On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 8:26 PM Sumantro Mukherjee
wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 7:15 PM Leonardo Rossetti
> wrote:
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> I would like to present a Kubernetes Development SIG.
>>
>> Love the Idea, Leo!
count me in :)
--
Vipul Siddharth
He/His/Him
Fedora | CentOS CI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880681
Bug ID: 1880681
Summary: perl-Apache-Session-1.94 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Apache-Session
Keywords: FutureFeature,
# F33 Blocker Review meeting
# Date: 2020-09-21
# Time: 16:00 UTC
# Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net
Hi folks! We have 4 proposed Beta blockers, 4 proposed Beta freeze
exceptions and 3 proposed Final blockers to review, so we'll have a
Fedora 33 blocker review meeting on
Hi folks! I'm proposing we cancel the QA meeting for Monday. I don't
have much for the agenda, and I actually won't be available to run the
meeting either. If there is a desire to have the meeting, someone else
can volunteer to run it :)
Thanks!
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880667
Bug ID: 1880667
Summary: perl-PerlIO-utf8_strict-0.008 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-PerlIO-utf8_strict
Keywords:
Count me in :)
On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 10:45:07AM -0300, Leonardo Rossetti wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I would like to present a Kubernetes Development SIG.
>
> I initially thought of an "operator SIG" but I think a wider SIG about
> programming components and services with Kubernetes APIs and
Please build in the side-tag to pick up the new jbig2dec/mupdf:
fedpkg build --target=f34-build-side-30401
I guess we need to coordinate how far this gets merged down (f33, f32).
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020, 17:03 Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> So, my question is: Should we fix the document to describe the long
> standing
> practice more understandably, or should we change the practice to allow
> new
> dist-git branches until the actual EOL?
>
I'm in favor of allowing new branches
Neal Gompa wrote:
> This didn't become a serious problem until Red Hat made the
> unfortunate (though not realized at the time) mistake of switching to
> 64k pages for ARM and POWER. We got that change in Fedora for POWER
> but not ARM. It has led to all kinds of unfortunate problems that are
>
Hello,
As many of you know, Fedora has an EOL policy that roughly tl;drs to:
"Fedora N goes to End of Life 4 weeks after Fedora N+2 Final Release (GA)."
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Life_Cycle
The document also says:
> Branches for new packages in the SCM are not allowed for
On Fri, 2020-09-18 at 16:10 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> 4. abrt https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878317 — NEW
> Can't report a crash (even with local processing) due to "Could not
> resolve host: retrace.fedoraproject.org"
>
> Since the retrace server is still offline, abrt should
Missing expected images:
Xfce live x86_64
Failed openQA tests: 2/37 (x86_64)
ID: 670965 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso apps_startstop
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/670965
ID: 670992 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_notifications_postinstall
URL:
https://github.com/389ds/389-ds-base/pull/4331
--
389 Directory Server Development Team
___
389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 389-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
We're getting close! I'm going to make Adam request an RC next week
whether he likes it or not. :-)
Action summary
Accepted blockers
-
1. libreport — abrt-server errors when processing zstd compressed core
dumps produced by systemd-246~rc1-1.fc33 — VERIFIED
Hi Matthew,
On Fri, 2020-09-18 at 13:13 +, proletarius101 via devel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My name is Matthew H. and I'm an open source enthusiast. I've
> contributed to RSSHub (a RSS feed baker), Island (a Work-profile
> based container manager on Android), Surgio (a proxy rule generator),
> etc.
On 18. 09. 20 11:48, Miro Hrončok wrote:
Hello.
Python 3.9.0rc2, the last preview before the final release of Python 3.9.0 has
been released yesterday.
The Fedora 33 update is at:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-78bb031321
Should I try to get a freeze exception and get
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 1:33 pm, Steven Munroe
wrote:
The correct solution for userland is getpagesize() from .
This API has been there a long time.
Some software requires that the page size be known at compile time,
e.g. WebKit's JavaScriptCore. Therefore getpagesize() is really not
good
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880278
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2020-f63d9db8d2 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880040
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2020-f63d9db8d2 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880014
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #2 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878992
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #4 from
The correct solution for userland is getpagesize() from .
This API has been there a long time.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880535
Bug ID: 1880535
Summary: perl-WWW-Mechanize-2.01 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-WWW-Mechanize
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 10:08:46AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 10:07 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 02:09:42PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > I'm annoyed in general that we still have problems like this, and I'm
> > > even more
Count me in too!
Regards,
Abhiram K
On Fri, 18 Sep, 2020, 10:54 pm Ivan Chavero, wrote:
> Sounds great!
>
> I would like to participate as user and developer
>
> Cheers,
> Iván
>
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 7:45 AM Leonardo Rossetti
> wrote:
>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> I would like to present a
Sounds great!
I would like to participate as user and developer
Cheers,
Iván
On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 7:45 AM Leonardo Rossetti
wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I would like to present a Kubernetes Development SIG.
>
> I initially thought of an "operator SIG" but I think a wider SIG about
> programming
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880040
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #5 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880278
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #5 from
Thanks for the input.
I don't mind learning how to do this ;)
Just to confirm that I picked the right path (from various I found documented):
fedpkg request-side-tag --base-tag rawhide
fedpkg build --target=
.. and wait for all of us to the builds, before using:
bodhi updates new --from-tag
The following Fedora EPEL 8 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
10 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-0214580ca4
mbedtls-2.16.8-1.el8
7 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-c5ced83bcc
seamonkey-2.53.4-1.el8
1
The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
765 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-3c9292b62d
condor-8.6.11-1.el7
505 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-bc0182548b
bubblewrap-0.3.3-2.el7
12
On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 12:51:46PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 11:01:00AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
If one of the issues here can be stated as "we want buildroot-only
packages because we don't want to maintain those packages to a high
standard", it is demonstrably a
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 2/16 (x86_64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-IoT-33-20200917.2):
ID: 670772 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_zezere_server
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/670772
ID: 670775 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 10:07 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 02:09:42PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > I'm annoyed in general that we still have problems like this, and I'm
> > even more annoyed that I basically have no way to even test or deal
> > with these
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 02:09:42PM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> I'm annoyed in general that we still have problems like this, and I'm
> even more annoyed that I basically have no way to even test or deal
> with these things. We *still* do not have packager test machines, so I
> can't even figure out
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 01:13:04PM +, proletarius101 via devel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My name is Matthew H. and I'm an open source enthusiast. I've contributed to
> [RSSHub](https://github.com/DIYgod/RSSHub) (a RSS feed baker),
> [Island](https://github.com/oasisfeng/island/) (a Work-profile
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 7/181 (x86_64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-33-20200917.n.0):
ID: 670514 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso apps_startstop
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/670514
ID: 670540 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso
Hi,
My name is Matthew H. and I'm an open source enthusiast. I've contributed to
[RSSHub](https://github.com/DIYgod/RSSHub) (a RSS feed baker),
[Island](https://github.com/oasisfeng/island/) (a Work-profile based container
manager on Android), [Surgio](https://github.com/geekdada/surgio/) (a
On 18/09/2020 14:34, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 8:19 AM Daniel Pocock wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 16/09/2020 21:29, Josef Bacik wrote:
>>> On 9/16/20 3:18 PM, Eugene Syromiatnikov wrote:
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 03:04:45PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> At the time we tied the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878992
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |MODIFIED
--- Comment #3 from
OLD: Fedora-33-20200917.n.0
NEW: Fedora-33-20200918.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:1
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 3
Dropped packages:47
Upgraded packages: 104
Downgraded packages: 126
Size of added packages: 10.30 MiB
Size of dropped packages:1.04 GiB
Hello everyone,
Please join us at the next Open NeuroFedora team meeting next week on
Monday 21 September at 1300UTC in #fedora-neuro on IRC (Freenode). The
meeting is a public meeting, and open for everyone to attend.
https://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=#fedora-neuro
The channel is bridged
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 8:19 AM Daniel Pocock wrote:
>
>
>
> On 16/09/2020 21:29, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > On 9/16/20 3:18 PM, Eugene Syromiatnikov wrote:
> >> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 03:04:45PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> >>> At the time we tied the fs blocksize to the
> >>> page size, because it
On 16/09/2020 21:29, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On 9/16/20 3:18 PM, Eugene Syromiatnikov wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 03:04:45PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
>>> At the time we tied the fs blocksize to the
>>> page size, because it was unlikely that a user would mkfs a fs on one
>>> arch
>>> and
Hi folks,
Akashdeep/t0xic0der here. I would love to hear what you think about a project
that I am proposing for Fedora's representation in this year's Google Summer of
Code. Take a look at the following excerpt which was taken from the proposition
I wrote (Check issue
On Friday, 18 September 2020 12:24:21 CEST Andreas R Maier wrote:
> Thanks for the quick help and for the mini-review.
>
> I have updated the spec file as recommended, except for the %py_provides
> macro because COPR did not like that when running the rpkg command:
>
> Running: rpkg srpm
No missing expected images.
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-34-20200917.0):
ID: 670448 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_clevis
URL:
No missing expected images.
Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check!
4 of 43 required tests failed
openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING**
below
Failed openQA tests: 20/181 (x86_64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20200917.n.0):
ID:
Hi Michael,
> Given how previous updates went I intend to try a side-tag now.
+1 for side-tag approach. The only question I have is who is going to
coordinate those updates? For example, I already have an update for gs 9.53
for Rawhide prepared, should I create the side-tag, or should I wait
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 10:44 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 10:32 AM Eric Sandeen wrote:
> >
> > On 9/15/20 7:29 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 7:57 PM Kevin Kofler
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Daniel Pocock wrote:
> > >>> One issue I've come across is
Dne 18. 09. 20 v 12:37 Petr Pisar napsal(a):
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 10:42:00AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>> This is not about nagging maintainer for the purpose of nagging them.
>>
> Filing the requests en mass is exactly nagging for nagging.
This might be misunderstanding, but I have never
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 12:21:15PM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> On Friday, 18 September 2020 at 11:22, Petr Pisar wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 12:51:46PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > > So: RH Java packagers, what if you build these packages as non-modular
> > >
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 09:31:59AM +0200, Bohdan Khomutskyi wrote:
> Hello Zbyszek,
>
> > You haven't really answered the "why" part: why is it so important to
> save 50MB? And why is the effect on QA less important?
>
> From my perspective, the storage on the installation medium should
> be
No missing expected images.
Passed openQA tests: 7/7 (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
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20200917.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20200918.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 3
Added packages: 11
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 80
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 20.24 MiB
Size of dropped packages:0
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880278
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2020-f63d9db8d2 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-f63d9db8d2
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System ---
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 10:42:00AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> This is not about nagging maintainer for the purpose of nagging them.
>
Filing the requests en mass is exactly nagging for nagging. But
> I feel exhausted seeing again and again packages which are very likely
> broken,
if the package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880129
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 13:31:27 +0100, Ankur Sinha wrote:
>
> I can refer to
> the package-lock.json file to get version info of the bundled libs I
> find, I guess?
>
Quick update: this is what I've gone for at the moment. I've parsed the
package-lock.json file to get a list of the bundled
Thanks for the quick help and for the mini-review.
I have updated the spec file as recommended, except for the %py_provides macro
because COPR
did not like that when running the rpkg command:
Running: rpkg srpm --outdir /tmp/copr-rpmbuild-vtejek5l --spec
On Friday, 18 September 2020 at 11:22, Petr Pisar wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 12:51:46PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > So: RH Java packagers, what if you build these packages as non-modular
> > (maybe using some scripting to make it happen at the same time as modular
> > builds?) and
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880278
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880278
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Hello.
Python 3.9.0rc2, the last preview before the final release of Python 3.9.0 has
been released yesterday.
The Fedora 33 update is at:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-78bb031321
Should I try to get a freeze exception and get it to Fedora 33 Beta?
Pros:
We would
On Friday, 18 September 2020 09:19:48 CEST Andreas R Maier wrote:
> Hi,
> I am new to building packages, and I'm trying to build a new package
> 'python-nocaselist' on Copr, and it fails in the %prep stage when unpacking
> the SRPM file because it cannot cd into the directory it assumes got
>
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/7 (x86_64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-32-20200917.0):
ID: 670151 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL:
On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 12:51:46PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> So: RH Java packagers, what if you build these packages as non-modular
> (maybe using some scripting to make it happen at the same time as modular
> builds?) and add a readme explaining their maintenance state?
Do you mean
Dne 18. 09. 20 v 10:24 Petr Pisar napsal(a):
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 09:09:51PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>> Dne 17. 09. 20 v 18:29 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a):
>>> Well, many maintainers don't touch packages that keep working and don't
>>> need updates or bugfixes.
>> That is perfectly fine and I
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880014
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2020-aae32f4b61 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-aae32f4b61
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 09:09:51PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Dne 17. 09. 20 v 18:29 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a):
> > Well, many maintainers don't touch packages that keep working and don't
> > need updates or bugfixes.
>
> That is perfectly fine and I expect that in such cases, the maintainer
> would
https://fedorapeople.org/groups/389ds/ci/nightly/2020/09/18/report-389-ds-base-1.4.4.4-20200916gitf9638bb.fc32.x86_64.html
___
389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880129
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppi...@redhat.com
--- Comment #1 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880278
--- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
An unexpected error occurred while creating the scratch build and has been
automatically reported. Sorry!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880278
Bug ID: 1880278
Summary: perl-DBD-Mock-1.57 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-DBD-Mock
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
Hello Zbyszek,
> You haven't really answered the "why" part: why is it so important to
save 50MB? And why is the effect on QA less important?
From my perspective, the storage on the installation medium should be
efficiently used. Even though the optimization is just 50MiB, it is an
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880014
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
Fixed In Version|
Hi,
I am new to building packages, and I'm trying to build a new package
'python-nocaselist' on Copr, and it fails in the %prep stage when unpacking the
SRPM file because it cannot cd into the directory it assumes got unpacked:
Executing(%prep): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.6rjfBt
+ umask 022
+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880129
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Doc Type|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880040
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2020-4803a6d553 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-4803a6d553
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System ---
Hello,
I am a maintainer of some Python packages on Pypi, including the 'pywbem'
package. The pywbem package is in Fedora (as 'pywbem') and in some other Linux
distributions. For version 1.0.0 of pywbem, we have created two new Python
packages 'nocaselist' and 'nocasedict' on Pypi, providing a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880040
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880040
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 02:16:11AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Matthew Miller wrote:
> > I mean, some of y'all like to maintain and keep obscure dependency
> > packages up to date just for their own sake, and that's *awesome* -- but
> > we just can't hold everyone to that standard. At least, not
I will do a protobuf update in rawhide which comes, as always, with a
new SO version.
Before starting the builds in rawhide I will try it out first in COPR
and once that is done I will do the builds in rawhide in a side tag.
repoquery gives me a list of 53 dependent packages I have to rebuild.
84 matches
Mail list logo
