Re: [Heads-up] Introduction of OpenSSL 3.0.0 in F36

[Neal Gompa]

On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 10:26 PM Gary Buhrmaster
 wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 9:40 PM Fabio Valentini  wrote:
>
> > Thanks, that did the trick.
> > But of course somebody built stuff during the side-tag window and now
> > it can't be pushed. *le big sigh*
>
> This seems to happen every time there is a
> large(ish) side-tag.  I do wish that (probably
> using a server side git push hook) there was
> a `fedpkg lock` command that would block
> accidental pushes for the appropriate branch
> due to various missed emails, or automated
> activities (with the corresponding `fedpkg
> unlock` of course).  Ah well, one can dream.

It's *possible*. Pagure Dist-Git[0] dynamically generates the ACLs
from PDC, so if someone wanted to work on PDC to offer an API that
could be used to temporarily close a branch until a certain date
passed or until a side-tag was merged (obviously by listening to
fedora messaging queue for it), then fedpkg could be extended to offer
"fedpkg lock" to lock rawhide branches temporarily accordingly.

The problem is that PDC has been a dead project since early 2018[1]
(just shortly after Pagure went into production at the end of 2017).
So despite being made extremely critical to our infrastructure, unless
someone has the chops to extend the codebase themselves, the other
pieces will never gain the necessary capabilities.

[0]: https://pagure.io/pagure-dist-git
[1]: 
https://github.com/product-definition-center/product-definition-center/commits/master



-- 
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
___
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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: [Heads-up] Introduction of OpenSSL 3.0.0 in F36

[Gary Buhrmaster]

On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 9:40 PM Fabio Valentini  wrote:

> Thanks, that did the trick.
> But of course somebody built stuff during the side-tag window and now
> it can't be pushed. *le big sigh*

This seems to happen every time there is a
large(ish) side-tag.  I do wish that (probably
using a server side git push hook) there was
a `fedpkg lock` command that would block
accidental pushes for the appropriate branch
due to various missed emails, or automated
activities (with the corresponding `fedpkg
unlock` of course).  Ah well, one can dream.
___
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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: Why can't I push to a module branch?

[Orion Poplawski]

On 9/14/21 2:49 AM, Petr Pisar wrote:

V Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 09:27:37PM -0600, Orion Poplawski napsal(a):

(base) [orion@vmrawhide-rufous openmpi (4.0)]$ git push
Total 0 (delta 0), reused 0 (delta 0), pack-reused 0
remote: Branch refs/heads/4.0 is unsupported
remote: Denied push for ref 'refs/heads/4.0' for user 'orion'
remote: All changes have been rejected
To ssh://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/rpms/openmpi
  ! [remote rejected] 4.0 -> 4.0 (pre-receive hook declined)
error: failed to push some refs to
'ssh://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/rpms/openmpi'


Because the branch ended its life on 2020-12-01
.

The date is set when creating the branch. The date can be changed at
 with a request of module_eol type.

It would be great if the dist-git hook reported that. I files a feature
request .

-- Petr



Thanks.  I thought that might be the case, but it was hard to tell ;).

--
Orion Poplawski
he/him/his - surely the least important thing about me
Manager of NWRA Technical Systems  720-772-5637
NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane   or...@nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301 https://www.nwra.com/



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic 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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

rtprio and SIGKILL

[Jerry James]

Does anybody know why adding an rtprio setting for a user in
/etc/security/limits.d would result in a user process being sent
SIGKILL?  If so, we could use your input on
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2003332.
-- 
Jerry James
http://www.jamezone.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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: [Heads-up] Introduction of OpenSSL 3.0.0 in F36

[Fabio Valentini]

On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 11:06 PM Kevin Fenzi  wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 10:28:44PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> >
> > However, it looks like one build (collectd-5.12.0-9.fc36) is stuck
> > without getting signed:
> > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1831700
> >
> > Maybe somebody needs to poke koji / robosignatory / sigul /  > another alphabet soup fedora-infra service here>.
>
> Ha. It would be robosignatory.
>
> I just retagged the package and it seems to have been signed now.
> (well, is being signed as I type this, it has a lot of subpackages)

Thanks, that did the trick.
But of course somebody built stuff during the side-tag window and now
it can't be pushed. *le big sigh*
According to bodhi, createrepo_c and curl are newer in f36, and
probably need to be rebuilt again?

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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: Claiming ownership for gtg and pyhton-liblarch

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 10:37:17PM -0300, Miguel R. Araújo wrote:
> I still need someone to sponsor me into the packager group to be able to
> maintain these packages. But if I can find someone, I would be glad if you
> would help me as a co-maintainer.
> FAS: miguel7ra

Hey Miguel. 

Since these packages were retired so long ago, they need to be
re-reviewed before they can be re-added. 

Can you submit reviews of the updated versions of them?

If I can find the time I'd be happy to then review and sponsor you. 
If not, hopefully someone else can. ;) 

kevin
--
> 
> On Mon, Sep 13 2021 at 01:11:36 AM -, Thomas Vandal
>  wrote:
> > Hi Miguel,
> > 
> > I'd be happy help as a co-maintainer for these two packages if you are
> > looking for one. I am new to packaging software for Fedora, but GTG is
> > one of the applications I use and would like to see in the repos as
> > well. I plan to look more into how to package python software later this
> > week.
> > 
> > Best,
> > 
> > Thomas Vandal
> > 
> > >  Hello.
> > > 
> > >  The gtg package was retired 3 years ago because of inactive
> > > upstream,
> > >  but it's been active for a while so I'd like to maintain it. To do
> > >  this, I need to become the owner of the "gtg" package and the
> > >  "python-liblarch" package, which is a dependency of "gtg" and was
> > > also
> > > 
> > >  retired because of inactive upstream, but has returned to activity
> > >  along with gtg.
> > > 
> > >  Thanks for your attention.
> > ___
> > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> > 
> > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> > 
> > Fedora Code of Conduct:
> > 
> > List Guidelines:
> > 
> > List Archives: 
> > 
> > Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
> > 
> 

> ___
> 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
> Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure



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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: [Heads-up] Introduction of OpenSSL 3.0.0 in F36

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 10:28:44PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> 
> However, it looks like one build (collectd-5.12.0-9.fc36) is stuck
> without getting signed:
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1831700
> 
> Maybe somebody needs to poke koji / robosignatory / sigul /  another alphabet soup fedora-infra service here>.

Ha. It would be robosignatory. 

I just retagged the package and it seems to have been signed now. 
(well, is being signed as I type this, it has a lot of subpackages)

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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: [Heads-up] Introduction of OpenSSL 3.0.0 in F36

[Fabio Valentini]

On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 7:56 PM Fabio Valentini  wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 7:54 PM Sahana Prasad  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 12:57 PM Petr Menšík  wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Sahana,
> >>
> >> it would be nice, if changelog entry contained bug id we could use to 
> >> watch the progress. Or any other link to some tracker. bind package has a 
> >> new release, I am preparing update for it, but I am not sure where should 
> >> I watch for a progress. Even build of openssl itself does not reference 
> >> any bug. Is there any better tracker than bug #1825937, which I can 
> >> monitor for progress? Is the koji build the best way to check readiness? 
> >> Does exist any variant of RHEL9 bug #1958021 for Fedora Rawhide?
> >>
> >> Is there any expected timeline, how long it might take to merge the 
> >> side-tag?
> >
> >
> > Hi Petr,
> >
> > I have merged the side-tag [1].
> > I would however need karma for it to get to stable.
> >
> > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-ee8c904f46
> >
> > I will send a list of the failed packages shortly.
>
> Updates for rawhide do not need karma to get pushed to stable. Right
> now, the update is only stuck in "pending" because some koji builds
> are still getting signed.
> Once that's done, it will get pushed to stable automatically (assuming
> there are no failed gating tests).

However, it looks like one build (collectd-5.12.0-9.fc36) is stuck
without getting signed:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1831700

Maybe somebody needs to poke koji / robosignatory / sigul / .

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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: [Heads-up] Introduction of OpenSSL 3.0.0 in F36

[Jerry James]

On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 11:54 AM Sahana Prasad  wrote:
> I will send a list of the failed packages shortly.

I have been in contact with pl's upstream about its build failure:

https://github.com/SWI-Prolog/packages-ssl/issues/160

I have a workaround ready to go as soon as the merge into Rawhide is complete.
-- 
Jerry James
http://www.jamezone.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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Test-Announce] Fedora Linux 35 Beta is NO-GO

[Ben Cotton]

Due to outstanding blocker bugs, we do not have an F35 Beta RC. As a
result, F35 Beta is NO-GO by default and tomorrow's Go/No-Go meeting
is cancelled.

The next Fedora Linux 35 Beta Go/No-Go meeting[1] will be held at 1700
UTC on Thursday 23 September in #fedora-meeting. We will aim for the
"target date #2" milestone of 28 September. The release schedule[2]
has been updated accordingly. This change does not impact the final
release date.

[1] https://calendar.fedoraproject.org/Fedora%20release/2021/9/23/#m10064
[2] https://fedorapeople.org/groups/schedule/f-35/f-35-key-tasks.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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
___
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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Fedora-IoT-35-20210915.0 compose check report

[Fedora compose checker]

No missing expected images.

Failed openQA tests: 1/16 (x86_64), 2/15 (aarch64)

New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-IoT-35-20210912.0):

ID: 983993  Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso release_identification
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983993
ID: 984006  Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso release_identification@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/984006

Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-IoT-35-20210912.0):

ID: 984005  Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_clevis@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/984005

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-35-20210912.0):

ID: 983986  Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_clevis
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983986

Passed openQA tests: 14/16 (x86_64), 13/15 (aarch64)

Installed system changes in test x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso 
install_default_upload: 
System load changed from 0.18 to 0.35
Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/978328#downloads
Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983984#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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: [Heads-up] Introduction of OpenSSL 3.0.0 in F36

[Fabio Valentini]

On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 7:54 PM Sahana Prasad  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 12:57 PM Petr Menšík  wrote:
>>
>> Hi Sahana,
>>
>> it would be nice, if changelog entry contained bug id we could use to watch 
>> the progress. Or any other link to some tracker. bind package has a new 
>> release, I am preparing update for it, but I am not sure where should I 
>> watch for a progress. Even build of openssl itself does not reference any 
>> bug. Is there any better tracker than bug #1825937, which I can monitor for 
>> progress? Is the koji build the best way to check readiness? Does exist any 
>> variant of RHEL9 bug #1958021 for Fedora Rawhide?
>>
>> Is there any expected timeline, how long it might take to merge the side-tag?
>
>
> Hi Petr,
>
> I have merged the side-tag [1].
> I would however need karma for it to get to stable.
>
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-ee8c904f46
>
> I will send a list of the failed packages shortly.

Updates for rawhide do not need karma to get pushed to stable. Right
now, the update is only stuck in "pending" because some koji builds
are still getting signed.
Once that's done, it will get pushed to stable automatically (assuming
there are no failed gating tests).

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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: [Heads-up] Introduction of OpenSSL 3.0.0 in F36

[Sahana Prasad]

On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 12:57 PM Petr Menšík  wrote:

> Hi Sahana,
>
> it would be nice, if changelog entry contained bug id we could use to
> watch the progress. Or any other link to some tracker. bind package has a
> new release, I am preparing update for it, but I am not sure where should I
> watch for a progress. Even build of openssl itself does not reference any
> bug. Is there any better tracker than bug #1825937, which I can monitor for
> progress? Is the koji build the best way to check readiness? Does exist any
> variant of RHEL9 bug #1958021
>  for Fedora Rawhide?
>
> Is there any expected timeline, how long it might take to merge the
> side-tag?
>

Hi Petr,

I have merged the side-tag [1].
I would however need karma for it to get to stable.

https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-ee8c904f46

I will send a list of the failed packages shortly.

Thank you,
Regards,
Sahana Prasad

> Thanks!
>
> Regards,
> Petr
> On 9/14/21 6:56 PM, Sahana Prasad wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> The builds of packages that depend on OpenSSL are being rebuilt in the
> side tag f36-build-side-44794 [1] now.
>
> Note to package maintainers:  If you see a "Rebuilt with OpenSSL 3.0.0"
> commit in your package, do not build it in
> regular rawhide unless the side tag is merged
>
> [1]
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/builds?inherited=0&tagID=44794&order=-build_id&latest=1
>
>
> Thank you,
> Regards,
> Sahana Prasad
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 5:06 PM Sahana Prasad  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 4:35 PM Omair Majid  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Sahana Prasad  writes:
>>>
>>> > An update that I will directly bring in the OpenSSL 3.0.0 final RC
>>> > (released upstream yesterday)
>>>
>>> Thanks for doing this!
>>>
>>> I read the upstream announcement and it certainly reads like it's the
>>> final/GA release, not an RC:
>>>
>>> https://www.openssl.org/blog/blog/2021/09/07/OpenSSL3.Final/
>>>
>>> Do you know what's going on? Did they phrase it badly or did they
>>> perform multiple releases in parallel?
>>>
>>
>> Hi Omair,
>>
>> Sorry I phrased it incorrectly. It is the final major version only, not
>> the RC.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Regards,
>> Sahana Prasad
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Omair
>>>
>>> --
>>> PGP Key: B157A9F0 (http://pgp.mit.edu/)
>>> Fingerprint = 9DB5 2F0B FD3E C239 E108  E7BD DF99 7AF8 B157 A9F0
>>>
>>>
> ___
> 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
> Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
>
> --
> Petr Menšík
> Software Engineer
> Red Hat, http://www.redhat.com/
> email: pemen...@redhat.com
> PGP: DFCF908DB7C87E8E529925BC4931CA5B6C9FC5CB
>
>
___
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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

[Jhordy Caceres]

Excellent!

This is what I needed, I was thinking of starting as a Java packager, specially 
for the apache-rat package. I'd like to know your opinion on the package or 
some (other) recommendation.
___
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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

[Jhordy Caceres]

Very Thank You!

Of course, You can count on me for anything. I'll try to help where I can.
___
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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: libvirt and systemd-resolved integration?

[Petr Menšík]

On 9/10/21 4:57 PM, Peter Boy wrote:
> Hi all, 
>
> I’m working on an update of the Fedora Server virtlib documentation 
> (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fedora-server/virtualization-install/), 
> specifically the part about the DNS configration.
>
> I would like to include and integrate the solutions presented in this thread 
> by Daniel Berrange and by Juan Alcaine. But unfortunately none of the 
> solutions worked in my test installations. I would be grateful if I could get 
> some hints on what I might have missed.
>
> The main challenge is to enable the host to resolve the internal name of the 
> VMs. For this purpose, the DNS server provided by libvirt must be included in 
> the search path (default virbr0 192.168.122.1). The server itself works fine. 
> If you use dig or nsloookup to assign the servers, the names of the VMs are 
> resolved correctly.
No, it does not have to be included in search path. It is just required
to forward any subset of names to dns server listening on libvirt's
interface.
>
>
>
> (a) === Installing libvirt-nss. (Daniel Berrange)  ===
>
> I did the following
>
> 1. dnf install libvirt-nss
>
> 2. Modified following the libvirt documentation and the docs included with 
> the files /etc/authselect/user-nsswitch.conf and edited the hosts item to 
> "hosts:  files myhostname libvirt resolve [!UNAVAIL=return] dns“
>
> 3. executed:  authselect apply-changes
>
> 4. reboot
>
> Neither using standard DNS without systems-resolved activated  nor using 
> systemd-resolved could resolve the internal names of the VM
nss modules affects just getaddrinfo() calls from programs, if it uses
only glibc to resolve names. Could be tested by "getent hosts "
command. Any program using DNS directly, like host or dig, would not be
affected by it. Setting up dns forwarding is more work, but would help
all programs, no matter how they resolve names to IP addresses.
> (b) === using libvirt hook dir to modify systemd-resolved configuration ===
>
> I followed Juan Alcaine's instructions and after booting I got:
>
> (for my homelab domain, served as public here)
> Link 2 (enp1s0)
> Current Scopes: DNS LLMNR/IPv4 LLMNR/IPv6
>  Protocols: +DefaultRoute +LLMNR -mDNS -DNSOverTLS 
> DNSSEC=no/unsupported
> Current DNS Server: 192.168.158.1
>DNS Servers: 192.168.158.1 fd00::3681:c4ff:fe14:21b4
> DNS Domain: fritz.box
>
> (for my internal domain via libvirt ipv4 only)
> Link 5 (virbr0)
> Current Scopes: DNS LLMNR/IPv4
>  Protocols: +DefaultRoute +LLMNR -mDNS -DNSOverTLS 
> DNSSEC=no/unsupported
> Current DNS Server: 192.168.122.1
>DNS Servers: 192.168.122.1
> DNS Domain: fritz.lan 
>
> The internal names could be resolved, but with such a long delay that the 
> solution is practically unusable. The „host“ utility provided the internal 
> IPv4 name immediately, but continued searching for several seconds and 
> finally the process was terminated with 2 times of the message ";; connection 
> timed out; no servers could be reached“.  
Host without -t parameter given sends -t A, -t  and -t MX queries
for given name. Because of the way dnsmasq behaves, you are waiting for
-t  and -t MX queries. Because they are looping from
systemd-resolved to dnsmasq and back, until one of them drops them.
>
> In the systemd-resolved log I found a lot of entries like
>
> Firing regular transaction 50808 for  scope dns on 
> virbr0/* (validate=yes). 
>
> But virbr0 is ipv4 only.

This happens because dnsmasq serving names for libvirt network sends
 queries to whatever resolver it got from the system. Meaning
usually back to whatever forwarded the name to it.

In my configuration, I used domain statement in virsh net-edit default
to prevent sending X.vm names back to the system resolver. It becames
then (sort of) authoritative for that name. You would just replace vm
with fritz.lan (or vm.home.arpa.). localOnly=yes is imporant part. It
tells dnsmasq to consider all names under fritz.lan its own and if it
does not know them, they do not exist. If dns cache on hosts forwards
some domain to it, it is required to break loops.


...
  
...


It would be nice if it could be done automagically, but I doubt used
domain can be specified on just single place. Together with libvirt
hook, the above should work.

> Any advice greatly  appreciated. 
>
>
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>
>> Am 08.10.2020 um 09:33 schrieb Juan Orti Alcaine :
>>
>>
>>
>> El mié., 7 oct. 2020 a las 10:35, Petr Menšík () 
>> escribió:
>>
>>
>> On 10/7/20 6:44 AM, Pavel Zhukov wrote:
>>> I don't think it's a good idea.
>>> dnsmasq is not dns resolver but acts as DHCP and DNS server. It provides
>>> VMs with IP
>>> address/lease and create corresponding dns record for it. In case of
>>> resolved ip addresses and dns records must be managed either manually
>>> or... with dnsmasq.
>> That is not true. Any query sent to @192.168.122.1 would get reply. I
>> use for example unbound on localhost and all my machines 

Re: RH Bugzilla extrem slow loading at enter_bug.cgi for Fedora

[Marius Schwarz]

Am 15.09.21 um 14:38 schrieb Miro Hrončok:

On 10. 09. 21 18:50, Marius Schwarz wrote:

Hi,

since a few days, loading the enter_bug.cgi for "Product=Fedora" on 
RH BZ takes very long.

It's quite possible, that it's happening for any other product too ;)

It's over a minute ATM.


I have the same problem. have you contacted the RH bugzilla admins or 
should I do that?



RH Admins are on it .. no results yet.

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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: Self Introduction: Jhordy Caceres

[Silvia Sánchez]

Hello Jhordy!

Welcome to Fedora!  And don't worry about your English, it's excellent.

Cheerio!
Silvia
FAS:  Lailah




On Mon, 13 Sept 2021 at 00:11, Jhordy M. Caceres Guerra <
jhordy.cace...@outlook.com> wrote:

> Hello from Peru!
>
> I am a software development student and I use Fedora as my main OS and I
> would like to start contributing. I've never contributed to any open source
> projects, but I have experience developing some programs (which I use
> daily) and I have basic / intermediate knowledge in some programming
> languages like Java, Python, JavaScript, bash and others.
>
> For this reason I want to start as a package maintainer (from apache-rat),
> but I don't know how to get started (I read and did some demos as
> packaging, but nothing serious).
>
> Thanks!
>
> *Note: my English is not good.
> ___
> 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
> Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
>
___
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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Fedora-35-20210915.n.0 compose check report

[Fedora compose checker]

No missing expected images.

Failed openQA tests: 10/205 (x86_64), 7/141 (aarch64)

New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-35-20210914.n.0):

ID: 983632  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_remote_logging_server
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983632
ID: 983636  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_freeipa_replication_master
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983636
ID: 983638  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_remote_logging_client
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983638
ID: 983643  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_freeipa_replication_replica
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983643
ID: 983644  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_freeipa_replication_client
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983644
ID: 983667  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_login
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983667
ID: 983734  Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso anaconda_help@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983734
ID: 983745  Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso install_blivet_lvm_ext4@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983745
ID: 983795  Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz desktop_browser@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983795
ID: 983873  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_minimal_uefi@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983873
ID: 983915  Test: aarch64 universal install_cyrillic_language@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983915

Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-35-20210914.n.0):

ID: 983679  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso apps_startstop
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983679
ID: 983681  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_notifications_postinstall
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983681
ID: 983769  Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso server_cockpit_basic@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983769
ID: 983786  Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz gedit@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983786
ID: 983851  Test: x86_64 universal memtest
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983851
ID: 983920  Test: aarch64 universal install_asian_language@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983920

Soft failed openQA tests: 21/205 (x86_64), 16/141 (aarch64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)

New soft failures (same test not soft failed in Fedora-35-20210914.n.0):

ID: 983672  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso gedit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983672
ID: 983695  Test: x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983695
ID: 983716  Test: aarch64 Minimal-raw_xz-raw.xz 
install_arm_image_deployment_upload@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983716

Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-35-20210914.n.0):

ID: 983589  Test: x86_64 Server-boot-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983589
ID: 983590  Test: x86_64 Server-boot-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983590
ID: 983609  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_default_upload
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983609
ID: 983612  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983612
ID: 983628  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_realmd_join_kickstart
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983628
ID: 983651  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983651
ID: 983652  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_default_upload
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983652
ID: 983696  Test: x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso install_default_upload
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983696
ID: 983700  Test: x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso evince
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983700
ID: 983701  Test: x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso gedit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983701
ID: 983711  Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983711
ID: 983725  Test: aarch64 Server-boot-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983725
ID: 983743  Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso install_default_upload@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983743
ID: 983762  Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso server_realmd_join_kickstart@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983762
ID: 983773  Test: aarch64 Server-raw_xz-raw.xz 
install_arm_image_deployment_upload@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983773
ID: 983782  Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz 
install_arm_image_deployment_upload@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983782
ID: 983788  Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz desktop_printing@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/9837

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

[Didik Supriadi]

On 9/13/21 8:41 PM, Jhordy M. Caceres Guerra wrote:


Hello!

Hi!

I'm new here, but I would like to be part of this group, I have a little 
knowledge of Java and I think I can be helpful for the group's goals.


That would be very helpful considering the states of java (packages) in 
Fedora!


I'm a java packager and I think I can offer you with some guides to 
begin with your journey, if you want to be a packager, that is.


Feel free to contact me via email or IRC: didiksupriadi41 :)


Note: I know this thread is old, but I didn't know how to join this group, 
because this group has no sponsors.


See [1].

[1] 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/4EHBACT4I263R4QF75HB3DUJWWANGHAS/


--
Regards,
Didik Supriadi (he/him)



OpenPGP_0x9DF1FD914CDC3F3B.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key


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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Fedora-Rawhide-20210915.n.0 compose check report

[Fedora compose checker]

Missing expected images:

Xfce raw-xz armhfp

Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check!
20 of 43 required tests failed, 14 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.Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2.x86_64.64bit - compose.cloud_autocloud

Failed openQA tests: 97/207 (x86_64), 58/141 (aarch64)

New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20210914.n.0):

ID: 983114  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_fprint
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983114
ID: 983160  Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 
base_service_manipulation@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983160
ID: 983246  Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz 
desktop_update_graphical@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983246
ID: 983331  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_minimal_uefi@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983331
ID: 983513  Test: aarch64 universal support_server@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983513
ID: 983531  Test: x86_64 universal install_blivet_xfs@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983531

Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20210914.n.0):

ID: 983041  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_vncconnect_client
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983041
ID: 983045  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_repository_hd_variation
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983045
ID: 983047  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso anaconda_help
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983047
ID: 983059  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_vncconnect_server
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983059
ID: 983091  Test: x86_64 Everything-boot-iso memory_check
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983091
ID: 983092  Test: x86_64 Everything-boot-iso memory_check@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983092
ID: 983100  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_terminal **GATING**
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983100
ID: 983101  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso apps_startstop
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983101
ID: 983110  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_update_graphical
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983110
ID: 983111  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso evince
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983111
ID: 983119  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso anaconda_help
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983119
ID: 983121  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso install_no_user **GATING**
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983121
ID: 983122  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso install_default@uefi **GATING**
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983122
ID: 983123  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso install_default_upload **GATING**
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983123
ID: 983144  Test: x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso desktop_terminal
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983144
ID: 983180  Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso install_vnc_server@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983180
ID: 983182  Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso anaconda_help@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983182
ID: 983186  Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso install_vncconnect_client@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983186
ID: 983187  Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso install_vncconnect_server@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983187
ID: 983188  Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso 
install_repository_hd_variation@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983188
ID: 983190  Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso install_vnc_client@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983190
ID: 983234  Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz gedit@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983234
ID: 983238  Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz desktop_terminal@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983238
ID: 983241  Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz evince@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983241
ID: 983275  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_server_domain_controller
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983275
ID: 983289  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_realmd_client
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983289
ID: 983299  Test: x86_64 universal memtest
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983299
ID: 983300  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_server_domain_controller
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983300
ID: 983322  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_realmd_client
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983322
ID: 983338  Test: aarch64 universal upgrade_minimal_64bit@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983338
ID: 983348  Test: aarch64 universal upgrade_2_server_domain_controller@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedorapro

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

[Peter Boy]

> Am 13.09.2021 um 15:41 schrieb Jhordy M. Caceres Guerra 
> :
> 
> Hello!
> 
> I'm new here, but I would like to be part of this group, I have a little 
> knowledge of Java and I think I can be helpful for the group's goals.
> 
> Note: I know this thread is old, but I didn't know how to join this group, 
> because this group has no sponsors.


I very much appreciate your initiative. It inspired me to try to ignite a 
discussion about Empowering Fedora Java on the Java list. Maybe you could 
contribute. ___
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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Fedora 35 compose report: 20210915.n.0 changes

[Fedora Rawhide Report]

OLD: Fedora-35-20210914.n.0
NEW: Fedora-35-20210915.n.0

= SUMMARY =
Added images:1
Dropped images:  1
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 =
Image: Minimal raw-xz aarch64
Path: Spins/aarch64/images/Fedora-Minimal-35-20210915.n.0.aarch64.raw.xz

= DROPPED IMAGES =
Image: Cloud_Base tar-gz x86_64
Path: Cloud/x86_64/images/Fedora-Cloud-Base-GCP-35-20210914.n.0.x86_64.tar.gz

= 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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: [Heads-up] Introduction of OpenSSL 3.0.0 in F36

[Petr Menšík]

On 9/15/21 1:54 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 15. 09. 21 13:00, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>>
>> Dne 15. 09. 21 v 12:57 Petr Menšík napsal(a):
>>>
>>> Hi Sahana,
>>>
>>> it would be nice, if changelog entry contained bug id we could use
>>> to watch the progress.
>>>
>>
>> The commit message should contain reference to the change proposal IMO
Yes, something similar to mass rebuilds before new release. They also
have URL to details. I think all non-maintainer commits should have some
reference to details, why is it done.
>
> I've never referenced the Bugzilla ID or change proposal when I've
> done Python 3.X rebuilds and I have never heard somebody that it
> mattered to them.
>
> Referencing the change in the commit message is actually a good idea
> in retrospect. However, referencing a bug ID might create a lot of
> noise, we once did that here:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748018

This bug is something I had on mind. But I would expect it would be only
used as Depends: field on bugs filled to failed components. I were
looking for a bug number to add to block

>
> People kept associating unrelated EPEL updates with this for months,
> as "fedpkg update" or some other clever thing automatically added that
> bug ID to them.
>
Indeed, there were a lot of EPEL builds referencing Fedora bug. If that
were done by any existing tool, it should be fixed. I doubt we ever want
EPEL builds to directly reference Fedora builds. It might be done in
rare cases by a person, but I doubt it should ever be done by any
automated tool. Maybe if it had bug cloned to EPEL, it might followed
clone with matching product for the build.

I think we miss here way to make that bug only related. It might be
added to bodhi updates of such builds, but it should not switch state of
referenced bug in any way, let alone close it. It should just be
clickable link from bodhi update. It should be considered only as
indication similar problem had multiple packages. Would such feature
make sense also to others?

Cheers,
Petr

-- 
Petr Menšík
Software Engineer
Red Hat, http://www.redhat.com/
email: pemen...@redhat.com
PGP: DFCF908DB7C87E8E529925BC4931CA5B6C9FC5CB

___
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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: Introducing API changes in google-benchmark

[Ben Beasley]

I have checked the remaining packages (cctz, geometry-hpp, python-pypet, 
seqan3, and snappy). Based on source grepping and on a successful 
“fedpkg mockbuild --enablerepo=local”, none of them uses the part of the 
API that was changed.


On 9/15/21 08:24, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:

Hello.

google-benchmark 1.6.0 introduces API change **without** a SOVERSION 
bump: https://github.com/google/benchmark/pull/1208


Builds completed both for F35 and Rawhide. Make sure your packages are 
compatible.


Potentially affected packages:

* cctz
* geometry-hpp
* libscn
* python-pypet
* seqan3
* snappy
* spdlog

I'll take care of libscn and spdlog.


___
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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: [Heads-up] Introduction of OpenSSL 3.0.0 in F36

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 5:28 PM Miro Hrončok  wrote:
>
> On 14. 09. 21 22:52, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 12:57 PM Sahana Prasad  > > wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > The builds of packages that depend on OpenSSL are being rebuilt in the 
> > side
> > tag f36-build-side-44794 [1] now.
> >
> > Note to package maintainers:  If you see a "Rebuilt with OpenSSL 3.0.0"
> > commit in your package, do not build it in
> > regular rawhide unless the side tag is merged
> >
> > [1]
> > 
> > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/builds?inherited=0&tagID=44794&order=-build_id&latest=1
> > 
> > 
> >
> >
> > I had a build in progress for Node.js with the same release number as your
> > attempt to rebuild for OpenSSL 3.0 in the side-tag. I've merged your changes
> > with mine into the rawhide branch and kicked off a build targeted
> > at f36-build-side-44794. There *shouldn't* be any issues with the upgrade 
> > path
> > here, since the Rawhide build I was running was built against OpenSSL 1.1.1 
> > and
> > I bumped the release number for the side-tag build.
>
> I wonder how this happened. Was you build with the same release number
> submitted from another branch than rawhide?

Yes, I built it from the `16` branch (which has a package.cfg that
builds it for both Rawhide and F35) and I failed to notice when I
merged it to Rawhide that it was behind `origin`. Mine had been
started first, so the mass-rebuild attempt was rejected. I just went
ahead and bumped the release number again and built it for the
side-tag against OpenSSL 3.0, so things should be in the proper state.
___
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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: RH Bugzilla extrem slow loading at enter_bug.cgi for Fedora

[Miro Hrončok]

On 10. 09. 21 18:50, Marius Schwarz wrote:

Hi,

since a few days, loading the enter_bug.cgi for "Product=Fedora" on RH BZ takes 
very long.

It's quite possible, that it's happening for any other product too ;)

It's over a minute ATM.


I have the same problem. have you contacted the RH bugzilla admins or should I 
do that?


--
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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: [Fedocal] Reminder meeting : Fedora Source-git SIG

[Hunor Csomortáni]

I'm cancelling this as there are no topics on the agenda.

Hunor

On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 4:31 PM  wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> You are kindly invited to the meeting:
>Fedora Source-git SIG on 2021-09-15 from 14:30:00 to 15:30:00 GMT
>At meet.google.com/mic-otnv-kse
>
> The meeting will be about:
> Bi-weekly meeting of the Fedora source-git SIG
>
> Agenda:
> https://pagure.io/fedora-source-git/sig/issues?tags=meeting&status=Open
>
> SIG Info:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Source-git
>
>
> Source: https://calendar.fedoraproject.org//meeting/10062/
>
> ___
> 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
> Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
>
___
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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Introducing API changes in google-benchmark

[Vitaly Zaitsev via devel]

Hello.

google-benchmark 1.6.0 introduces API change **without** a SOVERSION 
bump: https://github.com/google/benchmark/pull/1208


Builds completed both for F35 and Rawhide. Make sure your packages are 
compatible.


Potentially affected packages:

* cctz
* geometry-hpp
* libscn
* python-pypet
* seqan3
* snappy
* spdlog

I'll take care of libscn and spdlog.

--
Sincerely,
  Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Fedora-IoT-36-20210915.0 compose check report

[Fedora compose checker]

Missing expected images:

Iot dvd x86_64
Iot dvd aarch64

Failed openQA tests: 3/16 (x86_64), 2/15 (aarch64)

New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-IoT-36-20210912.0):

ID: 983556  Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983556
ID: 983557  Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso install_default_upload
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983557
ID: 983559  Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_clevis
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983559
ID: 983572  Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso install_default_upload@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983572

Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-IoT-36-20210912.0):

ID: 983578  Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_clevis@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983578

Skipped non-gating openQA tests: 26 of 31
-- 
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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: [Heads-up] Introduction of OpenSSL 3.0.0 in F36

[Miro Hrončok]

On 15. 09. 21 13:00, Vít Ondruch wrote:


Dne 15. 09. 21 v 12:57 Petr Menšík napsal(a):


Hi Sahana,

it would be nice, if changelog entry contained bug id we could use to watch 
the progress.




The commit message should contain reference to the change proposal IMO


I've never referenced the Bugzilla ID or change proposal when I've done Python 
3.X rebuilds and I have never heard somebody that it mattered to them.


Referencing the change in the commit message is actually a good idea in 
retrospect. However, referencing a bug ID might create a lot of noise, we once 
did that here:


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1748018

People kept associating unrelated EPEL updates with this for months, as "fedpkg 
update" or some other clever thing automatically added that bug ID to them.


--
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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20210915.n.0 changes

[Fedora Rawhide Report]

OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20210914.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20210915.n.0

= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images:  0
Added packages:  4
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages:   151
Downgraded packages: 0

Size of added packages:  47.26 MiB
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size of upgraded packages:   11.92 GiB
Size of downgraded packages: 0 B

Size change of upgraded packages:   186.69 MiB
Size change of downgraded packages: 0 B

= ADDED IMAGES =

= DROPPED IMAGES =

= ADDED PACKAGES =
Package: golang-k8s-pod-security-admission-1.22.0-1.fc36
Summary: Kubernetes Pod Security Standards implementation
RPMs:golang-k8s-pod-security-admission 
golang-k8s-pod-security-admission-devel
Size:46.14 MiB

Package: plocate-1.1.11-2.fc36
Summary: Much faster locate
RPMs:plocate
Size:699.73 KiB

Package: rubygem-sd_notify-0.1.1-1.fc36
Summary: Pure Ruby implementation of systemd's sd_notify(3)
RPMs:rubygem-sd_notify rubygem-sd_notify-doc
Size:211.77 KiB

Package: rubygem-sys-uname-1.2.2-1.fc36
Summary: An interface for returning uname (platform) information
RPMs:rubygem-sys-uname rubygem-sys-uname-doc
Size:240.53 KiB


= DROPPED PACKAGES =

= UPGRADED PACKAGES =
Package:  amavisd-milter-1.7.1-4.fc36
Old package:  amavisd-milter-1.7.1-4.fc35
Summary:  Sendmail milter for amavisd-new using the AM.PDP protocol
RPMs: amavisd-milter
Size: 188.25 KiB
Size change:  -289 B

Package:  ansible-2.9.26-1.fc36
Old package:  ansible-2.9.25-1.fc36
Summary:  SSH-based configuration management, deployment, and task 
execution system
RPMs: ansible ansible-doc ansible-test
Size: 25.91 MiB
Size change:  -16.69 KiB
Changelog:
  * Tue Sep 14 2021 Kevin Fenzi  - 2.9.26-1
  - Update to 2.9.26. Fixes rhbz#2002394


Package:  ansible-core-2.11.5-1.fc36
Old package:  ansible-core-2.11.4-1.fc36
Summary:  A radically simple IT automation system
RPMs: ansible-core ansible-core-doc
Size: 3.69 MiB
Size change:  -347 B
Changelog:
  * Tue Sep 14 2021 Kevin Fenzi  - 2.11.5-1
  - Update to 2.11.5. Fixes rhbz#2002393


Package:  apachetop-0.19.7-6.fc36
Old package:  apachetop-0.19.7-6.fc35
Summary:  A top-like display of Apache logs
RPMs: apachetop
Size: 190.09 KiB
Size change:  -188 B

Package:  audit-3.0.5-2.fc36
Old package:  audit-3.0.5-1.fc36
Summary:  User space tools for kernel auditing
RPMs: audispd-plugins audispd-plugins-zos audit audit-libs 
audit-libs-devel python3-audit
Size: 3.15 MiB
Size change:  -2.99 KiB
Changelog:
  * Tue Sep 14 2021 Steve Grubb  3.0.5-2
  - Drop IPX interpretation support


Package:  awscli-1.20.42-1.fc36
Old package:  awscli-1.20.41-1.fc36
Summary:  Universal Command Line Environment for AWS
RPMs: awscli
Size: 2.10 MiB
Size change:  69 B
Changelog:
  * Tue Sep 14 2021 Gwyn Ciesla  - 1.20.42-1
  - 1.20.42


Package:  batctl-2021.3-1.fc36
Old package:  batctl-2021.2-1.fc36
Summary:  B.A.T.M.A.N. advanced control and management tool
RPMs: batctl
Size: 405.52 KiB
Size change:  39 B
Changelog:
  * Tue Sep 14 2021 Felix Kaechele  - 2021.3-1
  - update to 2021.3


Package:  bitlbee-3.6-6.fc36
Old package:  bitlbee-3.6-6.fc35
Summary:  IRC to other chat networks gateway
RPMs: bitlbee bitlbee-devel bitlbee-otr
Size: 2.02 MiB
Size change:  -795 B

Package:  bottles-2021.9.14-1.fc36
Old package:  bottles-2021.8.28-1.fc36
Summary:  Easily manage Wine prefix in a new way
RPMs: bottles
Size: 223.69 KiB
Size change:  7.08 KiB
Changelog:
  * Tue Sep 14 2021 Artem Polishchuk  - 2021.9.14-1
  - build(update): 2021.9.14


Package:  buildah-1.23.0-1.fc36
Old package:  buildah-1.22.0-1.fc36
Summary:  A command line tool used for creating OCI Images
RPMs: buildah buildah-tests
Size: 106.74 MiB
Size change:  -822.75 KiB
Changelog:
  * Wed Aug 25 2021 RH Container Bot  - 
1.22.3-1
  - autobuilt v1.22.3

  * Tue Sep 14 2021 RH Container Bot  - 
1.23.0-1
  - autobuilt v1.23.0


Package:  c-ares-1.17.2-1.module_f36+12951+77a3d5f2
Old package:  c-ares-1.17.1-3.module_f36+12602+12635f8d
Summary:  A library that performs asynchronous DNS operations
RPMs: c-ares c-ares-devel
Size: 997.37 KiB
Size change:  8.13 KiB
Changelog:
  * Mon Aug 16 2021 Tom Callaway  - 1.17.2-1
  - update to 1.17.2
  - fixes multiple security issues including CVE-2021-3672


Package:  calamaris-2.59-23.fc36
Old package:  calamaris-2.59-23.fc35
Summary:  Squid native log format (NLF) analyzer and report generator
RPMs: calamaris
Size: 59.26 KiB
Size change:  18 B

Package:  composer-2.1.7-1.fc36
Old package:  composer-2.1.6-1.fc36
Summary:  Dependency Manager for PHP
RPMs: composer
Size: 432.32 KiB
Size change:  3.08 KiB
Changelog:
  * Tue Sep 14 2021 Remi Collet  - 2.

Re: [Heads-up] Introduction of OpenSSL 3.0.0 in F36

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 15. 09. 21 v 12:57 Petr Menšík napsal(a):


Hi Sahana,

it would be nice, if changelog entry contained bug id we could use to 
watch the progress.




The commit message should contain reference to the change proposal IMO


Vít



Or any other link to some tracker. bind package has a new release, I 
am preparing update for it, but I am not sure where should I watch for 
a progress. Even build of openssl itself does not reference any bug. 
Is there any better tracker than bug #1825937, which I can monitor for 
progress? Is the koji build the best way to check readiness? Does 
exist any variant of RHEL9 bug #1958021 
 for Fedora Rawhide?


Is there any expected timeline, how long it might take to merge the 
side-tag?


Thanks!

Regards,
Petr

On 9/14/21 6:56 PM, Sahana Prasad wrote:

Hi all,

The builds of packages that depend on OpenSSL are being rebuilt in 
the side tag f36-build-side-44794 [1] now.


Note to package maintainers:  If you see a "Rebuilt with OpenSSL 
3.0.0" commit in your package, do not build it in

regular rawhide unless the side tag is merged

[1] 
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/builds?inherited=0&tagID=44794&order=-build_id&latest=1 




Thank you,
Regards,
Sahana Prasad



On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 5:06 PM Sahana Prasad > wrote:




On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 4:35 PM Omair Majid mailto:oma...@redhat.com>> wrote:

Hi,

Sahana Prasad mailto:sah...@redhat.com>>
writes:

> An update that I will directly bring in the OpenSSL 3.0.0
final RC
> (released upstream yesterday)

Thanks for doing this!

I read the upstream announcement and it certainly reads like
it's the
final/GA release, not an RC:

https://www.openssl.org/blog/blog/2021/09/07/OpenSSL3.Final/


Do you know what's going on? Did they phrase it badly or did they
perform multiple releases in parallel?


Hi Omair,

Sorry I phrased it incorrectly. It is the final major version
only, not the RC.

Thank you,
Regards,
Sahana Prasad


Thanks,
Omair

--
PGP Key: B157A9F0 (http://pgp.mit.edu/ )
Fingerprint = 9DB5 2F0B FD3E C239 E108  E7BD DF99 7AF8 B157 A9F0


___
devel mailing list --devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email todevel-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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report 
it:https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

--
Petr Menšík
Software Engineer
Red Hat,http://www.redhat.com/
email:pemen...@redhat.com
PGP: DFCF908DB7C87E8E529925BC4931CA5B6C9FC5CB

___
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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
___
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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: [Heads-up] Introduction of OpenSSL 3.0.0 in F36

[Petr Menšík]

Hi Sahana,

it would be nice, if changelog entry contained bug id we could use to
watch the progress. Or any other link to some tracker. bind package has
a new release, I am preparing update for it, but I am not sure where
should I watch for a progress. Even build of openssl itself does not
reference any bug. Is there any better tracker than bug #1825937, which
I can monitor for progress? Is the koji build the best way to check
readiness? Does exist any variant of RHEL9 bug #1958021
 for Fedora Rawhide?

Is there any expected timeline, how long it might take to merge the
side-tag?

Thanks!

Regards,
Petr

On 9/14/21 6:56 PM, Sahana Prasad wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The builds of packages that depend on OpenSSL are being rebuilt in the
> side tag f36-build-side-44794 [1] now.
>
> Note to package maintainers:  If you see a "Rebuilt with OpenSSL
> 3.0.0" commit in your package, do not build it in
> regular rawhide unless the side tag is merged
>
> [1]
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/builds?inherited=0&tagID=44794&order=-build_id&latest=1
> 
>
>
> Thank you,
> Regards,
> Sahana Prasad
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 5:06 PM Sahana Prasad  > wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 4:35 PM Omair Majid  > wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Sahana Prasad mailto:sah...@redhat.com>>
> writes:
>
> > An update that I will directly bring in the OpenSSL 3.0.0
> final RC
> > (released upstream yesterday)
>
> Thanks for doing this!
>
> I read the upstream announcement and it certainly reads like
> it's the
> final/GA release, not an RC:
>
> https://www.openssl.org/blog/blog/2021/09/07/OpenSSL3.Final/
> 
>
> Do you know what's going on? Did they phrase it badly or did they
> perform multiple releases in parallel?
>
>
> Hi Omair,
>
> Sorry I phrased it incorrectly. It is the final major version
> only, not the RC.
>
> Thank you,
> Regards,
> Sahana Prasad
>
>
> Thanks,
> Omair
>
> --
> PGP Key: B157A9F0 (http://pgp.mit.edu/ )
> Fingerprint = 9DB5 2F0B FD3E C239 E108  E7BD DF99 7AF8 B157 A9F0
>
>
> ___
> 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
> Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

-- 
Petr Menšík
Software Engineer
Red Hat, http://www.redhat.com/
email: pemen...@redhat.com
PGP: DFCF908DB7C87E8E529925BC4931CA5B6C9FC5CB

___
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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Fedora-Cloud-34-20210915.0 compose check report

[Fedora compose checker]

No missing expected images.

Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64), 1/8 (aarch64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)

Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-34-20210914.0):

ID: 983019  Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983019
ID: 983029  Test: aarch64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/983029

Passed openQA tests: 7/8 (x86_64), 7/8 (aarch64)
-- 
Mail generated by check-compose:
https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Fedora-Cloud-33-20210915.0 compose check report

[Fedora compose checker]

No missing expected images.

Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64), 1/8 (aarch64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)

Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-33-20210914.0):

ID: 982771  Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/982771
ID: 982781  Test: aarch64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/982781

Passed openQA tests: 7/8 (x86_64), 7/8 (aarch64)
-- 
Mail generated by check-compose:
https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure