[EPEL-devel] Re: Fast-moving packages in EPEL

2020-10-11 Thread Christopher Engelhard 
On 11.10.20 23:29, Nick Howitt wrote:
> How do you intend to handle the switch to PHP7.3?

Not sure yet - I wanted to make sure it even makes sense to keep
nextcloud in EPEL7 first. But that's another reason it's probably risky
to jump people from NC10 to NC18+ (NC13 was the last release to support
PHP5.x, so that's no use). Maybe Copr is the way to go here, people will
definitely only get the package if they seek it out, and it's easier to
leave instructions/caveats where people will see them.

My current plan is
 - put current nextcloud, following their 'stable' path in epel-8-playground
 - see about creating nextcloud-XX and maybe nextcloud-latest modules
for inclusion in epel8
 - epel7: ???

Christopher
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: our containers with alias vim=vi

2020-10-11 Thread Zdenek Dohnal 
On 10/10/20 2:37 PM, clime wrote:
> Hello,
>
> could Fedora and CentOS containers for docker and podman come with
> `alias vim=vi` in ~/.bashrc?
>
> I would very much welcome it as I am used to type vim everywhere but
> if vi starts instead I am happy too. I know that the solution is to
> create a customized container but often I want to try something on
> vanilla containers from the whole range.

IMHO it is not a good idea. Some users which don't have to know the
problem can run 'vi' while thinking they run 'vim' and be surprised that
most 'Vim' features don't work and they will file a bug tickets, which
will be irrelevant, consuming reporter's's time.

This problem should be solved by user (when he know there is no Vim and
excepts to use Vi, then he creates alias) or by installing vim-enhanced.

-- 
Zdenek Dohnal
Software Engineer
Red Hat Czech - Brno TPB-C



OpenPGP_0x15AA6A7F4D4227D7.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys


OpenPGP_signature
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

[Bug 1870745] EPEL8 Branch Request: perl-DBIx-Class

2020-10-11 Thread bugzilla 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1870745

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED



--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-EPEL-2020-93167d5f12 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-93167d5f12


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[389-devel] Please review : 4372 bindmech not correctly validated in chaining db

2020-10-11 Thread William Brown 
https://github.com/389ds/389-ds-base/pull/4374



—
Sincerely,

William Brown

Senior Software Engineer, 389 Directory Server
SUSE Labs, Australia
___
389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 389-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/389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Fedora Account System and Bugzilla Mismatch

2020-10-11 Thread Sergio Belkin 
El dom., 11 oct. 2020 a las 14:23, Kevin Fenzi () escribió:
>
> On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 12:12:11PM -0300, Sergio Belkin wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I've changed my mail address of FAS because my old one does not exist 
> > anymore.
> > So I've received a mail telling me that "Fedora Account System and
> > Bugzilla Mismatch"
> > Sadly, I forget my bugzilla password, and so if I login using FAS, it tells 
> > me:
> >
> > "Would you like to create an account for... (new address mail)"  ?
> >
> > I'm afraid that doing so, because I wouldn't want to lost my earlier
> > activity, how can I recover my bugzilla password in order to change my
> > mail address in bugzilla.
>
> You need access to the address to reset the password.
> If the old address 'doesn't exist anymore', and you don't have the
> password I don't think there's much that can be done. ;(

I had an account at vmail.me
(https://web.archive.org/web/20130512235054/https://www.vmail.me/),
which does not exist anymore :(


>
> You will just need to make the new account matching your fas account as
> far as I can see.
>
> You can try mailing bugzilla-ow...@redhat.com to see if they have any
> other options.
Ok, thanks, I hope I can recover ir access to bugzilla with account.
>
> kevin
> ___
> 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



-- 
--
Sergio Belkin
LPIC-2 Certified - http://www.lpi.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

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

2020-10-11 Thread updates 
The following Fedora EPEL 6 Security updates need testing:
 Age  URL
   9  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-f853880b07   
prosody-0.11.7-1.el6


The following builds have been pushed to Fedora EPEL 6 updates-testing

kyotocabinet-1.2.78-1.el6

Details about builds:



 kyotocabinet-1.2.78-1.el6 (FEDORA-EPEL-2020-f526cc692c)
 A straightforward implementation of DBM

Update Information:

Kyotocabinet 1.2.78 ===* Upstream: Fixed build warnings   *
Downstream: Added patch to ignore randomly failing tests (#1863664)

ChangeLog:

* Wed Sep 23 2020 Robert Scheck  1.2.78-1
- Update to 1.2.78 (#1858682)
- Added patch to ignore randomly failing tests (#1863664)
* Tue Jul 28 2020 Fedora Release Engineering  - 
1.2.77-5
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_33_Mass_Rebuild
* Tue Jul 14 2020 Tom Stellard  - 1.2.77-4
- Use make macros
- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/UseMakeBuildInstallMacro
* Wed Jan 29 2020 Fedora Release Engineering  - 
1.2.77-3
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_32_Mass_Rebuild
* Thu Jul 25 2019 Fedora Release Engineering  - 
1.2.77-2
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_31_Mass_Rebuild

References:

  [ 1 ] Bug #1858682 - kyotocabinet-1.2.78 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1858682


___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[EPEL-devel] Fedora EPEL 7 updates-testing report

2020-10-11 Thread updates 
The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing:
 Age  URL
  12  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-98b234afda   
libuv-1.40.0-1.el7
   9  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-bd6a96cd24   
python34-3.4.10-7.el7
   9  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-9eaf8d2e11   
prosody-0.11.7-1.el7
   8  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-50425dd33f   
rubygem-kramdown-1.9.0-2.el7
   8  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-1eeb530261   
python3-urllib3-1.25.6-2.el7


The following builds have been pushed to Fedora EPEL 7 updates-testing

alpine-2.24-1.el7
eggdrop-1.8.4-2.el7
kyotocabinet-1.2.78-1.el7
liferea-1.13.3-3.el7
radsecproxy-1.8.2-2.el7
rust-1.47.0-1.el7
yadifa-2.3.11-1.el7

Details about builds:



 alpine-2.24-1.el7 (FEDORA-EPEL-2020-c865a63f9e)
 powerful, easy to use console email client

Update Information:

new version

ChangeLog:

* Sun Oct 11 2020 josef radinger  - 2.24-1
- bump version
- modify %patch1
* Fri Jul 31 2020 Fedora Release Engineering  - 2.23-4
- Second attempt - Rebuilt for
  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_33_Mass_Rebuild
* Mon Jul 27 2020 Fedora Release Engineering  - 2.23-3
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_33_Mass_Rebuild

References:

  [ 1 ] Bug #1887107 - alpine-2.24 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887107




 eggdrop-1.8.4-2.el7 (FEDORA-EPEL-2020-cfc196569d)
 The world's most popular Open Source IRC bot

Update Information:

  - Rebuilt against OpenSSL 1.1 (for TLSv1.3 support)

ChangeLog:

* Mon Jul 27 2020 Fedora Release Engineering  - 
1.8.4-2
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_33_Mass_Rebuild




 kyotocabinet-1.2.78-1.el7 (FEDORA-EPEL-2020-936553473b)
 A straightforward implementation of DBM

Update Information:

Kyotocabinet 1.2.78 ===* Upstream: Fixed build warnings   *
Downstream: Added patch to ignore randomly failing tests (#1863664)

ChangeLog:

* Wed Sep 23 2020 Robert Scheck  1.2.78-1
- Update to 1.2.78 (#1858682)
- Added patch to ignore randomly failing tests (#1863664)
* Tue Jul 28 2020 Fedora Release Engineering  - 
1.2.77-5
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_33_Mass_Rebuild
* Tue Jul 14 2020 Tom Stellard  - 1.2.77-4
- Use make macros
- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/UseMakeBuildInstallMacro
* Wed Jan 29 2020 Fedora Release Engineering  - 
1.2.77-3
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_32_Mass_Rebuild
* Thu Jul 25 2019 Fedora Release Engineering  - 
1.2.77-2
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_31_Mass_Rebuild

References:

  [ 1 ] Bug #1858682 - kyotocabinet-1.2.78 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1858682




 liferea-1.13.3-3.el7 (FEDORA-EPEL-2020-6a579ef94e)
 An RSS/RDF feed reader

Update Information:

new version

ChangeLog:

* Sun Oct 11 2020 josef radinger  - 1:1.13.3-3
- fix build for epel7
* Sat Oct 10 2020 josef radinger  - 1:1.13.3-2
- drop outdated polish man-page
- metainfo instead of appdata
- add check-section
* Sat Oct 10 2020 josef radinger  - 1:1.13.3-1
- bump version
* Tue Sep  1 2020 josef radinger  - 1:1.13.2-1
- New development release
* Tue Jul 28 2020 Fedora Release Engineering  - 
1:1.13.1-2
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_33_Mass_Rebuild
* Fri Jun 12 2020 josef radinger  - 1:1.13.1-1
- New development release
* Thu Mar  5 2020 Yanko Kaneti  - 1:1.13.0-1
- New development release
* Fri Jan 31 2020 Yanko Kaneti  - 1:1.12.7-5
- Run build under X11 to help introspection

[EPEL-devel] Fedora EPEL 8 updates-testing report

2020-10-11 Thread updates 
The following Fedora EPEL 8 Security updates need testing:
 Age  URL
   9  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-0f2bfced63   
prosody-0.11.7-1.el8
   4  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-b15161810d   
pdns-4.3.1-1.el8


The following builds have been pushed to Fedora EPEL 8 updates-testing

alpine-2.24-1.el8
eggdrop-1.8.4-2.el8
icewm-1.8.3-2.el8
python-blackbird-0.5-1.el8
python-cppheaderparser-2.7.4-1.el8
python-daikin-2.4.0-1.el8
python-pg8000-1.16.6-1.el8
python-yattag-1.14.0-1.el8
radsecproxy-1.8.2-2.el8
systemd-extras-246.6-1.el8
yadifa-2.3.11-1.el8

Details about builds:



 alpine-2.24-1.el8 (FEDORA-EPEL-2020-259a61e404)
 powerful, easy to use console email client

Update Information:

new version

ChangeLog:

* Sun Oct 11 2020 josef radinger  - 2.24-1
- bump version
- modify %patch1
* Fri Jul 31 2020 Fedora Release Engineering  - 2.23-4
- Second attempt - Rebuilt for
  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_33_Mass_Rebuild
* Mon Jul 27 2020 Fedora Release Engineering  - 2.23-3
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_33_Mass_Rebuild

References:

  [ 1 ] Bug #1887107 - alpine-2.24 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887107




 eggdrop-1.8.4-2.el8 (FEDORA-EPEL-2020-2a0cb35566)
 The world's most popular Open Source IRC bot

Update Information:

  - Rebuilt

ChangeLog:

* Mon Jul 27 2020 Fedora Release Engineering  - 
1.8.4-2
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_33_Mass_Rebuild




 icewm-1.8.3-2.el8 (FEDORA-EPEL-2020-0bbf5960f5)
 Window manager designed for speed, usability, and consistency

Update Information:

build: update antiX theme collections and awe stuff to commit 91c9d4b

ChangeLog:

* Sun Oct 11 2020 Artem Polishchuk  - 1.8.3-2
- build: update antiX theme collections and awe stuff to commit 91c9d4b
- build: make 'picom' as very weak dep




 python-blackbird-0.5-1.el8 (FEDORA-EPEL-2020-85798c2d7e)
 Python API for talking to Monoprice Blackbird devices

Update Information:

Initial package for Fedora

ChangeLog:





 python-cppheaderparser-2.7.4-1.el8 (FEDORA-EPEL-2020-33991ecd92)
 Parse C++ header files and generate a data structure

Update Information:

Initial package for Fedora

ChangeLog:





 python-daikin-2.4.0-1.el8 (FEDORA-EPEL-2020-006480c45a)
 Python Daikin HVAC appliances interface

Update Information:

Initial package for Fedora

ChangeLog:





 python-pg8000-1.16.6-1.el8 (FEDORA-EPEL-2020-ba18892414)
 Pure Python PostgreSQL Driver

Update Information:

1.16.6

ChangeLog:

* Sat Oct 10 2020 Fedora Release Monitoring 
 - 1.16.6-1
- Update to 1.16.6 (#1887083)
- Enable python dependency generator
* Sun Aug  9 2020 Fabian Affolter  -

Re: bodhi updates stuck in "pending" state

2020-10-11 Thread Fabio Valentini 
On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 1:04 AM Kevin Fenzi  wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 11:03:56PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > Hi everybody,
> >
> > To me, it looks like some recent bodhi updates are stuck in "pending"
> > unintentionally. This might be the result of a bodhi bug that let
> > release branch updates created from side tags sit in "pending" without
> > ever going into "testing" state without manually prodding them. This
> > affects fedora 33, 32, and 31, from what I can tell, see for example,
> > page 6 of updates in "pending" state:
> >
> > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?search==pending=6

(snip)

> All of those arent affected tho.
>
> Thats everything pending something... the ones that are pending and have
> a request (stable or testing) are normal.
>
> It's just the ones pending with no request I think.

Yeah, I meant those without "request", but there's no way in the bodhi
UI to filter for "request=None".

> Which is:
>
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-bef5c0c3c8
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-0a394e5d23
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-3b596e447b
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-521db81bfa
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-12ed3b8473
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-e6890f4861
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-110533d946
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-d119182890
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-39027b3336
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-0bc504f81d
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-2d0e7de56f
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-93dd058cab
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-62a5261b82
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-113d0c3573
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-972ad7c8a8
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-3cea1ac8f3
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-24b04f640a
>
> and some of those are... really old.

Yeah, some of those are also updates without any associated builds
(which was caused by another bodhi bug, I think ...)

Fabio
___
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: bodhi updates stuck in "pending" state

2020-10-11 Thread Kevin Fenzi 
On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 11:03:56PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> Hi everybody,
> 
> To me, it looks like some recent bodhi updates are stuck in "pending"
> unintentionally. This might be the result of a bodhi bug that let
> release branch updates created from side tags sit in "pending" without
> ever going into "testing" state without manually prodding them. This
> affects fedora 33, 32, and 31, from what I can tell, see for example,
> page 6 of updates in "pending" state:
> 
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?search==pending=6

All of those arent affected tho. 

Thats everything pending something... the ones that are pending and have
a request (stable or testing) are normal.

It's just the ones pending with no request I think. 

Which is: 

https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-bef5c0c3c8
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-0a394e5d23
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-3b596e447b
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-521db81bfa
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-12ed3b8473
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-e6890f4861
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-110533d946
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-d119182890
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-39027b3336
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-0bc504f81d
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-2d0e7de56f
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-93dd058cab
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-62a5261b82
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-113d0c3573
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-972ad7c8a8
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-3cea1ac8f3
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-24b04f640a

and some of those are... really old. 

> I commented on a few of the stuck updates to alert the maintainers of
> this issue, but that probably won't help for all of them. Should we
> push all those "stuck in pending because of bodhi bug" updates to
> testing? WDYT?

If we can id them... might be worth looking at how many are now moot
(ie, there's a newer build). 

kevin


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: Packager Dashboard out of sync? - https://packager.fedorainfracloud.org

2020-10-11 Thread Miro Hrončok 

On 11. 10. 20 10:14, Felix Schwarz wrote:

Hi,

it seems that the packager dashboard does not synchronize my data anymore:
https://packager.fedorainfracloud.org/fschwarz

For example it still shows bug #1874669 ("Please build python-cssselect2 for
EPEL8") as NEW even though that bug is closed since 2020-09-19.
Also a lot of new bugs are not displayed at all.

Where can I report these issues?


If you follow the link int the footer, you'll get to:

https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/packager_dashboard/issues


Is that a known bug?


I've had similar trouble with PRs recently and reported them individually.

https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/packager_dashboard/issue/56

--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
___
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: bodhi updates stuck in "pending" state

2020-10-11 Thread Fabio Valentini 
On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 11:46 PM Richard Shaw  wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 4:04 PM Fabio Valentini  wrote:
>>
>> Hi everybody,
>>
>> To me, it looks like some recent bodhi updates are stuck in "pending"
>> unintentionally. This might be the result of a bodhi bug that let
>> release branch updates created from side tags sit in "pending" without
>> ever going into "testing" state without manually prodding them. This
>> affects fedora 33, 32, and 31, from what I can tell, see for example,
>> page 6 of updates in "pending" state:
>>
>> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?search==pending=6
>>
>> I commented on a few of the stuck updates to alert the maintainers of
>> this issue, but that probably won't help for all of them. Should we
>> push all those "stuck in pending because of bodhi bug" updates to
>> testing? WDYT?
>
>
> Yes, please, unless there's some instructions on how to do that myself, I've 
> gotten bitten by this:
>
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-0b6ba8fbad
>
> Thanks,
> Richard

Pushing the "Push to testing" button hidden in the "Actions" drop-down
in the top-right corner of the update view should do "the correct
thing".
I just didn't want to mess with other people's updates without asking first.

Fabio
___
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: bodhi updates stuck in "pending" state

2020-10-11 Thread Richard Shaw 
On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 4:04 PM Fabio Valentini 
wrote:

> Hi everybody,
>
> To me, it looks like some recent bodhi updates are stuck in "pending"
> unintentionally. This might be the result of a bodhi bug that let
> release branch updates created from side tags sit in "pending" without
> ever going into "testing" state without manually prodding them. This
> affects fedora 33, 32, and 31, from what I can tell, see for example,
> page 6 of updates in "pending" state:
>
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?search==pending=6
>
> I commented on a few of the stuck updates to alert the maintainers of
> this issue, but that probably won't help for all of them. Should we
> push all those "stuck in pending because of bodhi bug" updates to
> testing? WDYT?
>

Yes, please, unless there's some instructions on how to do that myself,
I've gotten bitten by this:

https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-0b6ba8fbad

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

[EPEL-devel] Re: Fast-moving packages in EPEL

2020-10-11 Thread Nick Howitt 



On 11/10/2020 18:22, Christopher Engelhard wrote:

On 11.10.20 15:10, H wrote:

I'd like it updated, and kept updated, for EPEL 7.


Do you happen to have a system with the current 10.0.something EPEL7
package set up & would you be willing to - if I make an updated package
- test the upgrade process? I could set up something myself, but I think
most problems are going to be with database changes, and that's not
really testable on an empty test install ...

How do you intend to handle the switch to PHP7.3? It is not safe to 
force installations to go from 5.4 to 7.3, but you can use the 
rh-php73-php-fpm service but you heed to change the nextcloud httpd 
configlet.
Not so nice is that rh-php70-php-fpm, rh-php71-php-fpm, rh-php72-php-fpm 
and rh-php73-php-fpm all use the same listening port, 9000.

___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

bodhi updates stuck in "pending" state

2020-10-11 Thread Fabio Valentini 
Hi everybody,

To me, it looks like some recent bodhi updates are stuck in "pending"
unintentionally. This might be the result of a bodhi bug that let
release branch updates created from side tags sit in "pending" without
ever going into "testing" state without manually prodding them. This
affects fedora 33, 32, and 31, from what I can tell, see for example,
page 6 of updates in "pending" state:

https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?search==pending=6

I commented on a few of the stuck updates to alert the maintainers of
this issue, but that probably won't help for all of them. Should we
push all those "stuck in pending because of bodhi bug" updates to
testing? WDYT?

Fabio
___
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: RPM review: jack-mixer

2020-10-11 Thread Yann Collette 

OK, thanks a lot for this explanation ...

I will fix my packages :)

Le 11/10/2020 à 19:29, Erich Eickmeyer a écrit :

Hi Yann,

On 10/11/2020 10:11 AM, Yann Collette wrote:

Hello

I see that you have a "Requires: jack-audio-connection-kit".

I feel because of this, your package will not work with pipewire-jack.

Am I wrong ?

Best regards,

Yann


That is 100% incorrect. In fact, pipewire-jack has a "Provides:
jack-audio-connection-kit" line just to deal with this since it's a
drop-in replacement. Unfortunately, it's not being honored by packages
building with jack and relying on Autorequires to deal with the
dependencies.

The problem we're having with packages that don't include the "Requires:
jack-audio-connection-kit" line currently and are depending on
Autorequires to complete that for them is that they're explicitly
requiring the libjack.so.0 file and not the package, which doesn't exist
for pipewire-jack. By being explicit with the Requires, that takes care
of that problem.

In fact, I'm going to be filing bug reports against all applications
that have a "BuildRequires: jack-audio-connection-kit-devel" and tell
them that they need to explicitly require it in order for pipewire-jack
to transition. If this is going to require a change proposal, then so be it.

Thanks,
Erich


___
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: RPM review: jack-mixer

2020-10-11 Thread Erich Eickmeyer 
Hi Yann,

On 10/11/2020 10:11 AM, Yann Collette wrote:
> Hello
>
> I see that you have a "Requires: jack-audio-connection-kit".
>
> I feel because of this, your package will not work with pipewire-jack.
>
> Am I wrong ?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Yann
>
That is 100% incorrect. In fact, pipewire-jack has a "Provides:
jack-audio-connection-kit" line just to deal with this since it's a
drop-in replacement. Unfortunately, it's not being honored by packages
building with jack and relying on Autorequires to deal with the
dependencies.

The problem we're having with packages that don't include the "Requires:
jack-audio-connection-kit" line currently and are depending on
Autorequires to complete that for them is that they're explicitly
requiring the libjack.so.0 file and not the package, which doesn't exist
for pipewire-jack. By being explicit with the Requires, that takes care
of that problem.

In fact, I'm going to be filing bug reports against all applications
that have a "BuildRequires: jack-audio-connection-kit-devel" and tell
them that they need to explicitly require it in order for pipewire-jack
to transition. If this is going to require a change proposal, then so be it.

Thanks,
Erich

-- 
Erich Eickmeyer
Maintainer
Fedora Jam

___
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

[EPEL-devel] Re: Fast-moving packages in EPEL

2020-10-11 Thread Christopher Engelhard 
On 11.10.20 15:10, H wrote:
> I'd like it updated, and kept updated, for EPEL 7.

Do you happen to have a system with the current 10.0.something EPEL7
package set up & would you be willing to - if I make an updated package
- test the upgrade process? I could set up something myself, but I think
most problems are going to be with database changes, and that's not
really testable on an empty test install ...

Christopher
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Fedora Account System and Bugzilla Mismatch

2020-10-11 Thread Kevin Fenzi 
On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 12:12:11PM -0300, Sergio Belkin wrote:
> Hi,
> I've changed my mail address of FAS because my old one does not exist anymore.
> So I've received a mail telling me that "Fedora Account System and
> Bugzilla Mismatch"
> Sadly, I forget my bugzilla password, and so if I login using FAS, it tells 
> me:
> 
> "Would you like to create an account for... (new address mail)"  ?
> 
> I'm afraid that doing so, because I wouldn't want to lost my earlier
> activity, how can I recover my bugzilla password in order to change my
> mail address in bugzilla.

You need access to the address to reset the password. 
If the old address 'doesn't exist anymore', and you don't have the
password I don't think there's much that can be done. ;( 

You will just need to make the new account matching your fas account as
far as I can see. 

You can try mailing bugzilla-ow...@redhat.com to see if they have any
other options. 

kevin


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

[EPEL-devel] Re: Fast-moving packages in EPEL

2020-10-11 Thread Kevin Fenzi 
On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 07:47:22AM +0200, Christopher Engelhard wrote:
> Hi,
> the nextcloud server package is currently stuck at ancient version 10
> (current is 20) in EPEL7 (It's not (yet) available EPEL8 repos).
> 
> I'd like to fix that, but
> 
> - upstream releases a new version roughly every 4 months
> - they support them only for roughly 1 year (officially it's "at least 8
> months")
> - nextcloud receives A LOT of bug- and CVE-fixes, and there is no way
> I'll be able to backport all of those, so staying on an older version
> after upstream stopped support is not really an option.
> 
> So, should this still be in EPEL even though it would receive major
> version updates or is it better to retire it from EPEL?
> 
> I suspect that EPEL users would probably prefer to run it from
> upstream's containers anyways, so retiring might make more sense, but
> I'm open either way.

There's a number of options:

* Keep in epel - As you note though this is major upgrades and it's not
something people expect. 

* It doesn't help you any with epel7, but for 8 you could put it in
epel8-playground. There's much more expectation of packages that have
major upgrades and change things, so people who consume it might be fine
with that. 

* You could try a module (again does not help with epel7). This should
work except if you need any non default modules.

* You could just put it in a copr (this would work for both epel7 and
epel8). It's not as discoverable there, but this might be a good
solution. 

kevin


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: RPM review: jack-mixer

2020-10-11 Thread Yann Collette 

Hello

I see that you have a "Requires: jack-audio-connection-kit".

I feel because of this, your package will not work with pipewire-jack.

Am I wrong ?

Best regards,

Yann

Le 10/10/2020 à 20:41, Erich Eickmeyer a écrit :

Hi all,

I've brought-over another package from Ubuntu, this time it's Jack
Mixer. This is an excellent program that provides a simple mixer that
works with MIDI and allows for plugins to be patched-in using Carla.
This is a great alternative to having a full-fledged DAW running while
trying to do live audio, as would be my use case.

Either way, here's the BZ:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887091

Would really appreciate a review on this, and would even do a review
swap if your package is simple enough for my little brain. :)

Best regards,
Erich


___
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] 2020-10-12 @ 16:00 UTC - Fedora 33 Blocker Review Meeting

2020-10-11 Thread Adam Williamson 
# F33 Blocker Review meeting
# Date: 2020-10-12
# Time: 16:00 UTC
# Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net

Hi folks! We have 1 proposed Final blocker and 2 proposed Final freeze
exceptions to review (as of now), so we'll have a Fedora 33 blocker
review meeting on Monday.

If you have time today, you can take a look at the proposed or
accepted blockers before the meeting -  the full lists can be found
here: https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/ .

Remember, you can also now vote on bugs outside of review meetings!
For the Fedora 33 cycle we enabled a new voting system and have been
using it pretty heavily. If you look at the bug list in the blockerbugs
app, you'll see links labeled "Vote!" next to all proposed blockers and
freeze exceptions. Those links take you to tickets where you can vote.
https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review has instructions on how
exactly you do it. We usually go through the tickets shortly before the
meeting and apply any clear votes, so the meeting will just cover bugs
where there wasn't a clear outcome in the ticket voting yet.

We'll be evaluating these bugs to see if they violate any of the 
Release Criteria and warrant the blocking of a release if they're not 
fixed. Information on the release criteria for F33 can be found on the 
wiki [0].

For more information about the Blocker and Freeze exception process, 
check out these links:
 - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process
 - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_freeze_exception_bug_process

And for those of you who are curious how a Blocker Review Meeting 
works - or how it's supposed to go and you want to run one - check out 
the SOP on the wiki:
 - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting

Have a good day and see you tomorrow!

[0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Criteria
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
___
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

[EPEL-devel] Re: Fast-moving packages in EPEL

2020-10-11 Thread Matthew Miller 
On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 02:05:20PM +0200, Christopher Engelhard wrote:
> I'm sort of hesitant to dive into learning how modularity works, though
> ... although, maybe a good opportunity to learn.

The spin-up is a little rougher than we'd hoped, but once you've got it set
up it shouldn't be too much extra work. This does seem like a good use case
for it!

-- 
Matthew Miller

Fedora Project Leader
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: fawkes

2020-10-11 Thread Kevin Fenzi 
On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 03:01:06PM +0200, Till Hofmann wrote:
> 
> The build succeeded, here is the update:
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-10d819f69d
> 
> Please give karma if you can!

Cool. I've proposed it as a Freeze Break request. 

kevin


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: Preferred way to ask for package update

2020-10-11 Thread Kai A. Hiller 

On 10/11/20 3:55 PM, Andy Mender wrote:
On Sun, 11 Oct 2020 at 15:24, Kai A. Hiller > wrote:


Hello,

what ways are there to let other maintainers know that I need them
to update a package? What is the preferred way to do it? Some ways
that came to my mind are:

  * PR with the required changes to their package
  * Blocking on the release monitoring bugzilla bug
  * Opening a new bug against their package
  * Mailing them

I am asking because I tried those unsuccessfully, but wanted to
make sure I did my part before bothering someone with the
unresponsive maintainer procedure.

Best wishes
Kai


I'd say you did your share already. How long was it since you 
attempted all of the above?


The first try was 2020-08-29 on the release monitoring bug for 
python-cannonicaljson 
 and the last was 
the PR 
 
about a week ago.
___
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 Account System and Bugzilla Mismatch

2020-10-11 Thread Sergio Belkin 
Hi,
I've changed my mail address of FAS because my old one does not exist anymore.
So I've received a mail telling me that "Fedora Account System and
Bugzilla Mismatch"
Sadly, I forget my bugzilla password, and so if I login using FAS, it tells me:

"Would you like to create an account for... (new address mail)"  ?

I'm afraid that doing so, because I wouldn't want to lost my earlier
activity, how can I recover my bugzilla password in order to change my
mail address in bugzilla.

Thanks in advance
-- 
--
Sergio Belkin
LPIC-2 Certified - http://www.lpi.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

Fedora-33-20201011.n.0 compose check report

2020-10-11 Thread Fedora compose checker 
No missing expected images.

Failed openQA tests: 3/181 (x86_64)

New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-33-20201010.n.0):

ID: 691002  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_background
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/691002
ID: 691035  Test: x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso desktop_background
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/691035

Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-33-20201010.n.0):

ID: 691021  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_notifications_postinstall
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/691021

Soft failed openQA tests: 10/181 (x86_64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)

Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-33-20201010.n.0):

ID: 690946  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_vncconnect_client
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/690946
ID: 690965  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_vnc_client
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/690965
ID: 690992  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_update_graphical
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/690992
ID: 691005  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_printing
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/691005
ID: 691025  Test: x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso install_default_upload
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/691025
ID: 691028  Test: x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/691028
ID: 691042  Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/691042
ID: 691054  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_minimal_64bit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/691054
ID: 691076  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_server_domain_controller
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/691076
ID: 691079  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_minimal_uefi@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/691079

Passed openQA tests: 168/181 (x86_64)

Installed system changes in test x86_64 Server-boot-iso install_default: 
System load changed from 0.10 to 0.25
Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/690406#downloads
Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/690944#downloads

Installed system changes in test x86_64 Workstation-live-iso 
install_default_upload: 
Used swap changed from 29 MiB to 56 MiB
System load changed from 2.23 to 0.80
Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/690451#downloads
Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/690989#downloads

Installed system changes in test x86_64 Workstation-live-iso 
install_default@uefi: 
Used swap changed from 44 MiB to 63 MiB
System load changed from 0.66 to 0.48
Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/690453#downloads
Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/690991#downloads

Installed system changes in test x86_64 KDE-live-iso install_default@uefi: 
System load changed from 1.24 to 0.98
Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/690471#downloads
Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/691009#downloads

Installed system changes in test x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso 
install_default_upload: 
Used swap changed from 24 MiB to 29 MiB
Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/690487#downloads
Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/691025#downloads

Installed system changes in test x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso 
install_default@uefi: 
Used swap changed from 20 MiB to 28 MiB
Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/690490#downloads
Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/691028#downloads

Installed system changes in test x86_64 universal install_package_set_kde: 
System load changed from 1.23 to 1.59
Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/690531#downloads
Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/691069#downloads

Installed system changes in test x86_64 universal install_package_set_minimal: 
System load changed from 0.07 to 0.18
Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/690578#downloads
Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/691116#downloads


-- 
Mail generated by check-compose:
https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 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: Preferred way to ask for package update

2020-10-11 Thread Andy Mender 
On Sun, 11 Oct 2020 at 15:24, Kai A. Hiller  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> what ways are there to let other maintainers know that I need them to
> update a package? What is the preferred way to do it? Some ways that came
> to my mind are:
>
>- PR with the required changes to their package
>- Blocking on the release monitoring bugzilla bug
>- Opening a new bug against their package
>- Mailing them
>
> I am asking because I tried those unsuccessfully, but wanted to make sure
> I did my part before bothering someone with the unresponsive maintainer
> procedure.
>
> Best wishes
> Kai
>

I'd say you did your share already. How long was it since you attempted all
of the above?
___
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

Preferred way to ask for package update

2020-10-11 Thread Kai A. Hiller 

Hello,

what ways are there to let other maintainers know that I need them to 
update a package? What is the preferred way to do it? Some ways that 
came to my mind are:


 * PR with the required changes to their package
 * Blocking on the release monitoring bugzilla bug
 * Opening a new bug against their package
 * Mailing them

I am asking because I tried those unsuccessfully, but wanted to make 
sure I did my part before bothering someone with the unresponsive 
maintainer procedure.


Best wishes
Kai

___
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 33 compose report: 20201011.n.0 changes

2020-10-11 Thread Fedora Rawhide Report 
OLD: Fedora-33-20201010.n.0
NEW: Fedora-33-20201011.n.0

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

Size of added packages:  0 B
Size of dropped packages:0 B
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 =

= DROPPED PACKAGES =

= 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

[EPEL-devel] Re: Fast-moving packages in EPEL

2020-10-11 Thread H 
On October 11, 2020 7:57:45 AM EDT, Nicolas Chauvet  wrote:
>Le dim. 11 oct. 2020 à 07:47, Christopher Engelhard  a
>écrit :
>>
>> Hi,
>> the nextcloud server package is currently stuck at ancient version 10
>> (current is 20) in EPEL7 (It's not (yet) available EPEL8 repos).
>>
>> I'd like to fix that, but
>>
>> - upstream releases a new version roughly every 4 months
>> - they support them only for roughly 1 year (officially it's "at
>least 8
>> months")
>> - nextcloud receives A LOT of bug- and CVE-fixes, and there is no way
>> I'll be able to backport all of those, so staying on an older version
>> after upstream stopped support is not really an option.
>>
>> So, should this still be in EPEL even though it would receive major
>> version updates or is it better to retire it from EPEL?
>>
>> I suspect that EPEL users would probably prefer to run it from
>> upstream's containers anyways, so retiring might make more sense, but
>> I'm open either way.
>I'm fine with retiring it.
>
>But on the alternatives , you can have modules (or application
>streams) for both epel and fedora.
>It would be a good way forward. so it won't enforce nextcloud version
>with a given fedora and or epel and would allow to update nextcloud at
>users own pace.
>
>But as epel7 is concerned, I'm good for retirement.
>___
>epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
>To unsubscribe send an email to
>epel-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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

I'd like it updated, and kept updated, for EPEL 7.
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: fawkes

2020-10-11 Thread Till Hofmann 



On 10/11/20 1:51 PM, Till Hofmann wrote:



On 10/11/20 1:56 AM, Rich Mattes wrote:

On 10/10/20 5:27 PM, Till Hofmann wrote:



On 10/10/20 6:24 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:

On Sat, Oct 10, 2020 at 10:59:12AM +0200, Till Hofmann wrote:



On 10/10/20 10:54 AM, Till Hofmann wrote:



On 10/9/20 11:46 PM, Till Hofmann wrote:



On 10/9/20 9:19 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:




I think this might be that we need a newer ignition-msgs package?
Or something in gazebo?


I think it's the other way around: ignition-msgs needs protobuf 3.13
because that contains a patch that renamed 
AuxillaryParseTableField to

AuxiliaryParseTableField:
https://github.com/protocolbuffers/protobuf/commit/2ae7cf0e03c3469973e592e812565e4ee2470e0b 




After some digging: This commit is in 3.12.3 but not in 3.12.4. I 
guess
they noticed this requires a rebuild of dependent packages and 
they thus
reverted it. Gazebo is also currently FTBFS with the same error 
message.
After rebuilding ignition-msgs, I was able to rebuild gazebo and 
fawkes.


I'm pushing my changes and I'll push updates soon.


Awesome. We can propose the update as a Freeze break to get robotics
working. ;)


Now I'm hitting:
fatal: repository 
'https://src.fedoraproject.org/tmp/ignition-msgs.git/'

not found
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=53134273

Not sure what's going on, can somebody help? Am I missing 
permissions to

build? I was able to push.


weird. The /tmp/ in there is completely wrong... it should be /rpms/

did you just do 'fedpkg build' ? or something else?
Any odd changes you made to fedpkg there?

If you like I can try it from here...



I found the issue, I had a second git remote that was something 
ending in /tmp/ignition-msgs, so it expected this to be the path. 
Funny bug. Anyway, after changing the remote tracking branch, it 
worked and building now!


Till


Thanks for working through all of this.  I got the buildroot overrides 
in place to rebuild ignition-transport and gazebo against 
ignition-msgs, gazebo is currently building.  Once it's done I'll 
submit a buildroot override so fawkes can be rebuilt in f33.




Thank you! Yeah I'd forgotten the buildroot override. I saw that you 
created one for gazebo already, so I just triggered a new build for fawkes:

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=53208800



The build succeeded, here is the update:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-10d819f69d

Please give karma if you can!

Kind regards,
Till
___
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

[EPEL-devel] Re: Fast-moving packages in EPEL

2020-10-11 Thread Nick Howitt 

The version check can be disabled in NC:

diff -Naur -b nextcloud/lib/private/Updater.php 
nextcloud.njh/lib/private/Updater.php

--- nextcloud/lib/private/Updater.php   2019-04-08 15:22:33.0 -0600
+++ nextcloud.tjr/lib/private/Updater.php	2019-05-20 12:48:46.007165729 
-0600

@@ -188,14 +188,11 @@
}

if ($currentVendor === 'nextcloud') {
-   return 
isset($allowedPreviousVersions[$currentVendor][$majorMinor])
-   && (version_compare($oldVersion, $newVersion, 
'<=') ||
-   $this->config->getSystemValue('debug', 
false));
+   return true;
}

// Check if the instance can be migrated
-   return 
isset($allowedPreviousVersions[$currentVendor][$majorMinor]) ||
-   
isset($allowedPreviousVersions[$currentVendor][$oldVersion]);
+   return true;
}

/**


It has been used successfully to jump versions, but jumping 10 versions 
is a bit more dramatic.


It is also worth pointing out that to run NC20 you need PHP7.3. I think 
19 needs 7.1 or 7.2 and so on. It is possible to use the SIG PHP 7.3.


Nick

On 11/10/2020 13:18, Christopher Engelhard wrote:

One thing I forgot that makes things even worse:

- upstream does not support updates across more than one major version,
so anybody who actually has the old v10 installed will have their
installation completely broken by ANY update at this point
- for the same reason, trying to limit major updates to whenever
CentOS/RHEL release a new version won't work either.

I think I'll retire and look into re-adding it via modularity.

Christopher
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org


___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Fedora-Rawhide-20201011.n.0 compose check report

2020-10-11 Thread Fedora compose checker 
No missing expected images.

Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check!
5 of 43 required tests failed, 8 results missing
openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING** 
below

Failed openQA tests: 21/181 (x86_64)

Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20201010.n.0):

ID: 690772  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_notifications_live
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/690772
ID: 690790  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_notifications_live
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/690790
ID: 690809  Test: x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso install_default_upload
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/690809
ID: 690812  Test: x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/690812
ID: 690831  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_desktop_encrypted_64bit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/690831
ID: 690853  Test: x86_64 universal install_package_set_kde
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/690853
ID: 690858  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_desktop_64bit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/690858
ID: 690859  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_desktop_encrypted_64bit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/690859
ID: 690871  Test: x86_64 universal install_asian_language
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/690871
ID: 690874  Test: x86_64 universal install_cyrillic_language
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/690874
ID: 690876  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_desktop_64bit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/690876
ID: 690877  Test: x86_64 universal install_arabic_language
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/690877
ID: 690879  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_kde_64bit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/690879
ID: 690892  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_kde_64bit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/690892
ID: 690896  Test: x86_64 universal install_european_language
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/690896
ID: 690908  Test: x86_64 universal install_iscsi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/690908
ID: 690909  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso install_default_upload **GATING**
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/690909
ID: 690914  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_default_upload 
**GATING**
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/690914
ID: 690941  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_default@uefi 
**GATING**
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/690941
ID: 690942  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso install_default@uefi **GATING**
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/690942
ID: 690943  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso install_no_user **GATING**
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/690943

Soft failed openQA tests: 4/181 (x86_64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)

New soft failures (same test not soft failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20201010.n.0):

ID: 690839  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_server_domain_controller
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/690839

Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20201010.n.0):

ID: 690730  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_vncconnect_client
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/690730
ID: 690749  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_vnc_client
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/690749
ID: 690826  Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/690826

Passed openQA tests: 117/181 (x86_64)

New passes (same test not passed in Fedora-Rawhide-20201010.n.0):

ID: 690901  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_realmd_client
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/690901

Skipped gating openQA tests: 8/181 (x86_64)

Old skipped gating tests (same test skipped in Fedora-Rawhide-20201010.n.0):

ID: 690912  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso base_system_logging **GATING**
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/690912
ID: 690913  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso base_update_cli **GATING**
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/690913
ID: 690927  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso base_system_logging **GATING**
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/690927
ID: 690929  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso base_update_cli **GATING**
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/690929
ID: 690930  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_browser **GATING**
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/690930
ID: 690934  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_terminal **GATING**
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/690934
ID: 690936  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_terminal **GATING**
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/690936
ID: 690939  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_browser **GATING**
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/690939

Skipped non-gating openQA tests: 31 of 181

Installed system changes in test x86_64

[EPEL-devel] Re: Fast-moving packages in EPEL

2020-10-11 Thread Christopher Engelhard 
One thing I forgot that makes things even worse:

- upstream does not support updates across more than one major version,
so anybody who actually has the old v10 installed will have their
installation completely broken by ANY update at this point
- for the same reason, trying to limit major updates to whenever
CentOS/RHEL release a new version won't work either.

I think I'll retire and look into re-adding it via modularity.

Christopher
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[EPEL-devel] Re: Fast-moving packages in EPEL

2020-10-11 Thread Christopher Engelhard 
On 11.10.20 13:57, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
> I'm fine with retiring it.
> 
> But on the alternatives , you can have modules (or application
> streams) for both epel and fedora.
> It would be a good way forward. so it won't enforce nextcloud version
> with a given fedora and or epel and would allow to update nextcloud at
> users own pace.

I'm sort of hesitant to dive into learning how modularity works, though
... although, maybe a good opportunity to learn.

Christopher
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[EPEL-devel] Retiring blender for epel7

2020-10-11 Thread Nicolas Chauvet 
Hi,


Same as in nextcloud, I'm proposing to retire blender from epel7.
The packaged version if still working is very old and unmaintained.
(there are lots of unfixed CVE).
Having a full featured and modern blender there looks out of reach.

Thanks.

-- 
-

Nicolas (kwizart)
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20201011.n.0 changes

2020-10-11 Thread Fedora Rawhide Report 
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20201010.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20201011.n.0

= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images:  0
Added packages:  25
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages:   64
Downgraded packages: 0

Size of added packages:  80.64 MiB
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size of upgraded packages:   3.99 GiB
Size of downgraded packages: 0 B

Size change of upgraded packages:   54.02 MiB
Size change of downgraded packages: 0 B

= ADDED IMAGES =

= DROPPED IMAGES =

= ADDED PACKAGES =
Package: grim-1.3.1-2.module_f34+10329+b489d92e
Summary: Screenshot tool for Sway
RPMs:grim
Size:112.03 KiB

Package: mako-1.4.1-1.module_f34+10329+b489d92e
Summary: Lightweight Wayland notification daemon
RPMs:mako
Size:261.16 KiB

Package: python-daikin-2.4.0-1.fc34
Summary: Python Daikin HVAC appliances interface
RPMs:python3-daikin
Size:46.65 KiB

Package: python-danfossair-0.1.0-1.fc34
Summary: Python interface for Danfoss Air HRV systems
RPMs:python3-danfossair
Size:18.53 KiB

Package: python-deconz-73-1.fc34
Summary: Python library for communicating with deCONZ REST API
RPMs:python3-deconz
Size:39.82 KiB

Package: python-habitipy-0.3.0-1.fc34
Summary: Python library for Habitica RESTful API
RPMs:python3-habitipy
Size:61.76 KiB

Package: python-homeworks-0.0.6-1.fc34
Summary: Lutron Homeworks Series 4 and 8 interface
RPMs:python3-homeworks
Size:14.58 KiB

Package: python-insteon-1.0.8-1.fc34
Summary: Python API for controlling Insteon devices
RPMs:python3-insteon
Size:343.93 KiB

Package: python-lacrosse-0.4-2.fc34
Summary: LaCrosse Python sensor library
RPMs:python3-lacrosse
Size:29.47 KiB

Package: python-smart-gardena-0.7.10-1.fc34
Summary: Python client to communicate with Gardena systems
RPMs:python3-smart-gardena
Size:32.86 KiB

Package: python-teslajsonpy-0.10.4-1.fc34
Summary: Python library to work with Tesla API
RPMs:python3-teslajsonpy
Size:55.54 KiB

Package: python-xboxapi-2.0.1-1.fc34
Summary: Python XBOX One API wrapper
RPMs:python3-xboxapi
Size:17.03 KiB

Package: rofi-1.6.0-1.module_f34+10329+b489d92e
Summary: A window switcher, application launcher and dmenu replacement
RPMs:rofi rofi-devel rofi-devel-doc rofi-themes
Size:50.18 MiB

Package: rust-foreign-types-macros-0.2.1-1.fc34
Summary: Internal crate used by foreign-types
RPMs:rust-foreign-types-macros+default-devel 
rust-foreign-types-macros+std-devel rust-foreign-types-macros-devel
Size:30.17 KiB

Package: rust-foreign-types-shared0.1-0.1.1-1.fc34
Summary: Internal crate used by foreign-types
RPMs:rust-foreign-types-shared0.1+default-devel 
rust-foreign-types-shared0.1-devel
Size:20.89 KiB

Package: rust-foreign-types0.3-0.3.2-1.fc34
Summary: Framework for Rust wrappers over C APIs
RPMs:rust-foreign-types0.3+default-devel rust-foreign-types0.3-devel
Size:23.03 KiB

Package: rust-line_drawing-0.8.0-1.fc34
Summary: Collection of line-drawing algorithms for use in graphics and video 
games
RPMs:rust-line_drawing+default-devel rust-line_drawing-devel
Size:28.94 KiB

Package: slurp-1.2.0-4.module_f34+10329+b489d92e
Summary: Select a region in Sway
RPMs:slurp
Size:110.00 KiB

Package: sway-1.5-2.module_f34+10329+b489d92e
Summary: i3-compatible window manager for Wayland
RPMs:sway
Size:25.37 MiB

Package: swaybg-1.0-4.module_f34+10329+b489d92e
Summary: Wallpaper tool for Wayland compositors
RPMs:swaybg
Size:117.33 KiB

Package: swayidle-1.6-3.module_f34+10329+b489d92e
Summary: An idle daemon for wayland compositors
RPMs:swayidle
Size:116.60 KiB

Package: swaylock-1.5-4.module_f34+10329+b489d92e
Summary: Screen locker for Wayland
RPMs:swaylock
Size:202.02 KiB

Package: waybar-0.9.4-1.module_f34+10329+b489d92e
Summary: Highly customizable Wayland bar for Sway and Wlroots based compositors
RPMs:waybar
Size:1.39 MiB

Package: wayland-protocols-1.20-2.module_f34+10329+b489d92e
Summary: Wayland protocols that adds functionality not available in the core 
protocol
RPMs:wayland-protocols-devel
Size:74.01 KiB

Package: wlroots-0.11.0-2.module_f34+10329+b489d92e
Summary: A modular Wayland compositor library
RPMs:wlroots wlroots-devel
Size:1.99 MiB


= DROPPED PACKAGES =

= UPGRADED PACKAGES =
Package:  R-callr-3.5.0-1.fc34
Old package:  R-callr-3.4.4-1.fc34
Summary:  Call R from R
RPMs: R-callr
Size: 384.28 KiB
Size change:  4.48 KiB
Changelog:
  * Sat Oct 10 2020 Elliott Sales de Andrade  - 
3.5.0-1
  - Update to latest version (#1886598)


Package:  R-clipr-0.7.1-1.fc34
Old package:  R-clipr-0.7.0-4.fc33
Summary:  Read and Write from the System Clipboard
RPMs: R-clipr
Size: 60.38 KiB
Size change:  280 B
Changelog:
  * Sat Oct 10 2020 Elliott Sales de Andrade  - 
0.7.1-1
  - Update to latest version (#1886514)


Package:  R-igraph-1.2.6-1.fc34
Old

[EPEL-devel] Re: Fast-moving packages in EPEL

2020-10-11 Thread Nicolas Chauvet 
Le dim. 11 oct. 2020 à 07:47, Christopher Engelhard  a écrit :
>
> Hi,
> the nextcloud server package is currently stuck at ancient version 10
> (current is 20) in EPEL7 (It's not (yet) available EPEL8 repos).
>
> I'd like to fix that, but
>
> - upstream releases a new version roughly every 4 months
> - they support them only for roughly 1 year (officially it's "at least 8
> months")
> - nextcloud receives A LOT of bug- and CVE-fixes, and there is no way
> I'll be able to backport all of those, so staying on an older version
> after upstream stopped support is not really an option.
>
> So, should this still be in EPEL even though it would receive major
> version updates or is it better to retire it from EPEL?
>
> I suspect that EPEL users would probably prefer to run it from
> upstream's containers anyways, so retiring might make more sense, but
> I'm open either way.
I'm fine with retiring it.

But on the alternatives , you can have modules (or application
streams) for both epel and fedora.
It would be a good way forward. so it won't enforce nextcloud version
with a given fedora and or epel and would allow to update nextcloud at
users own pace.

But as epel7 is concerned, I'm good for retirement.
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: fawkes

2020-10-11 Thread Till Hofmann 



On 10/11/20 1:56 AM, Rich Mattes wrote:

On 10/10/20 5:27 PM, Till Hofmann wrote:



On 10/10/20 6:24 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:

On Sat, Oct 10, 2020 at 10:59:12AM +0200, Till Hofmann wrote:



On 10/10/20 10:54 AM, Till Hofmann wrote:



On 10/9/20 11:46 PM, Till Hofmann wrote:



On 10/9/20 9:19 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:




I think this might be that we need a newer ignition-msgs package?
Or something in gazebo?


I think it's the other way around: ignition-msgs needs protobuf 3.13
because that contains a patch that renamed 
AuxillaryParseTableField to

AuxiliaryParseTableField:
https://github.com/protocolbuffers/protobuf/commit/2ae7cf0e03c3469973e592e812565e4ee2470e0b 




After some digging: This commit is in 3.12.3 but not in 3.12.4. I 
guess
they noticed this requires a rebuild of dependent packages and they 
thus
reverted it. Gazebo is also currently FTBFS with the same error 
message.
After rebuilding ignition-msgs, I was able to rebuild gazebo and 
fawkes.


I'm pushing my changes and I'll push updates soon.


Awesome. We can propose the update as a Freeze break to get robotics
working. ;)


Now I'm hitting:
fatal: repository 
'https://src.fedoraproject.org/tmp/ignition-msgs.git/'

not found
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=53134273

Not sure what's going on, can somebody help? Am I missing 
permissions to

build? I was able to push.


weird. The /tmp/ in there is completely wrong... it should be /rpms/

did you just do 'fedpkg build' ? or something else?
Any odd changes you made to fedpkg there?

If you like I can try it from here...



I found the issue, I had a second git remote that was something ending 
in /tmp/ignition-msgs, so it expected this to be the path. Funny bug. 
Anyway, after changing the remote tracking branch, it worked and 
building now!


Till


Thanks for working through all of this.  I got the buildroot overrides 
in place to rebuild ignition-transport and gazebo against ignition-msgs, 
gazebo is currently building.  Once it's done I'll submit a buildroot 
override so fawkes can be rebuilt in f33.




Thank you! Yeah I'd forgotten the buildroot override. I saw that you 
created one for gazebo already, so I just triggered a new build for fawkes:

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=53208800

Let's see how it goes!

Till
___
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

[Bug 1887082] perl-Email-Sender-1.300035 is available

2020-10-11 Thread bugzilla 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887082

Emmanuel Seyman  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
   Fixed In Version||perl-Email-Sender-1.300035-
   ||1.fc34
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Last Closed||2020-10-11 10:54:57



--- Comment #1 from Emmanuel Seyman  ---
Built for rawhide:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1623353


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Fedora-Cloud-31-20201011.0 compose check report

2020-10-11 Thread Fedora compose checker 
No missing expected images.

Passed openQA tests: 7/7 (x86_64)
-- 
Mail generated by check-compose:
https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 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-Cloud-32-20201011.0 compose check report

2020-10-11 Thread Fedora compose checker 
No missing expected images.

Soft failed openQA tests: 1/7 (x86_64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)

Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-32-20201010.0):

ID: 690720  Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/690720

Passed openQA tests: 6/7 (x86_64)
-- 
Mail generated by check-compose:
https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 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

Packager Dashboard out of sync? - https://packager.fedorainfracloud.org

2020-10-11 Thread Felix Schwarz 
Hi,

it seems that the packager dashboard does not synchronize my data anymore:
https://packager.fedorainfracloud.org/fschwarz

For example it still shows bug #1874669 ("Please build python-cssselect2 for
EPEL8") as NEW even though that bug is closed since 2020-09-19.
Also a lot of new bugs are not displayed at all.

Where can I report these issues? Is that a known bug?
Felix
___
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

[EPEL-devel] Re: Proposing an EPEL packaging SIG

2020-10-11 Thread Christoph Karl 

Hello Alexandre!

On 11.09.20 20:52, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:

The rationale is that many Fedora packagers do not specifically care
about EL, and with their long release cycles the maintenance burden is
higher (e.g. upgrading to fix a security vulnerability might not be
possible if the newer fixed version has unmet dependencies, so
backporting the fix might be required). EL is more often used server
side too, so the average Fedora packager is not expected to be an EL
user.


I fully agree with the idea of an EPEL packaging SIG.

But I would like to extend your rational:
I was doing a Fedora desktop install (KDE)
for some not technical affine people.
After about 5 years I no more think this was a good idea,
because every half year I have to make a full upgrade.

So I now plan to change to CentOS (+ EPEL).
IMO this is the better choice for non technicians
if the installation should last for years.

Is it OK to call CentOS (+ EPEL) "Fedora LTS"? ;-)

But there are still some packages missing.

So I started to became a Fedora packager and
I am now in the process of being sponsored.
I started with the simple packages "qjackctl" and "qsynth".

Thank you for you effort.

Best Regards
Christoph
(pampelmuse)
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Fedora-IoT-33-20201011.0 compose check report

2020-10-11 Thread Fedora compose checker 
No missing expected images.

Soft failed openQA tests: 1/16 (x86_64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)

Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-IoT-33-20201008.0):

ID: 690590  Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_clevis
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/690590

Passed openQA tests: 15/16 (x86_64)
-- 
Mail generated by check-compose:
https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 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