https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025236
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-eac4d1d3ad has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-eac4d1d3ad
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System ---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025236
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-eac4d1d3ad has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-eac4d1d3ad
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025236
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-e8d8c14a2f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-e8d8c14a2f
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025236
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |MODIFIED
On 22/11/2021 03:51, Orion Poplawski wrote:
i686:
virtual memory exhausted: Operation not permitted
Memory limit of the 32-bit address space (2 GB) has been reached. Try
reducing the debuginfo level.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64), 1/8 (aarch64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-33-2028.0):
ID: 1067998 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025106
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|caillon+fedoraproject@gmail |
|.com,
On 21/11/2021 13:11, Stephen Snow wrote:
And I login with my FAS ID and cannot "Take" the package since I am not
a packager.
So I ask again what steps am I missing here? I want to take over
packaging something that is about to be removed from Fedora Linux since
it has been orphaned, I have
On 21/11/2021 15:01, Stephen Snow wrote:
But actually I think the old wiki version is much more useful
in explaining how things work, especially if you're not coming
at it from the position of submitting a new package:
And it tells me to read a document that doesn't apparently exist
anymore.
On 2021-11-21 18:51, Orion Poplawski wrote:
On 11/21/21 19:23, devel@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote:
Just noting that I had a strange one-time s390x and x86_64 build
failure.
More:
s390x:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=79143231
libtool: link: /usr/bin/gcc-ranlib
On 11/21/21 19:23, devel@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote:
Just noting that I had a strange one-time s390x and x86_64 build failure.
More:
s390x:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=79143231
libtool: link: /usr/bin/gcc-ranlib liboctave/array/.libs/libarray.a
/usr/bin/ranlib:
Just noting that I had a strange one-time s390x and x86_64 build failure.
s390x:
/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-annobin-cc1 -m64 -march=zEC12 -mtune=z13
-fasynchronous-unwind-tables -fstack-clash-protection -DH5_USE_110_API
-Wl,-z,relro -Wl,--as-needed -Wl,-z,now
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2022402
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
Am Sonntag, dem 21.11.2021 um 15:40 -0500 schrieb Scott Talbert:
> Hi @eclipseo,
>
> Looks like jpegxl soname was bumped, breaking a bunch of stuff:
>
> 2021-11-21 20:20:51
> Package resolution failed
>
> Problem: package gd-2.3.3-3.fc36.x86_64 requires
> libavif.so.12()(64bit), but none
yikes
On Sun, 21 Nov 2021, 20:40 Scott Talbert, wrote:
> Hi @eclipseo,
>
> Looks like jpegxl soname was bumped, breaking a bunch of stuff:
>
> 2021-11-21 20:20:51
> Package resolution failed
>
> Problem: package gd-2.3.3-3.fc36.x86_64 requires
> libavif.so.12()(64bit), but none of the
Matthew Miller kirjoitti 21.11.2021 klo 18.18:
On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 08:11:19AM -0500, Stephen Snow wrote:
So I am back here to ask again if I can take a package on that is
currently orphaned as per
Hi @eclipseo,
Looks like jpegxl soname was bumped, breaking a bunch of stuff:
2021-11-21 20:20:51
Package resolution failed
Problem: package gd-2.3.3-3.fc36.x86_64 requires
libavif.so.12()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
- package graphviz-2.49.3-2.fc36.x86_64
On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 1:49 PM Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 09:45:57AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > Hello., is not precisely my idea but anyone can build a script, which can
> > > be included in fedora live cd image for solving/troubleshoting this
> > > issues, at
On Sun, 2021-11-21 at 11:18 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
-snip-
>
> I don't think we have a good process for the situation you're in. If
> the
> package you were interested in were entirely new, or if you were
> reinstating
> a package which wsa retired (the step beyond "orphan"), you'd file
>
On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 09:45:57AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Hello., is not precisely my idea but anyone can build a script, which can
> > be included in fedora live cd image for solving/troubleshoting this issues,
> > at least for a fedora default instalation, if is a custom install
On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 04:27:18PM +, Tom Hughes wrote:
> >That page seems substantially (if not completely?) identical to the current
> >doc at
> >https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/How_to_Get_Sponsored_into_the_Packager_Group/
>
> Ah you're quite right. That was a
On Sun, 2021-11-21 at 15:08 +, Tom Hughes wrote:
>
> That's why I gave a link to the old version from the wiki history
> before it was replaced by a pointer to the new page.
>
It did help for some info. Thank you.
> > >
On Sun, 2021-11-21 at 15:25 +, Héctor H. Louzao P. wrote:
> This is my First time here, so Glad to be here:
>
> Hello., is not precisely my idea but anyone can build a script, which can be
> included in fedora live cd image for solving/troubleshoting this issues, at
> least for a fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025322
Bug ID: 2025322
Summary: EPEL9 Branch Request: perl-utf8-all
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-utf8-all
Assignee: mspa...@redhat.com
On 21/11/2021 16:06, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 10:01:00AM -0500, Stephen Snow wrote:
Thanks read that back then.
But actually I think the old wiki version is much more useful
in explaining how things work, especially if you're not coming
at it from the position of
On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 08:11:19AM -0500, Stephen Snow wrote:
> So I am back here to ask again if I can take a package on that is
> currently orphaned as per
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/5FCP5OSV6XXFCAXN5KPKQFBCDLGJSRB6/
>
> And I
On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 10:01:00AM -0500, Stephen Snow wrote:
> Thanks read that back then.
>
> > But actually I think the old wiki version is much more useful
> > in explaining how things work, especially if you're not coming
> > at it from the position of submitting a new package:
> >
> And it
This is my First time here, so Glad to be here:
Hello., is not precisely my idea but anyone can build a script, which can be
included in fedora live cd image for solving/troubleshoting this issues, at
least for a fedora default instalation, if is a custom install there is nothing
we can do
Would anyone be wiling to review this package? I think that it might be
straightforward given that it was orphaned after F34 and the package seems to
build without any issues.
The BZ review request is here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025138
Would be happy to review in
On Sun, 2021-11-21 at 13:55 +, Tom Hughes wrote:
-snip-
> You say you have "asked to become a packager" but what exactly
> do you mean by that?
>
I've asked to be sponsored before.
> The official documentation on becoming a packager is here:
>
>
Hi,
Just reporting that synergy installation fail on CentOS 8 & Rocky 8.
> dnf install synergy
Last metadata expiration check: 4:17:16 ago on Sun 21 Nov 2021 06:28:05 PM
CST.
Error:
Problem: conflicting requests
- nothing provides libdns_sd.so.1()(64bit) needed by
No missing expected images.
Compose PASSES proposed Rawhide gating check!
All required tests passed
Failed openQA tests: 5/208 (x86_64), 10/142 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20211120.n.1):
ID: 1067602 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_login
URL:
Hello,
So I am back here to ask again if I can take a package on that is
currently orphaned as per
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/5FCP5OSV6XXFCAXN5KPKQFBCDLGJSRB6/
And I login with my FAS ID and cannot "Take" the package since I am not
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20211120.n.1
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20211121.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 11
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0 B
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64), 1/8 (aarch64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-35-2028.0):
ID: 1067514 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL:
35 matches
Mail list logo
