal install_asian_language
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/449699

Passed openQA tests: 124/152 (x86_64)

New passes (same test not passed in Fedora-Rawhide-20190911.n.0):

ID: 449620  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_browser
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/449620
ID: 449655  Test: x86_64 universal install_european_language
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/449655

Skipped non-gating openQA tests: 1 of 154

Installed system changes in test x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_default_upload: 
1 services(s) removed since previous compose: pcscd.service
Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/447623#downloads
Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/449566#

Re: "Modifying /etc/os-release for re-branding?"

[Tim Zabel]

Hello,

If you are creating a Fedora Remix, you'll need to remove the fedora-
release package, which provides the `/etc/os-release` file. fedora-
logos will also need to be removed. 

If you want to modify and add your own /etc/os-release info, it would
probably be best to create your own -release package based off
fedora-release, replacing what you need with your own information. If
you want any further specific guidance on Remixes, the Fedora Remixes
mailing list would be better suited. 



Hope this helps,
- Tim Zabel


On Thu, 2019-09-12 at 14:17 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On 9/10/19 11:50 PM, jkone...@redhat.com wrote:
> > On Wed, 2019-09-11 at 09:54 +0530, Danishka Navin wrote:
> > > Is it ok to modify /etc/os-release for re-branding purpose? 
> 
> I would think so yes. There's a lot of things there that you would
> want
> to point elsehwere if you are remixing.
> 
> kevin
> --
> > Hi Danishka Navin,
> > Good question on a bad place. Adding Fedora devel list here, there
> > could be someone who is able to answer you this question.
> > Jirka
> > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 6:11 PM Vendula Poncova <
> > > vponc...@redhat.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 7:29 PM Danishka Navin <
> > > > danis...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 6:16 PM Vendula Poncova <
> > > > > vponc...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 9:56 AM Danishka Navin <
> > > > > > danis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi Jirka,
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I used the following command but did't use --product and
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > version at all.
> > > > > > > Btw, does livecd-creator read from /etc/os-release when
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > ignore both --product and --version?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > livecd-creator --verbose --config=hanthana-live-
> > > > > > > workstation.ks --fslabel=h30 --cache=cache --tmpdir=tmp
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Then I copied fresh kisktars shipped by fedora and rerun
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > my custom configs.
> > > > > > > I could not reproduce the issue.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I wonder if the issue caused by following entries in the
> > > > > > > /etc/os-release file. 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > REDHAT_BUGZILLA_PRODUCT="Fedora"
> > > > > > > REDHAT_SUPPORT_PRODUCT="Fedora"
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Btw, there is a new issue occurred.
> > > > > > > As in this image, Anaconda keeps duplicating the values
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > redhat-release file.
> > > > > > > I am not sure if its a bug or I mage a mistake.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > https://pasteboard.co/IvvT4nf.png
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Added Hanthana Workstation (Vishwa)' in to the redhat-
> > > > > > > release 
> > > > > > > file.
> > > > > > > https://pasteboard.co/IvvSiU5.png
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > If you have digital at the end, it only repeats the
> > > > > > > digit.
> > > > > > > When using "Hanthana 30" 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > https://pasteboard.co/IvvTyBT.png
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Anaconda reads the product name and the product version from
> > > > /etc/system-release on Live ISO or from the .buildstamp file in
> > > > network installations. See my comment about the .buildstamp
> > > > file
> > > > below. I think that all these problems are related.
> > > >  
> > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 1:06 PM 
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > > > You have probably used bad parameters when you were
> > > > > > > > invoking lorax. You have to use correct --product and
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > version parameters otherwise we will be handling your
> > > > > > > > ISO
> > > > > > > > as Rawhide.
> > > > > > > > Could you please tell us what command did you used to
> > > > > > > > create your ISO?
> > > > > > > > Regards,Jirka
> > > > > > > > On Sat, 2019-08-31 at 18:12 +0530, Danishka Navin
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Hi there,
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > When I was trying to install f30 based remixed ISO, 
> > > > > > > > > "PRE-RELEASE/TESTING" text appearing in top-right
> > > > > > > > > hand
> > > > > > > > > side of anaconda GUI.
> > > > > > > > > May I know what could cause this?
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > for Live ISO, there is a little crazy logic that sets up
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > flag for a final release:
> > > > > > https://github.com/rhinstaller/anaconda/blob/master/data/liveinst/liveinst#L93
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Basically, it is determined by a version of a package that
> > > > > > provides system-release, so I would check that.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > What is the output of these commands, when you run them on
> > > > > > your
> > > > > > ISO?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > rpm -q  --whatprovides system-release
> > > > > > rpm -q --qf '%{Release}' --whatprovides system-release
> > > > > 
> > > > > $ rpm -q  --whatprovides system-release
>

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F30 to F31

[Timotheus Pokorra]

Thanks for letting me know!

On 12.09.19 10:06, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 05:18:36PM +0100, chedi toueiti wrote:

Error:
  Problem 1: problem with installed package
mono-tools-gendarme-4.2-12.fc30.x86_64
   - mono-tools-gendarme-4.2-12.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
   - nothing provides mono(ICSharpCode.SharpZipLib) = 1.1.0.0 needed by
mono-tools-gendarme-4.2-15.fc31.x86_64


Hmm, mono-core-5.20.1-1.fc31 provides mono(ICSharpCode.SharpZipLib) = 4.84.0.0,
but mono-tools-4.2-15.fc31 was built later.

tpokorra, can you take a look?
I will rebuild sharpziplib, that was built before mono scripts were 
fixed to calculate the Provides correctly.



  Problem 3: package mono-debugger-2.10-21.fc30.x86_64 requires
mono(Mono.Cecil) = 0.9.6.0, but none of the providers can be installed
   - mono-cecil-0.9.6-12.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
   - problem with installed package mono-debugger-2.10-21.fc30.x86_64


More mono issues. tpokorra?

mono-debugger was retired, because it is not supported by Mono 5 anymore.
I have now filed a bug against fedora-obsolete-packages:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1751913

all the best,
  Timotheus
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F30 to F31

[Julian Sikorski]

W dniu 11.09.2019 o 14:54, Miroslav Suchý pisze:
> Do you want to make Fedora 31 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and 
> try to run [*]:
> 
>   sudo dnf --releasever=31 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f31 
> --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync
> 
> If you get this prompt:
> 
>   ...
>   Total download size: XXX M
>   Is this ok [y/N]:
> 
> you can answer N and nothing happens, no need to test the actual upgrade.
> 
> But very likely you get some dependency problem now. In that case, please 
> report it against the appropriate package. Or
> against fedora-obsolete-packages if that package should be removed in Fedora 
> 31. Please check existing reports first:
> https://red.ht/2kuBDPu
> 
> Thank you
> 
> [*] this command does not replace `dnf system-upgrade`, but it will reveal 
> potential problems. You may also run `dnf
> upgrade` before running this command.
> 

 Problem 1: conflicting requests

  - nothing provides module(platform:f30) needed by module
eclipse:2019-06:3020190807134759:6ebe2c0f-0.x86_64

 Problem 2: module jmc:latest:3120190813124555:7188e41a-0.x86_64
requires module(eclipse), but none of the providers can be installed

  - conflicting requests

  - nothing provides module(platform:f30) needed by module
eclipse:2019-06:3020190807134759:6ebe2c0f-0.x86_64


what should I file the bug against?

Błąd:

 Problem 1: package banshee-2.6.2-34.fc31.x86_64 requires
mono(gudev-sharp) = 1.0.0.0, but none of the providers can be installed

  - problem with installed package banshee-2.6.2-32.fc30.x86_64

  - gudev-sharp-1:0.1-25.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository

  - banshee-2.6.2-32.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository


should I file the bug against banshee, or against
fedora-obsolete-packages? Banshee appears to be as good as dead upstream.

 Problem 2: problem with installed package
system-config-users-docs-1.0.9-14.fc30.noarch

  - package system-config-users-docs-1.0.9-15.fc31.noarch requires
system-config-users >= 1.2.82, but none of the providers can be installed

  - system-config-users-docs-1.0.9-14.fc30.noarch does not belong to a
distupgrade repository

  - system-config-users-1.3.8-6.fc29.noarch does not belong to a
distupgrade repository


This was already reported against fedora-obsolete-packages
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F30 to F31

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 02:47:20PM -0600, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
> I've since run
> 
> sudo dnf module reset eclipse
> 
> Which results in the following error when trying a distro-sync.
> 
>  Problem: conflicting requests
>   - nothing provides module(eclipse) needed by module
> jmc:latest:3120190813124555:7188e41a-0.x86_64
> Error: 
>  Problem: package gegl03-0.3.30-5.fc30.x86_64 requires libIlmImf-
> 2_2.so.22()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>   - OpenEXR-libs-2.2.0-16.fc30.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
> repository
>   - problem with installed package gegl03-0.3.30-5.fc30.x86_64
> (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)
> 
> Is this an error with gegl03?

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1703828

Zbyszek
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org