Re: Proposed mass bug filing for webkitgtk/webkitgtk3 package removal

On Tue, 2016-09-13 at 23:26 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > I've started filing bugs and will continue throughout the week. > > Michael Well nevermind that, I'm (mostly) finished: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1375784 The one thing I did not do was file individual bugs for all

Fedora Rawhide-20160913.n.2 compose check report

Missing expected images: Cloud_base raw-xz i386 Atomic raw-xz x86_64 Failed openQA tests: 10/92 (x86_64), 4/17 (i386), 1/2 (arm) New failures (same test did not fail in Rawhide-20160913.n.1): ID: 34248 Test: x86_64 Workstation-boot-iso install_default URL: https

[Bug 1375826] New: perl-Gtk2-WebKit will be removed with webkitgtk

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1375826 Bug ID: 1375826 Summary: perl-Gtk2-WebKit will be removed with webkitgtk Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: perl-Gtk2-WebKit Assignee: fed...@famillecollet.com

Re: F24, small backward steps

On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 03:53:06PM -0400, Roger Wells wrote: > Just a couple of smallish things after upgrading (via dnf) from F23 to > F24 a couple of months ago: > > 1. deja-dup gui: > > one has to deselect then reselect the Overview option in order > to be offered the "Backup Now"

Re: Fedora 25-20160911.n.0 compose check report

On Mon, 2016-09-12 at 10:08 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Mon, 2016-09-12 at 00:39 +, Fedora compose checker wrote: > Missing expected images: > > > Cloud_base raw-xz i386 > Atomic raw-xz x86_64 > > > Failed openQA tests: 12/92 (x86_64), 2/17 (i386), 1/2 (arm) > > > > > Sorry, I'm

Re: Proposed mass bug filing for webkitgtk/webkitgtk3 package removal

On Mon, 2016-09-05 at 08:36 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > I propose to carry out a mass bug filing with the bug title: > "Remove > > webkitgtk/webkitgtk3 dependency" (depending on which package is > > dependend on) and following text: I've started filing bugs and will continue throughout

Fedora Rawhide-20160913.n.2 compose check report

Missing expected images: Cloud_base raw-xz i386 Atomic raw-xz x86_64 Failed openQA tests: 10/92 (x86_64), 4/17 (i386), 1/2 (arm) New failures (same test did not fail in Rawhide-20160913.n.1): ID: 34248 Test: x86_64 Workstation-boot-iso install_default URL: https

Fedora Rawhide-20160913.n.2 compose check report

Missing expected images: Cloud_base raw-xz i386 Atomic raw-xz x86_64 Failed openQA tests: 10/92 (x86_64), 4/17 (i386), 1/2 (arm) New failures (same test did not fail in Rawhide-20160913.n.1): ID: 34248 Test: x86_64 Workstation-boot-iso install_default URL: https

Fedora Rawhide-20160913.n.2 compose check report

Missing expected images: Cloud_base raw-xz i386 Atomic raw-xz x86_64 Failed openQA tests: 10/92 (x86_64), 4/17 (i386), 1/2 (arm) New failures (same test did not fail in Rawhide-20160913.n.1): ID: 34248 Test: x86_64 Workstation-boot-iso install_default URL: https

Re: Fedora Rawhide-20160913.n.2 compose check report

On Wed, 2016-09-14 at 03:37 +, Fedora compose checker wrote: > Missing expected images: > > > Cloud_base raw-xz i386 > Atomic raw-xz x86_64 > > > Failed openQA tests: 10/92 (x86_64), 4/17 (i386), 1/2 (arm) > > > New failures (same test did not fail in

Fedora Rawhide-20160913.n.2 compose check report

Missing expected images: Cloud_base raw-xz i386 Atomic raw-xz x86_64 Failed openQA tests: 10/92 (x86_64), 4/17 (i386), 1/2 (arm) New failures (same test did not fail in Rawhide-20160913.n.1): ID: 34248 Test: x86_64 Workstation-boot-iso install_default URL: https

[389-devel] Please review: 59, 45 nunc-stans

https://fedorahosted.org/nunc-stans/ticket/59#comment:4 https://fedorahosted.org/nunc-stans/attachment/ticket/59/0001-Ticket-59-Heap-use-after-free-in-ns_job_done.4.patch Add the extra assert as per Noriko's advice. https://fedorahosted.org/nunc-stans/ticket/45

[EPEL-devel] Re: Requirements for SRPM names

On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 11:54:41 PM CDT Peter Robinson wrote: > >> I'm looking for some clarification on the naming requirements for > >> SRPMs. > >> > >> In the EPEL 7 in Python 3 Plan Draft [1], it specifies that SRPM names > >> can't conflict with RHEL SRPM names, but in the Limited

[EPEL-devel] Re: Requirements for SRPM names

On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 5:35:29 PM CDT Neal Gompa wrote: > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 5:26 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 14:13:44 -0400 > > > > Avram Lubkin wrote: > >> I'm looking for some clarification on the naming requirements for

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20160913.n.2 changes

OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20160913.n.1 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20160913.n.2 = SUMMARY = Added images:4 Dropped images: 0 Added packages: 0 Dropped packages:32 Upgraded packages: 40 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 0.00 B Size of dropped packages:66.00

Re: Video performance degradation in F24

On 09/12/2016 01:21 PM, Zdenek Kabelac wrote: > Dne 12.9.2016 v 17:48 Basil Mohamed Gohar napsal(a): >> On 09/11/2016 02:19 PM, stan wrote: >>> On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 22:04:22 -0400 >>> Basil Mohamed Gohar wrote: >>> >>> > On 09/08/2016 03:44 AM, Basil Mohamed Gohar

Broken dependencies: perl-Data-Alias

perl-Data-Alias has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree: On x86_64: perl-Data-Alias-1.20-2.fc24.x86_64 requires libperl.so.5.22()(64bit) perl-Data-Alias-1.20-2.fc24.x86_64 requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.22.1) On i386: perl-Data-Alias-1.20-2.fc24.i686 requires

[Bug 1375103] perl-App-Daemon missing in EPEL7

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1375103 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA

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

The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing: Age URL 555 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-1087 dokuwiki-0-0.24.20140929c.el7 317 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-dac7ed832f mcollective-2.8.4-1.el7 80

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

The following Fedora EPEL 6 Security updates need testing: Age URL 433 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-7031 python-virtualenv-12.0.7-1.el6 427 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-7168 rubygem-crack-0.3.2-2.el6 358

[Bug 1372510] perl-Sys-Syslog-0.35 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372510 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|perl-Sys-Syslog-0.35-1.fc26

[Bug 1372504] perl-Sereal-Decoder-3.015 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372504 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Sereal-Decoder-3.015-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are

[Bug 1372504] perl-Sereal-Decoder-3.015 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372504 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|perl-Sereal-Decoder-3.015-1

[Bug 1372510] perl-Sys-Syslog-0.35 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372510 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Sys-Syslog-0.35-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are

[EPEL-devel] Re: Requirements for SRPM names

On 13 September 2016 at 17:14, Avram Lubkin wrote: > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Stephen John Smoogen > wrote: >> >> >> The reasoning for needing a python3-foobaz is that we don't replace >> the python2 version of foobaz with a package which does not

[EPEL-devel] Re: Requirements for SRPM names

>> I'm looking for some clarification on the naming requirements for >> SRPMs. >> >> In the EPEL 7 in Python 3 Plan Draft [1], it specifies that SRPM names >> can't conflict with RHEL SRPM names, but in the Limited Arch Packages >> [2]section of EPEL: Packaging, it seems to imply the SRPM name

[Bug 1372498] perl-Locale-Codes-3.40 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372498 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|perl-Locale-Codes-3.40-1.fc

[Bug 1372504] perl-Sereal-Decoder-3.015 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372504 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA

[Bug 1372498] perl-Locale-Codes-3.40 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372498 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Locale-Codes-3.40-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are

[Bug 1372503] perl-Sereal-3.015 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372503 Bug 1372503 depends on bug 1372504, which changed state. Bug 1372504 Summary: perl-Sereal-Decoder-3.015 is available https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372504 What|Removed |Added

[Bug 1372504] perl-Sereal-Decoder-3.015 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372504 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Sereal-Decoder-3.015-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are

[Bug 1372505] perl-Sereal-Encoder-3.015 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372505 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA

[Bug 1372503] perl-Sereal-3.015 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372503 Bug 1372503 depends on bug 1372505, which changed state. Bug 1372505 Summary: perl-Sereal-Encoder-3.015 is available https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372505 What|Removed |Added

[Bug 1372982] perl-IO-Interactive-1.022 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372982 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- perl-IO-Interactive-1.022-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are

[Bug 1372503] perl-Sereal-3.015 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372503 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Sereal-3.015-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving

[Bug 1372505] perl-Sereal-Encoder-3.015 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372505 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Sereal-Encoder-3.015-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are

[Bug 1372982] perl-IO-Interactive-1.022 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372982 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|perl-IO-Interactive-1.022-1

[Bug 1372503] perl-Sereal-3.015 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372503 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA

Re: F24, small backward steps

On Tue, 2016-09-13 at 14:46 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > I'm not sure it really is unmaintained. There was 34.2 release this > April, by the looks of things. > > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=10035 Aaaand I do see it in Software now. At long last! -- devel

Re: F24, small backward steps

On Tue, 2016-09-13 at 17:17 -0400, Roger Wells wrote: > > if it is unmaintained why does its GUI operation change between Fedora > versions? I'm not sure it really is unmaintained. There was 34.2 release this April, by the looks of things.

[EPEL-devel] Re: Requirements for SRPM names

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 5:26 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 14:13:44 -0400 > Avram Lubkin wrote: > >> I'm looking for some clarification on the naming requirements for >> SRPMs. >> >> In the EPEL 7 in Python 3 Plan Draft [1], it specifies that

Re: F24, small backward steps

On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 15:03:28 -0500 Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Tue, 2016-09-13 at 14:33 -0400, Roger Wells wrote: > > It was the first problem, the one with deja-dup > > Where did you report the bug? The upstream bug tracker is [1]. If you > reported it somewhere else,

Notifying co-maintainers about bug reports (was: F24, small backward steps)

Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > Everyone having `watchbugzilla` on a package is automatically cc'ed > to the bug reports. > In the early days of pkgdb2, I had it be: everyone with > `watchbugzilla` or `commit` but I was asked to remove that last > condition [1]. Would it be possible to show that

Re: Unversioned and >/=/>= obsoletes

On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 11:38:24 +0200 Igor Gnatenko wrote: > I'm going to do mass bug filling for those packages which are still > not fixed. Are there some scripts to do that or I have to write my > own? > > Unfixed packages: >

Re: Reviews Weekly

On Mon, 12 Sep 2016 15:01:29 +0200 Milan Crha wrote: > On Mon, 2016-09-12 at 14:26 +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > > Javier Peña : 1 > > Please fix unicode issues ;) > > Hi, > it's because the related part claims: >  Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >

[EPEL-devel] Re: Requirements for SRPM names

On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 14:13:44 -0400 Avram Lubkin wrote: > I'm looking for some clarification on the naming requirements for > SRPMs. > > In the EPEL 7 in Python 3 Plan Draft [1], it specifies that SRPM names > can't conflict with RHEL SRPM names, but in the Limited Arch

[EPEL-devel] Re: Requirements for SRPM names

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 5:14 PM, Avram Lubkin wrote: > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Stephen John Smoogen > wrote: >> >> >> The reasoning for needing a python3-foobaz is that we don't replace >> the python2 version of foobaz with a package which does

Re: Fedora Rawhide-20160913.n.1 compose check report

On Tue, 2016-09-13 at 20:13 +, Fedora compose checker wrote: > Missing expected images: > > > Cloud_base raw-xz i386 > Atomic raw-xz x86_64 > > > Failed openQA tests: 8/92 (x86_64), 3/17 (i386), 1/2 (arm) > > > New failures (same test did not fail in Rawhide-20160912.n.0): > > > ID:

[EPEL-devel] Re: Requirements for SRPM names

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > The reasoning for needing a python3-foobaz is that we don't replace > the python2 version of foobaz with a package which does not work at > all with the python2 installed and possibly breaks an existing app. >

Re: F24, small backward steps

On 09/13/2016 04:03 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Tue, 2016-09-13 at 14:33 -0400, Roger Wells wrote: >> It was the first problem, the one with deja-dup > > Where did you report the bug? The upstream bug tracker is [1]. If you > reported it somewhere else, of course you'd be told it's the

Re: F24, small backward steps

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On 13 September 2016 at 16:03, Michael Catanzaro wrote: >> On Tue, 2016-09-13 at 14:33 -0400, Roger Wells wrote: >>> It was the first problem, the one with deja-dup >> >> Where did you report

[EPEL-devel] Re: Requirements for SRPM names

On 09/13/2016 01:28 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On 13 September 2016 at 14:13, Avram Lubkin wrote: >> I'm looking for some clarification on the naming requirements for SRPMs. >> >> In the EPEL 7 in Python 3 Plan Draft [1], it specifies that SRPM names can't >>

Re: F24, small backward steps

On 13 September 2016 at 16:03, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Tue, 2016-09-13 at 14:33 -0400, Roger Wells wrote: >> It was the first problem, the one with deja-dup > > Where did you report the bug? The upstream bug tracker is [1]. If you > reported it somewhere else, of

Fedora Rawhide-20160913.n.1 compose check report

Missing expected images: Cloud_base raw-xz i386 Atomic raw-xz x86_64 Failed openQA tests: 8/92 (x86_64), 3/17 (i386), 1/2 (arm) New failures (same test did not fail in Rawhide-20160912.n.0): ID: 34125 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_default_upload URL:

Re: F24, small backward steps

On Tue, 2016-09-13 at 14:33 -0400, Roger Wells wrote: > It was the first problem, the one with deja-dup Where did you report the bug? The upstream bug tracker is [1]. If you reported it somewhere else, of course you'd be told it's the wrong place Unfortunately, I think deja-dup is

Re: Orphaned Packages in rawhide (2016-09-08)

Hi all, On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 8:45 PM, Till Maas wrote: >> Depending on: freeradius-client (11), status change: 2016-04-29 (18 weeks >> ago) >> asterisk (maintained by: jsmith, gtjoseph, itamarjp, lbazan, >> leifmadsen, russellb) >>

Re: Ground rules for riscv64 in Fedora dist-git

On Tue, 2016-09-13 at 12:52 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 11:32:26AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > > > > On 09/12/2016 08:55 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 07:48:31PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon,

Re: Orphaned Packages in rawhide (2016-09-08)

Hi there, On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 11:07:06AM +, opensou...@till.name wrote: > The following packages require above mentioned packages: > Depending on: freeradius-client (11), status change: 2016-04-29 (18 weeks ago) > asterisk (maintained by: jsmith, gtjoseph, itamarjp, lbazan, >

Re: comiing to koji aarch64

>> We are in the process of importing aarch64 to the primary koji instance as >> part of https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures/ >> RedefiningSecondaryArchitectures The import and enablement of aarch64 is for >> rawhide only, we expect to add power big and little endiian sometime before >>

Re: comiing to koji aarch64

On 09/10/2016 07:19 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > Hi All, > > We are in the process of importing aarch64 to the primary koji instance as > part of https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures/ > RedefiningSecondaryArchitectures The import and enablement of aarch64 is for > rawhide only, we

Broken dependencies: perl-Data-Alias

perl-Data-Alias has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree: On x86_64: perl-Data-Alias-1.20-2.fc24.x86_64 requires libperl.so.5.22()(64bit) perl-Data-Alias-1.20-2.fc24.x86_64 requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.22.1) On i386: perl-Data-Alias-1.20-2.fc24.i686 requires

Re: F24, small backward steps

On 09/13/2016 12:31 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote: > For which one of the problems you listed? It would certainly have been > interesting to list those in your original mail. It was the first problem, the one with deja-dup > > - Original Message - >> On 09/13/2016 11:09 AM, Daniel P. Berrange

[EPEL-devel] Re: Requirements for SRPM names

On 13 September 2016 at 14:13, Avram Lubkin wrote: > I'm looking for some clarification on the naming requirements for SRPMs. > > In the EPEL 7 in Python 3 Plan Draft [1], it specifies that SRPM names can't > conflict with RHEL SRPM names, but in the Limited Arch Packages

Re: F24, small backward steps

On Tue, 2016-09-13 at 18:49 +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > If ABRT is a firehose of bugs flying to RH's bugzilla, would the > situation be > really better if the reports were sent to gnome's BZ? Yes, it would. Keep in mind that upstream maintainers are responsible for far fewer packages than

Re: Resultsdb v2.0 - API docs

Will the api/v1.0/ endpoint continue to function as-is for a while, to give integrators time to adjust to the new API? That would be ideal for Bodhi, so we can adjust our code to work with v2.0 after it is already in production. If not, we will need to coordinate bodhi and resultsdb releases at

[EPEL-devel] Requirements for SRPM names

I'm looking for some clarification on the naming requirements for SRPMs. In the EPEL 7 in Python 3 Plan Draft [1], it specifies that SRPM names can't conflict with RHEL SRPM names, but in the Limited Arch Packages [2]section of EPEL: Packaging, it seems to imply the SRPM name would be the same,

[EPEL-devel] [Fedocal] Reminder meeting : EPSCO meeting

Dear all, You are kindly invited to the meeting: EPSCO meeting on 2016-09-14 from 18:00:00 to 19:00:00 GMT At fedora-meet...@irc.freenode.net The meeting will be about: Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux Steering COmmittee (EPSCO) has a weekly meeting to go over concerns and problems in

Re: Python SIG on-boarding issue

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 13.9.2016 19:27, Dhanesh Bhalchandra Sabane wrote: > >> Aloha Python-SIG! >> I was wondering whether it is a good time to make the new pages official. >> Also, I would like to know whether the idea of splitting the

Re: F24, small backward steps

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 01:19:04PM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote: > On Tue, 13 Sep 2016, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > > This is a truly awful experiance from POV of a Fedora user filing bugs > > > :-( > > > We've set a silent trap for them with no warning of the fact that their > > > bug reports

Re: F24, small backward steps

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > Hi, > > To be clear, the problem is that a small handful of package maintainers > (including Bastien) are collectively "responsible" for all of the GNOME > and freedesktop components in Fedora (including fprintd),

Re: Python SIG on-boarding issue

On 13.9.2016 19:27, Dhanesh Bhalchandra Sabane wrote: Aloha Python-SIG! I was wondering whether it is a good time to make the new pages official. Also, I would like to know whether the idea of splitting the SIG into two FAS groups is acceptable so that we can start taking necessary actions.

Re: Python SIG on-boarding issue

Aloha Python-SIG! I was wondering whether it is a good time to make the new pages official. Also, I would like to know whether the idea of splitting the SIG into two FAS groups is acceptable so that we can start taking necessary actions. > CommOps is currently working on the Python SIG

Re: F24, small backward steps

On Tue, 13 Sep 2016, Ralf Corsepius wrote: This is a truly awful experiance from POV of a Fedora user filing bugs :-( We've set a silent trap for them with no warning of the fact that their bug reports are going to be ignored until Fedora EOL procedure closes them :-( One lesson I have

Re: F24, small backward steps

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 12:32:20PM -0400, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > > - Original Message - > > > This is a truly awful experiance from POV of a Fedora user filing bugs :-( > > We've set a silent trap for them with no warning of the fact that their > > bug reports are going to be ignored

Re: F24, small backward steps

- Original Message - > Could you elaborate a little on your reasoning/thoughts please? > > I am quite interesting to understand your point of view. > From where I stand, we are offering a way for someone to unlock someone's > else > computer without a password. > I understand the

Re: F24, small backward steps

- Original Message - > > > - Original Message - > > I'm seeing 24 bugs at: > > https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/fprintd/bugs/all > > including a potential security one: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1333882 > > Fedora's bugzilla is a garbage fire as far as I'm concerned.

Re: F24, small backward steps

For which one of the problems you listed? It would certainly have been interesting to list those in your original mail. - Original Message - > On 09/13/2016 11:09 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 10:00:32AM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> To be

Re: F24, small backward steps

- Original Message - > Hi, > > To be clear, the problem is that a small handful of package maintainers > (including Bastien) are collectively "responsible" for all of the GNOME > and freedesktop components in Fedora (including fprintd), and it's > simply not reasonable to expect them to

Re: F24, small backward steps

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 12:24:33PM -0400, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > > - Original Message - > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 07:30:07AM -0400, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > > I'm seeing 24 bugs at: > > > >

Re: F24, small backward steps

- Original Message - > This is a truly awful experiance from POV of a Fedora user filing bugs :-( > We've set a silent trap for them with no warning of the fact that their > bug reports are going to be ignored until Fedora EOL procedure closes > them :-( > > Even if we can't enhance

Re: F24, small backward steps

- Original Message - > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 07:30:07AM -0400, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > I'm seeing 24 bugs at: > > > https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/fprintd/bugs/all > > > including a potential security one:

ppisar pushed to perl (master). "Remove old obsoleting perl-ExtUtils-Typemaps (..more)"

From 7032c6382ae38503fc809a9ef5db8b0c14a694c3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =?UTF-8?q?Petr=20P=C3=ADsa=C5=99?= Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 18:02:33 +0200 Subject: Remove old obsoleting perl-ExtUtils-Typemaps Last perl-ExtUtils-Typemaps build existed in Fedora 17. --- perl.spec |

ppisar pushed to perl-Test-Harness (master). "Remove old obsoleting perl-TAP-Harness-Env (..more)"

From 029d0a1ed40423c9bc512d3b90d0abf3445d1d03 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =?UTF-8?q?Petr=20P=C3=ADsa=C5=99?= Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 18:08:26 +0200 Subject: Remove old obsoleting perl-TAP-Harness-Env Last perl-TAP-Harness-Env build existed in Fedora 20. ---

ppisar pushed to perl-ExtUtils-ParseXS (master). "Remove old obsoleting perl-ExtUtils-Typemaps (..more)"

From 7754663c30881dd590b7128e12d8155f3303971a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =?UTF-8?q?Petr=20P=C3=ADsa=C5=99?= Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 17:58:05 +0200 Subject: Remove old obsoleting perl-ExtUtils-Typemaps Last perl-ExtUtils-Typemaps build existed in Fedora 17. ---

ppisar pushed to perl-ExtUtils-ParseXS (master). "Cosmetic changes in the spec file"

From 257d55d068d145ead122e453e58ab49692ede701 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =?UTF-8?q?Petr=20P=C3=ADsa=C5=99?= Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 18:00:03 +0200 Subject: Cosmetic changes in the spec file --- perl-ExtUtils-ParseXS.spec | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3

Re: F24, small backward steps

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 09/13/2016 05:09 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > >> This is a truly awful experiance from POV of a Fedora user filing bugs :-( >> We've set a silent trap for them with no warning of the fact that their >> bug

Re: F24, small backward steps

On 09/13/2016 05:09 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: This is a truly awful experiance from POV of a Fedora user filing bugs :-( We've set a silent trap for them with no warning of the fact that their bug reports are going to be ignored until Fedora EOL procedure closes them :-( One lesson I have

Re: F24, small backward steps

On 09/13/2016 11:09 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 10:00:32AM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: >> Hi, >> >> To be clear, the problem is that a small handful of package maintainers >> (including Bastien) are collectively "responsible" for all of the GNOME >> and freedesktop

Re: F24, small backward steps

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 10:00:32AM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > Hi, > > To be clear, the problem is that a small handful of package maintainers > (including Bastien) are collectively "responsible" for all of the GNOME > and freedesktop components in Fedora (including fprintd), and it's >

Re: F24, small backward steps

Hi, To be clear, the problem is that a small handful of package maintainers (including Bastien) are collectively "responsible" for all of the GNOME and freedesktop components in Fedora (including fprintd), and it's simply not reasonable to expect them to read all the bugs that are assigned to

Re: F24, small backward steps

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 07:30:07AM -0400, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > > - Original Message - > > I'm seeing 24 bugs at: > > https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/fprintd/bugs/all > > including a potential security one: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1333882 > > Fedora's bugzilla is a

[EPEL-devel] Re: Strategy for Node.js upgrade in EPEL 7

On 09/13/2016 08:28 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >> Due to upstream terminating support for 0.10.x on 2016-10-01, we *will* be >> cutting over to 6.x on or around that date, so this testing request is >> time-sensitive. I'm wondering if it might not be prudent to put something in fedora

[EPEL-devel] Strategy for Node.js upgrade in EPEL 7

Apologies for the re-send, but I typoed the epel-devel email address on the first try. On 09/13/2016 09:27 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > Yesterday, I built the latest upstream version of Node.js for EPEL 7 (this > version will be supported until 2019-04-01) > > I have added it to the buildroot

ppisar pushed to perl-Frontier-RPC (master). "Correct change name (..more)"

From 4c4a2d23ea17d1df77475d96c57a4383616956cf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =?UTF-8?q?Petr=20P=C3=ADsa=C5=99?= Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 14:01:44 +0200 Subject: Correct change name The patch is not about FTP. --- perl-Frontier-RPC.spec | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+),

ppisar pushed to perl-Frontier-RPC (master). "Respect proxy setting for HTTPS, FTP, and FTP"

From 0748904343bfb047b4716c894a9befe4b24f56db Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =?UTF-8?q?Petr=20P=C3=ADsa=C5=99?= Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 13:03:35 +0200 Subject: Respect proxy setting for HTTPS, FTP, and FTP --- ...-0.07b4p1-Respect-proxy-setting-for-HTTPS.patch | 36

Re: Ground rules for riscv64 in Fedora dist-git

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 11:32:26AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > On 09/12/2016 08:55 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > >On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 07:48:31PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > >>On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 09:06:59AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > >>>I had a brief look at the glibc

Re: F24, small backward steps

- Original Message - > I'm seeing 24 bugs at: > https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/fprintd/bugs/all > including a potential security one: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1333882 Fedora's bugzilla is a garbage fire as far as I'm concerned. I already made that abundantly clear I think.

Re: F24, small backward steps

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 07:05:32AM -0400, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > > - Original Message - > > > > > > Dne 9.9.2016 v 21:53 Roger Wells napsal(a): > > > Just a couple of smallish things after upgrading (via dnf) from F23 to > > > F24 a couple of months ago: > > > > > > > > > 2.

Re: F24, small backward steps

- Original Message - > > > Dne 9.9.2016 v 21:53 Roger Wells napsal(a): > > Just a couple of smallish things after upgrading (via dnf) from F23 to > > F24 a couple of months ago: > > > > > > 2. fingerprint identification: > > > > The laptop has a fingerprint reader and it works

Re: Installing alsa-ucm by default in F25?

FWIW, this was done in: commit 07106ddaa4f45aa188019d497a6a042bd7b58750 Author: Peter Robinson Date: Sat Apr 2 10:24:17 2016 +0100 add alsa-ucm For F24 and F25. Thanks! - Original Message - > > alsa-ucm contains routing information to setup sound codecs > >

  1   2   >