The following Fedora EPEL 8 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
1 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-58ac73f947
java-latest-openjdk-20.0.2.0.9-1.rolling.el8
The following builds have been pushed to Fedora EPEL 8 updates-testing
trafficserver-9.2.2-1.el8
The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
0 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-5ec56987f0
rust-1.71.1-1.el7
The following builds have been pushed to Fedora EPEL 7 updates-testing
trafficserver-9.2.2-1.el7
Details about builds:
The following Fedora EPEL 9 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
1 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-a01823abe4
java-latest-openjdk-20.0.2.0.9-1.rolling.el9
The following builds have been pushed to Fedora EPEL 9 updates-testing
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20230808.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20230809.n.1
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 2
Added packages: 11
Dropped packages:5
Upgraded packages: 97
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 53.16 MiB
Size of dropped packages
On Fri, 2023-08-04 at 11:42 +0100, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >
> > This is a big deal, because even users who don't use modularity at all (but
> > have not uninstalled fedora-repos-modular) will not be able to upgrade to
> > Fedora 39+ without reaching for help.
> >
> > Adam outlined 3 options
On Sat, Jul 29, 2023 at 5:15 AM Stefan Koch wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> Please branch and build libusbauth-configparser, usbauth and usbauth-notifier
> in epel9.
> Package are already in epel8.
>
> There was no response to the following Bugs within 6 months:
>
> - Please branch and build
Thanks Ben for following the incompat process and for the detailed
email. It makes sense to me, the plan is sound, and I plan to vote
yes when we hold the official vote in next week's steering committee
meeting.
On Wed, Aug 9, 2023 at 1:35 PM Troy Dawson wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 4:11
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2230255
--- Comment #7 from Michal Josef Spacek ---
(In reply to Artem S. Tashkinov from comment #5)
> Let's look at it differently:
>
> # rpm -e perl-HTTP-Tiny
> error: Failed dependencies:
> perl(HTTP::Tiny) is needed by (installed)
>
On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 4:11 PM Ben Beasley wrote:
> This email proposes upgrading the llhttp package in EPEL9 from 6.0.10 to
> 8.1.1, which would break the ABI and bump the SONAME version, under the
> EPEL Incompatible Upgrades Policy[1].
>
> The llhttp package is a C library (transpiled from
mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-HTTP-Tiny` that
you are following:
``
Add perl-HTTP-Tiny-https package for delivering of HTTPs support
``
To reply, visit the link below
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-HTTP-Tiny/pull-request/3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2229823
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|jples...@redhat.com,|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2229332
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||2230468
Referenced Bugs:
I am just curious, who is going to provide or test upgrade path for packages
originally provided by modular repositories? I am asking as DNF maintainer,
because problems with upgrades are often reported to our components.
___
devel mailing list --
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2229212
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2229212
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--- Comment #1 from
Hi,
Is there any update on how bug tracking for Change proposals is going to be
handled for Fedora 39?
Regards,
Parag
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2230255
--- Comment #6 from Petr Pisar ---
>- Changes the `verify_SSL` default parameter from `0` to `1`.
> Fixes CVE-2023-31486.
This does not mean that IO::Socket::SSL is now required. This only means that
if IO::Socket::SSL is used, then
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2230299
Bug ID: 2230299
Summary: perl-Mail-Box-IMAP4-3.008 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Mail-Box-IMAP4
Keywords: FutureFeature,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2230255
--- Comment #5 from Artem S. Tashkinov ---
Let's look at it differently:
# rpm -e perl-HTTP-Tiny
error: Failed dependencies:
perl(HTTP::Tiny) is needed by (installed)
perl-Pod-Perldoc-3.28.01-491.fc38.noarch
Is it possible instead
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2230255
--- Comment #4 from Artem S. Tashkinov ---
Understood though it could have been done via recommends for all I know.
I do not use this package, neither do most of its users.
It means you're foisting off 10 new packages on all systems because
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2230255
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 06:06:45AM -0400, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 07:15:42AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > > %systemd_postun_with_restart, so adding %systemd_postun_with_reload
> > > or something along those lines doesn't seem like a stretch.
> >
> > →
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2230255
--- Comment #2 from Artem S. Tashkinov ---
I'm looking at 58e6bc68c2b34a584f1cfe4a04bd54afee0ef699 and all the
dependencies have been added manually.
That's weird.
I thought rpmbuild takes care of that.
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2230255
--- Comment #1 from Artem S. Tashkinov ---
perl-HTTP-Tiny-0.086-1.fc38 did not have all these dependencies. What's
changed?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2230255
Bug ID: 2230255
Summary: perl-HTTP-Tiny: a ton of new dependencies all of a
sudden?
Product: Fedora
Version: 38
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Hey folks! Just a quick update on the state of update gating wrt
Branching.
First, distro-wide gating (that's gating on the openQA tests,
effectively) is not currently enabled for Rawhide. This is an artifact
of how gating works, but I'm leaving it that way for now as we know not
all tests are
26 matches
Mail list logo
