Mass rebuild status

2020-02-01 Thread Kevin Fenzi
Greetings. Aside from a few stragglers, the mass rebuild is complete. However, we ran into a number of builds that failed at the start of the mass rebuild due to some problems with s390x builders. Due to that and also to reduce the chance of any failed builds being caused by builder or network

Re: Anitya Upstream Release Monitoring - Dial back Auto-Bugzilla ticket generation

2020-02-01 Thread Chris
Thanks a lot Fabio, I've done as you suggested! Your swift reply and answer was much appreciated! Chris On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 4:24 PM Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 10:18 PM Chris wrote: > > > > > I assume most package maintainers are not simultaneously upstream for > their

FedoraRespin-31-updates-20200131.0 compose check report

2020-02-01 Thread Fedora compose checker
No missing expected images. Failed openQA tests: 1/35 (x86_64) ID: 515952 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_default_upload URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/515952 Passed openQA tests: 20/35 (x86_64) Skipped non-gating openQA tests: 14 of 35 -- Mail generated by check-co

Re: Anitya Upstream Release Monitoring - Dial back Auto-Bugzilla ticket generation

2020-02-01 Thread Fabio Valentini
On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 10:18 PM Chris wrote: > > > I assume most package maintainers are not simultaneously upstream for their > > packages. > > I would definitely agree with that! Just to clarify further, I guess i was > hoping that Anitya could be smart enough to detect that a bugzilla wouldn'

Re: Anitya Upstream Release Monitoring - Dial back Auto-Bugzilla ticket generation

2020-02-01 Thread Chris
> I assume most package maintainers are not simultaneously upstream for their packages. I would definitely agree with that! Just to clarify further, I guess i was hoping that Anitya could be smart enough to detect that a bugzilla wouldn't be necessary to be created in the event it's found already

Re: Anitya Upstream Release Monitoring - Dial back Auto-Bugzilla ticket generation

2020-02-01 Thread Fabio Valentini
On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 10:06 PM Chris wrote: > > Hi, > > I was just curious if there as a way to dial back the Upstream Release > Monitoring and the automatic Bugzilla ticket generation from it? > > I pushed a new release of my software to PyPi and I swear before I even got > access to the shell

Anitya Upstream Release Monitoring - Dial back Auto-Bugzilla ticket generation

2020-02-01 Thread Chris
Hi, I was just curious if there as a way to dial back the Upstream Release Monitoring and the automatic Bugzilla ticket generation from it? I pushed a new release of my software to PyPi and I swear before I even got access to the shell again (from the successful twine upload message), I was alrea

Re: RFC: Security policy adjustments to make it easier to implement and more friendly to maintainers

2020-02-01 Thread Michael Schwendt
On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 at 19:58, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > >> From >> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Package_maintainer_responsibilities/#_deal_with_reported_bugs_in_a_timely_manner >> : >> >> It is recommended that non-coder packagers should find >> co-maintainers who are fam

Re: RFC: Security policy adjustments to make it easier to implement and more friendly to maintainers

2020-02-01 Thread Stephen John Smoogen
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 17:59, Robbie Harwood wrote: > Richard Shaw writes: > > > Not replying to anyone in particular but to the thead as a whole... > > > > 1. Nothing in the packager introduction process prepares a packager > > for what to do when they get a CVE filed against one of their > > p

Re: RFC: Security policy adjustments to make it easier to implement and more friendly to maintainers

2020-02-01 Thread Ken Dreyer
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 3:59 PM Robbie Harwood wrote: > Richard Shaw writes: > > > Not replying to anyone in particular but to the thead as a whole... > > > > 1. Nothing in the packager introduction process prepares a packager > > for what to do when they get a CVE filed against one of their > >

Re: RFC: Security policy adjustments to make it easier to implement and more friendly to maintainers

2020-02-01 Thread Michael Schwendt
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 15:47, Richard Shaw wrote: > > 4. I'm not a C/C++ programmer and certainly not a security expert. If I can > find a link to a fix for another distro, such as debian, I'll apply it but > more often than not there's nothing there when I look. I'll even file an > issue upstr

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20200201.n.0 changes

2020-02-01 Thread Fedora Rawhide Report
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20200131.n.0 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20200201.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:6 Dropped images: 0 Added packages: 14 Dropped packages:4 Upgraded packages: 173 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 3.93 MiB Size of dropped packages

Fedora-Rawhide-20200201.n.0 compose check report

2020-02-01 Thread Fedora compose checker
No missing expected images. Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check! 6 of 43 required tests failed, 17 results missing openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING** below Failed openQA tests: 52/158 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm) Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-R

Fedora-Cloud-31-20200201.0 compose check report

2020-02-01 Thread Fedora compose checker
No missing expected images. Passed openQA tests: 1/1 (x86_64) -- Mail generated by check-compose: https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedorap

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

2020-02-01 Thread Dan Čermák
Dan Čermák writes: > Rahul Sundaram writes: > >> Hi >> >> On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 10:46 AM Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: >> >>> >>> Welcome to our lives! >>> If it was mathematically possible to go above 100% that's how much >>> agreement you >>> would have from us. >>> >> >> If Red Hat is using Pag

Re: Strange "directory removed" dependencies in some RPMs

2020-02-01 Thread Fabio Valentini
On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 8:43 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 01. 02. 20 8:36, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 01. 02. 20 0:31, Fabio Valentini wrote: > >> Hi everybody, > >> > >> I've noticed these a few times now, and I have *no idea* where this is > >> coming from, for example: > >> > >> dnf --releaseve

Re: Self Introduction: Erich Eickmeyer

2020-02-01 Thread Fabio Valentini
On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 12:59 AM Erich Eickmeyer wrote: > > Hello all! > > I'm Erich, the current project leader of Ubuntu Studio, the > creativity-oriented flavor of Ubuntu. I've been leading that project for the > past two years. Hi Erich! > In that time, my team and I have taken Ubuntu Studi

Re: [Retired] gstreamer & gstreamer-plugins-base

2020-02-01 Thread Peter Robinson
> > > I'm very well aware of the above, but I'm forced to use some proprietary > > > software that is linked against gstreamer 0.10, so I need to maintain > > > these until the software in question gets ported to gstreamer1. > > > > gstreamer0.10 has not received security updates -- or security adv

Re: unison can't be compiled in Rawhide

2020-02-01 Thread Tim Jackson
On 31/01/2020 11:22, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: Anyway the news is that none of these branches can be compiled with our OCaml 4.10.0-beta-1 compiler. Thanks for picking this up. FWIW (in my limited role as the one who built unison227 for EPEL6), I have no interest (or ability) to engage in th

Re: [Retired] gstreamer & gstreamer-plugins-base

2020-02-01 Thread Miro Hrončok
On 31. 01. 20 15:01, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: On Friday, 31 January 2020 at 14:52, Michael Catanzaro wrote: On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 2:47 pm, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: I'm very well aware of the above, but I'm forced to use some proprietary software that is linked again

Fedora-Cloud-30-20200201.0 compose check report

2020-02-01 Thread Fedora compose checker
No missing expected images. Passed openQA tests: 1/1 (x86_64) -- Mail generated by check-compose: https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedorap