[EPEL-devel] Re: RHEL-7.4 is released (build roots updating)

On 2017-08-01 16:24, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > RHEL-7.4 was released today and so the build roots for EPEL packages > will be updated as soon as the automatic reposync is done. Unfortunately not for aarch64: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/6926 -- Yaakov Selkowitz Software Engineer -

[Bug 1476964] perl-DynaLoader-Functions-0.003 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476964 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- perl-DynaLoader-Functions-0.003-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See

[Bug 1476961] perl-B-Hooks-OP-Check-EntersubForCV-0.10 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476961 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- perl-B-Hooks-OP-Check-EntersubForCV-0.10-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

[Bug 1476575] perl-Perl4-CoreLibs-0.004 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476575 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Perl4-CoreLibs-0.004-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See

Re: [modularity] First round of Boltron feedback published

Well done on Boltron - still kicking the tires. I for one, still want multi-version install capability for full modularity scl, docker, flatpacks are journeys towards that destination - backend build infra just has to be a lot smarter. -subhendu ​ ___

[Bug 1477136] perl-No-Worries-1.5 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1477136 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- perl-No-Worries-1.5-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See

[Bug 1476963] perl-Code-TidyAll-0.64 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476963 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA

[Bug 1476964] perl-DynaLoader-Functions-0.003 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476964 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- perl-DynaLoader-Functions-0.003-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See

[Bug 1476961] perl-B-Hooks-OP-Check-EntersubForCV-0.10 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476961 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- perl-B-Hooks-OP-Check-EntersubForCV-0.10-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

[Bug 1476575] perl-Perl4-CoreLibs-0.004 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476575 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Perl4-CoreLibs-0.004-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See

Re: [modularity] First round of Boltron feedback published

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 6:48 PM Matthew Miller wrote: >On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 10:59:58AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: >> The thing that jumps out immediately is that respondents _really_ >> prefer the "dnf module install httpd" syntax — 73% love or

Re: Live image booting issue with locally built anaconda

Hi all, I booted a Fedora 26 live image and tried to upgrade with the custom built anaconda rpms (anaconda, anaconda-core, anaconda-gui, anaconda-tui and anaconda-widgets). They were successful in installing, I could see with "rpm -q" that the rpms are the ones I built. However when I started

Re: Outdated clamav database in Taskotron

Excerpts from Róman Joost's message of 2017-08-02 10:18 +10:00: > Dear Petr, > > On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 01:05:34PM +0200, Petr Pisar wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 11:59:41AM +0200, Kamil Paral wrote: > > > thanks for the report. In the task, we just install rpmgrill and run it. > > > If >

[Bug 1477392] New: perl-Test-WriteVariants-0.014 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1477392 Bug ID: 1477392 Summary: perl-Test-WriteVariants-0.014 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: perl-Test-WriteVariants Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged

[Bug 1477388] New: perl-Mojolicious-7.38 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1477388 Bug ID: 1477388 Summary: perl-Mojolicious-7.38 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: perl-Mojolicious Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged Assignee:

Re: Default location for addons AppStream metadata has changed

> "AP" == Alexander Ploumistos writes: AP> As far as I can tell that change went mostly unnoticed, given that AP> most of our packages still install addon metadata in AP> %{_datadir}/appdata/. I visited the relevant wiki page[1] which AP> %still AP> lists the old

Re: Outdated clamav database in Taskotron

Dear Petr, On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 01:05:34PM +0200, Petr Pisar wrote: > On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 11:59:41AM +0200, Kamil Paral wrote: > > thanks for the report. In the task, we just install rpmgrill and run it. If > > rpmgrill reports outdated clamav results, it seems that's something that > >

[EPEL-devel] Re: Can EPEL Repository provide LAPACK package which is compiled against OpenBLAS?

On 07/24/2017 12:42 PM, Dave Love wrote: Brandon Hsu writes: Hi, I try to compile and install some programs in CentOS 7 which depends on LAPACK. I hope to use LAPACK linked to OpenBLAS, which gives better performance compared to Reference BLAS. OpenBLAS

[Bug 1477383] New: perl-Code-TidyAll-0.65 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1477383 Bug ID: 1477383 Summary: perl-Code-TidyAll-0.65 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: perl-Code-TidyAll Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged Assignee:

[Bug 1476961] perl-B-Hooks-OP-Check-EntersubForCV-0.10 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476961 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA

[Bug 1476575] perl-Perl4-CoreLibs-0.004 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476575 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA

[Bug 1476964] perl-DynaLoader-Functions-0.003 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1476964 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA

Re: [modularity] First round of Boltron feedback published

On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 11:56:38PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: > How does it distinguish between comps groups and modules, how does it > resolve conflcits between the two? I think a designator makes sense > but I don't think that should be @ In my imagination, we'd supplant comps groups

Re: [modularity] First round of Boltron feedback published

On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 11:47 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 10:59:58AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: >> The thing that jumps out immediately is that respondents _really_ >> prefer the "dnf module install httpd" syntax — 73% love or like that, >> while

Re: [modularity] First round of Boltron feedback published

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 10:59:58AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > The thing that jumps out immediately is that respondents _really_ > prefer the "dnf module install httpd" syntax — 73% love or like that, > while 7% dislike or hate it. 21% love or like "dnf install httpd" for > installing >

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

The following Fedora EPEL 6 Security updates need testing: Age URL 755 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-7031 python-virtualenv-12.0.7-1.el6 749 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-7168 rubygem-crack-0.3.2-2.el6 639

[Bug 1477136] perl-No-Worries-1.5 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1477136 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- perl-No-Worries-1.5-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See

[Bug 1477136] perl-No-Worries-1.5 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1477136 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA

Re: i386 Xen PV support still needed?

On 1 August 2017 at 17:38, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski < domi...@greysector.net> wrote: > On Tuesday, 01 August 2017 at 14:19, Florian Weimer wrote: > > We still build a special glibc variant for Xen which avoids certain > > segment-relative accesses which are difficult to emulate with > >

Re: Two more concrete ideas for what a once-yearly+update schedule would look like

On Tue, 2017-08-01 at 16:47 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > What about the opposite? Should we require classification for bugfix > and security updates? I'd say it wouldn't hurt to require it. It always makes data nice if the parser of the data can know that a field is guaranteed to exist so they

Re: i386 Xen PV support still needed?

On Tuesday, 01 August 2017 at 14:19, Florian Weimer wrote: > We still build a special glibc variant for Xen which avoids certain > segment-relative accesses which are difficult to emulate with > paravirtualization.. > > Is this still needed? Can we drop it? What is the performance difference

Re: Two more concrete ideas for what a once-yearly+update schedule would look like

On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 04:34:34PM -0400, Randy Barlow wrote: > > Yeah, exactly. Do you want a new RFE issue for this? > Sure, it makes sense to me. Though I will say that there probably isn't > much tangible harm done leaving it as it is, even though it doesn't > make sense. What about the

Re: Two more concrete ideas for what a once-yearly+update schedule would look like

On Tue, 2017-08-01 at 16:11 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > Yeah, exactly. Do you want a new RFE issue for this? Sure, it makes sense to me. Though I will say that there probably isn't much tangible harm done leaving it as it is, even though it doesn't make sense. signature.asc Description: This

Re: Two more concrete ideas for what a once-yearly+update schedule would look like

On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 03:50:45PM -0400, Randy Barlow wrote: > > (Hmmm. And should enhancement > > and new packages _get_ a severity option? Maybe that should be locked > > to "unspecified"?) > Hahaha, "This newpackage update is urgently severe! Have some severe > new features!" Yeah, exactly.

Re: State of Sparkleshare

On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 8:46 PM, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: > As a maintainer of Fedora Design Suite, the state of sparkleshare brought > attention with these outstanding report: > * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1375789 > *

Re: Two more concrete ideas for what a once-yearly+update schedule would look like

On Tue, 2017-08-01 at 15:31 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > I think this is why we don't just automatically make security fixes > all > high priority but instead have a separate field. Many security > updates > fix problems which only happen in unlikely configurations, or have > extremely minor

State of Sparkleshare

As a maintainer of Fedora Design Suite, the state of sparkleshare brought attention with these outstanding report: * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1375789 * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1151172 Considering the critical vulnerability of the dependent package

[EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL Meeting 1800 UTC 2017-08-02

On 08/01/2017 12:25 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > Using the process outlined from: > https://pagure.io/epel/blob/master/f/docs/source/EPEL-meeting-process.rst > > #startmeeting EPEL (2017-08-02) > #meetingname EPEL > #topic aloha > #chair avij bstinson Evolution nirik smooge > #topic

Re: Two more concrete ideas for what a once-yearly+update schedule would look like

On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 3:10 PM, Randy Barlow wrote: > On Tue, 2017-08-01 at 11:02 -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote: >> I would really like to see us have a single unified >> view on update management at a distro level and not having different >> tools implementing their

Re: Two more concrete ideas for what a once-yearly+update schedule would look like

On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 03:09:22PM -0400, Randy Barlow wrote: > > Also, if I mark a security update as low priority, that means it > > really is low priority. There's no need for many security updates to > > skip batched. Many are e.g. minor DoS vulnerabilities that are > > unlikely to be

[EPEL-devel] EPEL Meeting 1800 UTC 2017-08-02

Using the process outlined from: https://pagure.io/epel/blob/master/f/docs/source/EPEL-meeting-process.rst #startmeeting EPEL (2017-08-02) #meetingname EPEL #topic aloha #chair avij bstinson Evolution nirik smooge #topic Announcements #info RHEL-7.4 released #info FLOCK 2017 in 3 weeks #topic

Re: Two more concrete ideas for what a once-yearly+update schedule would look like

On Tue, 2017-08-01 at 11:02 -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > I would really like to see us have a single unified > view on update management at a distro level and not having different > tools implementing their own behaviours. I agree with Dennis here - not all users of Fedora use the Gnome

Re: Two more concrete ideas for what a once-yearly+update schedule would look like

On Tue, 2017-08-01 at 08:26 +0100, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > Also, if I mark a security update as low priority, that means it > really is low priority. There's no need for many security updates to > skip batched. Many are e.g. minor DoS vulnerabilities that are > unlikely to be exploited ever,

Re: GNU Ring

Looking at https://ring.cx/en/about/technical the requirement of ffmpeg and patented codecs is likely why it's not in fedora and would be difficult to add. Just needs someone to figure it out and do the work. Dennis On 1 August 2017 12:47:12 pm GMT-05:00, Jos Vos wrote: >Hi, >

Re: GNU Ring

Hi I periodically give it a try, but so far it was too unstable. My specs are here [1] if you want to give it a try. Sandro [1] https://smani.fedorapeople.org/ring/ On 01.08.2017 19:47, Jos Vos wrote: Hi, Are there any plans to add Ring (https://ring.cx/en) to Fedora? Cheers, -- --

[EPEL-devel] Re: update Ceph to 12.1.1 in epel7 ?

On 08/01/2017 01:05 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: I will bring this up at the meeting tomorrow, but I believe that the plan would be something like the following: 1. "Update" the current package with README.deprecated explaining why the package is being removed from the repository and

GNU Ring

Hi, Are there any plans to add Ring (https://ring.cx/en) to Fedora? Cheers, -- --Jos Vos --X/OS Experts in Open Systems BV | Office: +31 20 6938364 --Amsterdam, The Netherlands| Mobile: +31 6 26216181 ___ devel

[EPEL-devel] Stub python packages for EPEL

One of things I've invested some time towards over the years is cutting down on the amount of %if spaghetti needed to share spec files between Fedora and EPEL. Earlier in the discussion about the mass python-X -> python2-X move I volunteered to maintain a number of "stub packages" in EPEL which

Re: Finalizing Fedora's Switch to Python 3

On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 11:29:30AM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > "MH" == Miro Hrončok writes: > > MH> I just had a discussion with Tomáš Orsava and Petr Viktorin on > MH> #fedora-python. Rather than asking FESCo now to allow mass > MH> fully-automated spec

Re: Finalizing Fedora's Switch to Python 3

On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 11:29:30AM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > "MH" == Miro Hrončok writes: > > MH> I just had a discussion with Tomáš Orsava and Petr Viktorin on > MH> #fedora-python. Rather than asking FESCo now to allow mass > MH> fully-automated spec

[EPEL-devel] Re: update Ceph to 12.1.1 in epel7 ?

On 1 August 2017 at 12:32, Jeffrey Ollie wrote: > Building 12.1.1 for EPEL7 would be VERY bad IMNSHO. 0.80.7 _is_ seriously > out of date, but: > > 1) You can't upgrade directly from 0.80.7 to 12.1.1 without upgrading to > at least 0.94.X and then 10.2.X first, and there are

[EPEL-devel] Re: update Ceph to 12.1.1 in epel7 ?

Building 12.1.1 for EPEL7 would be VERY bad IMNSHO. 0.80.7 _is_ seriously out of date, but: 1) You can't upgrade directly from 0.80.7 to 12.1.1 without upgrading to at least 0.94.X and then 10.2.X first, and there are probably other intermediate steps as well (you'd have to dig through the

Re: Finalizing Fedora's Switch to Python 3

> "MH" == Miro Hrončok writes: MH> I just had a discussion with Tomáš Orsava and Petr Viktorin on MH> #fedora-python. Rather than asking FESCo now to allow mass MH> fully-automated spec changing, we'll open bugs as planned, but we'll MH> attach patches generated by your

Re: Finalizing Fedora's Switch to Python 3

> "MH" == Miro Hrončok writes: MH> I just had a discussion with Tomáš Orsava and Petr Viktorin on MH> #fedora-python. Rather than asking FESCo now to allow mass MH> fully-automated spec changing, we'll open bugs as planned, but we'll MH> attach patches generated by your

[Bug 1473460] perl-Code-TidyAll-0.62 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1473460 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA

Re: Self-introduction: yecheng

On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 9:45 PM, Cheng Ye wrote: > I'm an inexperienced high school student interested in poping some > packages off the package maintainer wishlist (and hopefully learn to read > others source codes more efficiently) during this summer vacation. > > This is the

[Bug 1475815] perl-Time-HiRes-1.9744 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1475815 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA

[Bug 1474122] perl-Code-TidyAll-0.63 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1474122 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA

Re: Two more concrete ideas for what a once-yearly+update schedule would look like

El mar, 01-08-2017 a las 08:26 +0100, Michael Catanzaro escribió: > Keep in mind that GNOME Software already only checks for non-security > updates weekly. So it will actually take as much as two weeks for the > update to reach users once it enters batched, which I suspect may not > have been

jplesnik pushed to perl-Devel-Cover (master). "1.26 bump"

From 8bf428299f4619e78b60377ba8f129952bd056f4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jitka Plesnikova Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 17:56:32 +0200 Subject: 1.26 bump --- .gitignore| 1 + perl-Devel-Cover.spec | 15 ++- sources | 2 +- 3 files

Planned Outage: koji database server - 2017-08-01 21:00:00 UTC

Planned Outage: koji database server - 2017-08-01 21:00:00 UTC There will be an outage starting at 2017-08-01 21:00:00 UTC, which will last approximately 1 hour. To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto or run: date -d '2017-08-01

Planned Outage: koji database server - 2017-08-01 21:00:00 UTC

Planned Outage: koji database server - 2017-08-01 21:00:00 UTC There will be an outage starting at 2017-08-01 21:00:00 UTC, which will last approximately 1 hour. To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto or run: date -d '2017-08-01

Re: Two more concrete ideas for what a once-yearly+update schedule would look like

On 08/01/2017 03:58 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 02:41:57PM +0100, Kalev Lember wrote: Keep in mind that GNOME Software already only checks for non-security updates weekly. So it will actually take as much as two >>> Doesn't it check daily but only *alert* weekly?

jplesnik uploaded Devel-Cover-1.26.tar.gz for perl-Devel-Cover

93e16ac609011c7858529d374bf0fb5eaddc9f30698ffae46b6799aa5e94f1e18e7eb907805192a847bb39d78c13239b7da51868076544628915e1cccd4611d2 Devel-Cover-1.26.tar.gz

[EPEL-devel] update Ceph to 12.1.1 in epel7 ?

The last version of Ceph that was built in epel7 was 0.80.7, back in December, 2016. That's pretty seriously out of date. Is anyone going to have any heartache if I build 12.1.1 for epel7? -- Kaleb ___ epel-devel mailing list --

Re: Two more concrete ideas for what a once-yearly+update schedule would look like

On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 02:41:57PM +0100, Kalev Lember wrote: > >> Keep in mind that GNOME Software already only checks for > >> non-security updates weekly. So it will actually take as much as two > > Doesn't it check daily but only *alert* weekly? AFAIK there's no way to > > just ask our servers

jplesnik pushed to perl-Proc-Queue (epel7). "Specify all dependencies"

From 3260f12e4f341f3842fc320db18f9764c47b35e8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jitka Plesnikova Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 16:06:24 +0200 Subject: Specify all dependencies --- perl-Proc-Queue.spec | 28 ++-- 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

jplesnik pushed to perl-Proc-Queue (epel7). "- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_26_Mass_Rebuild"

From 9b9c0e83832dd9b1b96603f24a4063293c568881 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Fedora Release Engineering Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 04:58:59 + Subject: - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_26_Mass_Rebuild --- perl-Proc-Queue.spec | 5 - 1 file

jplesnik pushed to perl-Proc-Queue (epel7). "- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_27_Mass_Rebuild"

From dfcc7263ee9ded2289fbdf6341997d7a21a83b12 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Fedora Release Engineering Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 05:53:14 + Subject: - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_27_Mass_Rebuild --- perl-Proc-Queue.spec | 5 - 1 file

jplesnik pushed to perl-Proc-Queue (epel7). "Updated spec for EPEL 7"

From f2c3428b1e2488ef4c01f6ee3b6f44606f7dae7e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jitka Plesnikova Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 16:56:37 +0200 Subject: Updated spec for EPEL 7 --- perl-Proc-Queue.spec | 8 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git

jplesnik pushed to perl-Proc-Queue (epel7). "Specify all dependencies"

From 245acfc27363fbea0688c2c2d35479573e315647 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jitka Plesnikova Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 16:28:53 +0200 Subject: Specify all dependencies --- perl-Proc-Queue.spec | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git

jplesnik pushed to perl-Proc-Queue (epel7). "- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_24_Mass_Rebuild"

From 53fd41b2b3adcb2326258b6c0abfe53013df1739 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Fedora Release Engineering Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2016 15:31:23 + Subject: - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_24_Mass_Rebuild --- perl-Proc-Queue.spec | 5 - 1 file changed,

jplesnik pushed to perl-Proc-Queue (epel7). "Perl 5.24 rebuild"

From a868783ed5c7328a43593aac7db2a7a9e5e25b1f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jitka Plesnikova Date: Sun, 15 May 2016 02:39:18 +0200 Subject: Perl 5.24 rebuild --- perl-Proc-Queue.spec | 5 - 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git

jplesnik pushed to perl-Proc-Queue (epel7). "Perl 5.26 rebuild"

From 8956ae655dfcba00b9fd5f6b6d340d0bb18d9469 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jitka Plesnikova Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2017 09:40:50 +0200 Subject: Perl 5.26 rebuild --- perl-Proc-Queue.spec | 5 - 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git

jplesnik pushed to perl-Proc-Queue (epel7). "Mandatory Perl build-requires added "

From 5ba28768a01264045aec5ac1409bc8a137429a8c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =?UTF-8?q?Petr=20P=C3=ADsa=C5=99?= Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 09:40:37 +0200 Subject: Mandatory Perl build-requires added ---

jplesnik pushed to perl-Proc-Queue (epel7). "- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_23_Mass_Rebuild"

From ef19c348b4f5cb77313669cae6ab79ea2ba56e90 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Dennis Gilmore Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 05:40:45 + Subject: - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_23_Mass_Rebuild --- perl-Proc-Queue.spec | 5 - 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1

jplesnik pushed to perl-Proc-Queue (epel7). "Perl 5.20 rebuild"

From e448468f130b1cf93d1eee5bd8312cac8a440a00 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jitka Plesnikova Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 14:14:17 +0200 Subject: Perl 5.20 rebuild --- perl-Proc-Queue.spec | 5 - 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git

jplesnik pushed to perl-Proc-Queue (epel7). "Initial SETUP."

From dc8b2d82ca712d399181a71780fad0421048ce51 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Christopher Meng Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 20:24:03 +0800 Subject: Initial SETUP. --- .gitignore | 1 + perl-Proc-Queue.spec | 46 ++ sources

jplesnik pushed to perl-Proc-Queue (epel7). "Perl 5.22 rebuild"

From 1b9fc51d7a2de06d4cb37e85600d82cc3890fef7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jitka Plesnikova Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 18:01:55 +0200 Subject: Perl 5.22 rebuild --- perl-Proc-Queue.spec | 5 - 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git

jplesnik pushed to perl-Proc-Queue (epel7). "- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Mass_Rebuild"

From 13ae08385a1b827697da1c280049c6f58a71f983 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Dennis Gilmore Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2014 04:21:31 -0500 Subject: - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_21_Mass_Rebuild --- perl-Proc-Queue.spec | 5 - 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1

Re: libglvnd-egl needed for X: should it be in base-x comps group? Or should something require it?

Hi, On 07/27/2017 04:13 PM, Adam Jackson wrote: On Tue, 2017-07-25 at 01:49 -0400, David Airlie wrote: So, should this package be added to base-x ? Should something depend on it? Should X actually start up without libEGL.so.1, and I should file *that* as a bug? Thanks! Hans might answer

jplesnik pushed to perl-Proc-Queue (master). "Specify all dependencies"

From 245acfc27363fbea0688c2c2d35479573e315647 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jitka Plesnikova Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 16:28:53 +0200 Subject: Specify all dependencies --- perl-Proc-Queue.spec | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git

Re: Fedora 27 Change Checkpoint: Completion deadline (testable)

On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 4:02 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 09:19:47AM +0200, Jan Kurik wrote: >> At this point, all accepted changes [2] should be substantially >> complete, and testable. Additionally, if a change is to be enabled by >> default, it

limb changed jplesnik's 'commit' permission on rpms/perl-Proc-Queue (epel7) to 'Approved'

limb changed jplesnik's 'commit' permission on rpms/perl-Proc-Queue (epel7) to 'Approved' https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/perl-Proc-Queue/ ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send

limb changed jplesnik's 'approveacls' permission on rpms/perl-Proc-Queue (epel7) to 'Approved'

limb changed jplesnik's 'approveacls' permission on rpms/perl-Proc-Queue (epel7) to 'Approved' https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/perl-Proc-Queue/ ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe

limb changed jplesnik's 'watchbugzilla' permission on rpms/perl-Proc-Queue (epel7) to 'Approved'

limb changed jplesnik's 'watchbugzilla' permission on rpms/perl-Proc-Queue (epel7) to 'Approved' https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/perl-Proc-Queue/ ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe

limb changed jplesnik's 'watchcommits' permission on rpms/perl-Proc-Queue (epel7) to 'Approved'

limb changed jplesnik's 'watchcommits' permission on rpms/perl-Proc-Queue (epel7) to 'Approved' https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/perl-Proc-Queue/ ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe

limb changed jplesnik's branch request for rpms/perl-Proc-Queue in epel7 from Awaiting Review to Approved

limb changed jplesnik's branch request for rpms/perl-Proc-Queue in epel7 from Awaiting Review to Approved https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/perl-Proc-Queue/ ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To

limb created the branch 'epel7' for the package 'rpms/perl-Proc-Queue'

limb created the branch 'epel7' for the package 'rpms/perl-Proc-Queue' https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/perl-Proc-Queue/ ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to

Re: [Ambassadors] Elections July/August 2017 to FESCo, Council, FAmSCo - Campaign period has started

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 7:25 PM, Jan Kurik wrote: > The Nomination period of Elections to Council [1], FESCo [2] and > FAmSCo [3] is now over. > The list of nominees follows: > > == Council (1 open seat) == > * Justin W. Flory (jwf / jflory7) > * Langdon White (langdon) > *

jplesnik pushed to perl-Proc-Queue (master). "Specify all dependencies"

From 3260f12e4f341f3842fc320db18f9764c47b35e8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jitka Plesnikova Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 16:06:24 +0200 Subject: Specify all dependencies --- perl-Proc-Queue.spec | 28 ++-- 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

[389-devel] Please review 49337: CI test - import

https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/issue/49337 https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/issue/raw/files/5ac53980c9d3b3c5292119f50aaad16785290583339f76981ff74ecac4b5dea8-0001-CI-test-import-bugzilla-test-cases.patch ___ 389-devel mailing list --

jplesnik requested branch epel7 for package rpms/perl-Proc-Queue

jplesnik requested branch epel7 for package rpms/perl-Proc-Queue https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/perl-Proc-Queue/ ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to

Re: Fedora 27 Change Checkpoint: Completion deadline (testable)

On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 09:19:47AM +0200, Jan Kurik wrote: > At this point, all accepted changes [2] should be substantially > complete, and testable. Additionally, if a change is to be enabled by > default, it must be enabled at Change Completion deadline as well. It's worth noting that with the

Self-introduction: yecheng

I'm an inexperienced high school student interested in poping some packages off the package maintainer wishlist (and hopefully learn to read others source codes more efficiently) during this summer vacation. This is the bugzilla page of my first review request:

Re: Two more concrete ideas for what a once-yearly+update schedule would look like

On 08/01/2017 02:35 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 08:26:04AM +0100, Michael Catanzaro wrote: >> Keep in mind that GNOME Software already only checks for >> non-security updates weekly. So it will actually take as much as two > > Doesn't it check daily but only *alert*

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On 08/01/2017 03:20 PM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: > On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 1:02 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: >> I don't think it's worth fixing GCC because i386 support is legacy only >> anyway, so I'd suggest to leave things as they are (and even scale back >> the SSE2 use

Re: Two more concrete ideas for what a once-yearly+update schedule would look like

On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 08:26:04AM +0100, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > Keep in mind that GNOME Software already only checks for > non-security updates weekly. So it will actually take as much as two Doesn't it check daily but only *alert* weekly? AFAIK there's no way to just ask our servers for

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 1:02 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > On 07/11/2017 10:26 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: >> I ran into this unannounced change: >> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Stop_Building_i686_Kernels >> >> If this is accepted, all x86 hardware on which Fedora

ppisar pushed to perl-Graphics-TIFF (master). "Version 5 bump"

From 299174f3313f7e51e5eaf1de77319b32d5810959 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =?UTF-8?q?Petr=20P=C3=ADsa=C5=99?= Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 15:09:10 +0200 Subject: Version 5 bump --- .gitignore | 1 +

  1   2   3   4   >