The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
599 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-3c9292b62d
condor-8.6.11-1.el7
341 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-c499781e80
python-gnupg-0.4.4-1.el7
339
https://fedorapeople.org/groups/389ds/ci/nightly/2020/04/05/report-389-ds-base-1.4.3.5-20200404git52e2894.fc31.x86_64.html
___
389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 8:31 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> To clarify: In Fedora Core/Extras the separation was by access permissions.
> Here
> it is based on knowledge and interests (or a lack thereof). People with zero
> knowledge and interest in "RHEL next" development will not be able to
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1817797
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Resolution|---
Richard Shaw wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 6:50 PM Rex Dieter wrote:
>
>> Richard Shaw wrote:
>>
>> > On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 5:58 PM Rex Dieter wrote:
>> >
>> >> FYI, Started work on importing Qt 5.14.2 into rawhide today, with
>> >> work-in- progress being done in side tag
On 02. 04. 20 20:07, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 12:56 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
The change proposal received overly negative feedback by the packager community
as represented both by RHEL¹ and non-RHEL maintainers. Despite being reworked
several times, none of this feedback
On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 6:50 PM Rex Dieter wrote:
> Richard Shaw wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 5:58 PM Rex Dieter wrote:
> >
> >> FYI, Started work on importing Qt 5.14.2 into rawhide today, with
> >> work-in- progress being done in side tag f33-build-side-21031
> >>
> >> I figure it'll
Richard Shaw wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 5:58 PM Rex Dieter wrote:
>
>> FYI, Started work on importing Qt 5.14.2 into rawhide today, with
>> work-in- progress being done in side tag f33-build-side-21031
>>
>> I figure it'll take at least a few days to get the core bits and all
>>
On 02. 04. 20 19:21, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote:
While benefiting the entire Fedora/RHEL/CentOS/EPEL ecosystem is certainly a
good goal, I believe that doing this in a way that alienates a significant part
of our packagers is a disservice to Fedora. The concerned packagers believe that
Fedora is
On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 5:58 PM Rex Dieter wrote:
> FYI, Started work on importing Qt 5.14.2 into rawhide today, with work-in-
> progress being done in side tag f33-build-side-21031
>
> I figure it'll take at least a few days to get the core bits and all
> dependencies rebuilt. Will provide
FYI, Started work on importing Qt 5.14.2 into rawhide today, with work-in-
progress being done in side tag f33-build-side-21031
I figure it'll take at least a few days to get the core bits and all
dependencies rebuilt. Will provide status updates as warranted.
-- Rex
On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 at 23:56, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 2:36 PM Randy Barlow
> wrote:
> >
> > On 4/4/20 3:02 PM, Aoife Moloney wrote:
> > > However we do
> > > recognize that it was still nonetheless a decision that was not made
> > > in public, and for that we can only now
On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 2:36 PM Randy Barlow
wrote:
>
> On 4/4/20 3:02 PM, Aoife Moloney wrote:
> > However we do
> > recognize that it was still nonetheless a decision that was not made
> > in public, and for that we can only now offer our apologies for this
> > mistake and learn a hard lesson
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1754807
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 3:13 PM Ankur Sinha wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I've had my system hang up a few times when running mock this evening.
> I've got to power it off and restart it using the switch. Is anyone else
> seeing this?
After the hang, are you able to switch to a vt or login remotely via
Hi
The licensecheck saga continues, I managed to get hold of the upstream
perl-Array-IntSpan maintainer to re-license it to a Fedora permissible
license, so I've reopened the review request [1]. Reposting review
request since jplesnik seems not to be available at the moment.
Happy to review
Hello,
I've had my system hang up a few times when running mock this evening.
I've got to power it off and restart it using the switch. Is anyone else
seeing this?
$ rpm -q systemd mock
systemd-245.4-1.fc32.x86_64
mock-2.2-1.fc32.noarch
$ uname -r
5.6.2-300.fc32.x86_64
This is all I found in
On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 3:52 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 4:50 PM Richard Shaw wrote:
> >
> > To be clear, I've only used them for rawhide, but can they be used in
> other branches?
> >
>
> As of last Monday, yes. There are still some quirks to iron out, though...
>
Awesome!
On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 4:50 PM Richard Shaw wrote:
>
> To be clear, I've only used them for rawhide, but can they be used in other
> branches?
>
As of last Monday, yes. There are still some quirks to iron out, though...
--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
To be clear, I've only used them for rawhide, but can they be used in other
branches?
Thanks,
Richard
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
On Sat, Apr 04, 2020 at 02:30:41PM -0500, Richard Shaw wrote:
> Also, it doesn't take NEAR as long for the package to be available in a
> side tag then a buildroot override...
>
> Been waiting almost an hour for one in f32...
This is due to kojira (the koji process that handles making new repos)
On Sat, Apr 04, 2020 at 09:22:29AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 8:57 AM Richard Shaw wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps this has been discussed already but I found the new user side tags
> > a much easier process than using buildroot overrides.
> >
> > Is the only *effective* difference
On 4/4/20 3:02 PM, Aoife Moloney wrote:
However we do
recognize that it was still nonetheless a decision that was not made
in public, and for that we can only now offer our apologies for this
mistake and learn a hard lesson from it.
It's simply not true that this is the only thing that can be
Also, it doesn't take NEAR as long for the package to be available in a
side tag then a buildroot override...
Been waiting almost an hour for one in f32...
Thanks,
Richard
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an
On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 2:27 PM Stephen John Smoogen
wrote:
>
> On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 at 14:54, Richard Shaw wrote:
>
>> I'm trying to build a package that requires swig 3.0.12+. The version in
>> EPEL is way too old but swig3 is provided in the extras repo.
>>
>> I was able to build locally via
On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 at 14:54, Richard Shaw wrote:
> I'm trying to build a package that requires swig 3.0.12+. The version in
> EPEL is way too old but swig3 is provided in the extras repo.
>
> I was able to build locally via mock and COPR fine, but when I tried
> official builds it doesn't look
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20200403.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20200404.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 3
Added packages: 4
Dropped packages:4
Upgraded packages: 182
Downgraded packages: 7
Size of added packages: 554.46 MiB
Size of dropped packages
# CPE Weekly 2020-04-04
---
title: CPE Weekly status email
tags: CPE Weekly, email
---
# CPE Weekly: 2020-03-06
Background:
The Community Platform Engineering group is the Red Hat team combining
IT and release engineering from Fedora and CentOS. Check out our teams
info here
I'm trying to build a package that requires swig 3.0.12+. The version in
EPEL is way too old but swig3 is provided in the extras repo.
I was able to build locally via mock and COPR fine, but when I tried
official builds it doesn't look like the "extras" repo is enabled.
Is that on purpose?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1820924
Bug ID: 1820924
Summary: perl-Test-Most-0.37 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Test-Most
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
On 4/4/20 4:38 PM, Antonio Trande wrote:
Hi all.
`MUMPS-5.3.0` [1] `PETSc-3.13.0` [2] and `Sundials-5.2.0` [3] are coming
on Rawhide; these updates will need rebuilds of dependent packages:
[:snip:]
Thanks a lot for updating PETSc, I know PETSc is quite challenging to
package.
I tried to
OLD: Fedora-32-20200403.n.0
NEW: Fedora-32-20200404.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 15
Dropped packages:1
Upgraded packages: 47
Downgraded packages: 1
Size of added packages: 32.68 MiB
Size of dropped packages:17.12 KiB
Hi,
I'm the process updating package Clojure to 1.9 in rawhide, this will
require few alpha/beta releases to get new required dependencies built
as well.
Best regards,
Markku Korkeala
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To
Hi Ivan.
Ivan Chavero wrote:
> Are there any plans to upgrade the spec file of rubygem-asciidoctor for
> Fedora 31 to the 2.0.10 version?
Unfortunately, I don't think it would be an appropriate
update for Fedora 31. And update from 1.5.6 to 2.0.10 would
cause some package builds to break and
Hi all.
`MUMPS-5.3.0` [1] `PETSc-3.13.0` [2] and `Sundials-5.2.0` [3] are coming
on Rawhide; these updates will need rebuilds of dependent packages:
$ repoquery --release rawhide --whatrequires MUMPS-devel --disablerepo=*
--enablerepo=fedora-*-source --enablerepo=updates*-source
Last metadata
On Sat, 4 Apr 2020 at 14:04, Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 9:42 PM Randy Barlow
> wrote:
> >
> > On 4/3/20 4:41 PM, Leigh Griffin wrote:
> > > We didn't quash communication for reasons already mentioned. We didn't
> > > facilitate it is a more accurate assessment, for which we
Announcing the creation of a new nightly release validation test event
for Fedora 32 Branched 20200404.n.0. Please help run some tests for this
nightly compose if you have time. For more information on nightly
release validation testing, see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki
On Sat, Apr 04, 2020 at 11:31:04AM +0200, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 10:38 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 02:23:12PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > > Fabio Valenti made this comment in the FESCo ticket[1].
> > >
> > >
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64)
Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-IoT-32-20200402.0):
ID: 566783 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso base_services_start
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/566783
Passed openQA tests: 7/8 (x86_64)
Installed system
On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 8:59 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <
zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> the semiannual exercise is upon us. FESCo candidates must submit an
> "interview" in which they answer a set of questions (but can also add
> whatever they want).
> The question whether we
On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 8:46 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > Just to simply things I would be in favor of using side tags across the
> board
> > and dropping buildroot overrides but there's probably some situations
> I'm not
> > thinking of.
>
> For an update that can potentially break other packages
If you have questions or comments about the survey to discuss on the
mailing list, use this thread:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/de...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/NAACOHBWTKAZN3IOQKWDNTEHS2BQ6OVJ/
-- Forwarded message -
From: Daniel Mach
Date: Fri, Apr 3,
On 04. 11. 19 15:58, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
Dear all,
the semiannual exercise is upon us. FESCo candidates must submit an
"interview" in which they answer a set of questions (but can also add whatever
they want).
The question whether we should have a new set of questions needs to
On 04. 04. 20 14:56, Richard Shaw wrote:
Perhaps this has been discussed already but I found the new user side tags a
much easier process than using buildroot overrides.
Is the only *effective* difference that with a buildroot override that
*everyone* can use it (on purpose or not) and with
On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 8:23 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 8:57 AM Richard Shaw wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps this has been discussed already but I found the new user side
> tags a much easier process than using buildroot overrides.
> >
> > Is the only *effective* difference that with a
On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 8:57 AM Richard Shaw wrote:
>
> Perhaps this has been discussed already but I found the new user side tags a
> much easier process than using buildroot overrides.
>
> Is the only *effective* difference that with a buildroot override that
> *everyone* can use it (on
Perhaps this has been discussed already but I found the new user side tags
a much easier process than using buildroot overrides.
Is the only *effective* difference that with a buildroot override that
*everyone* can use it (on purpose or not) and with side tags only the
creator (or users shared
On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 4:32 AM Aleksandra Fedorova
wrote:
> Something like:
>
> %if 0%{?fedora} > 0
> %define_cond docs 1
> %define_cond tests 1
> %endif
>
> %if 0%{?rhel} > 0
> %define_cond docs 0
> %define_cond tests 1
> %endif
>
Isn't the >0 superfluous? Just the "%if 0%{?fedora}" will
On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 9:42 PM Randy Barlow
wrote:
>
> On 4/3/20 4:41 PM, Leigh Griffin wrote:
> > We didn't quash communication for reasons already mentioned. We didn't
> > facilitate it is a more accurate assessment, for which we have
> > acknowledged and apologized.
>
> You certainly didn't
Hi,
ATM the Tab "Automated Test Results" shows just is message:
Failed to talk to Greenwave.
best regards,
Marius
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code
On 2020-04-03 14:43, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote:
On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 11:59 AM Petr Viktorin wrote:
On 2020-04-02 20:07, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 12:56 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
The change proposal received overly negative feedback by the packager community
as
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1820848
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 10:38 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 02:23:12PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > Fabio Valenti made this comment in the FESCo ticket[1].
> >
> > "Side note: I think more people would be amenable to including
> > "conditionals" into
On Sat, Apr 04, 2020 at 12:42:29AM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 03. 04. 20 13:03, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >
> >I've been waiting on:
> >
> >$ koji wait-repo f33-build-side-20855 --build=ocaml-lacaml-9.3.2-17.fc33
> >
> >for hours now. Seems like newRepo generation is again taking a very
>
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1820848
Bug ID: 1820848
Summary: perl-Test-Most-0.36 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Test-Most
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 02:25:36PM +0200, Kalev Lember wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 2:18 PM Jan Pazdziora wrote:
>
> > The dependency chain from @core to gtk3 and fonts actually goes from
> > gnupg2, required by dnf, which recommends pinentry, which requires
> > libsecret-1.so.0()(64bit),
The following Fedora EPEL 8 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
27 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-02f03affd4
ansible-2.9.6-1.el8
11 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-2cb1029c5a
okular-18.12.2-2.el8
11
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=987118
--- Comment #32 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2020-3472d53a15 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade
59 matches
Mail list logo
