[Bug 1395591] CVE-2016-1249 perl-DBD-MySQL: Out-of-bounds read when using server-side prepared statement support

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1395591 Tomas Hoger changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard|impact=moderate,public=2016

Re: Fedora on Macs, removing the release criterion

Hi, > > Apples and oranges. There's no installer on ARM. There's no need to wipe > > all your data on a desktop system that you have one unit of. > > Yes, there is, we support anaconda just like on all the other arches. > It's not as widely used as people like to just consume the disk images >

Re: Recommended upgrade procedure for >1 release upgrades

On Qui, 2016-11-17 at 21:04 +0100, Christian Dersch wrote: > > On 11/17/2016 09:01 PM, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: > > > > On 17/11/16 10:26 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > > > > Hi, folks! > > > > > > While looking into an issue with how GNOME Software decides which > > > release to offer an

Re: Recommended upgrade procedure for >1 release upgrades

On Qui, 2016-11-17 at 12:25 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2016-11-17 at 12:18 -0800, Chris Murphy wrote: > > > > On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Adam Williamson > > wrote: > > > > > > > > You'll notice we don't explicitly specify *how* you should do > >

Re: Recommended upgrade procedure for >1 release upgrades

On 17/11/16 12:04 PM, Christian Dersch wrote: > > On 11/17/2016 09:01 PM, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: >> On 17/11/16 10:26 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: >>> Hi, folks! >>> >>> While looking into an issue with how GNOME Software decides which >>> release to offer an upgrade to when there's more than one

Re: Modifying container storage for Fedora 26.

So are we going to see you tomorrow at BoA? How is it going? Denise > On Nov 17, 2016, at 7:55 PM, Subhendu Ghosh wrote: > > Assuming cloud-init can also select the storage or is that too late in the > process? > > >> On Nov 16, 2016 15:58, "Vivek Goyal"

[389-devel] Jenkins build is back to normal : 389-DS-NIGHTLY #135

See ___ 389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to 389-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Modifying container storage for Fedora 26.

Assuming cloud-init can also select the storage or is that too late in the process? On Nov 16, 2016 15:58, "Vivek Goyal" wrote: > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 03:19:06PM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > On 11/16/2016 03:09 PM, Vivek Goyal wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at

[389-devel] Please review: Increase default memory sizing

https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/49042 https://fedorahosted.org/389/attachment/ticket/49042/0002-Ticket-49042-Increase-cache-defaults-slightly.patch -- Sincerely, William Brown Software Engineer Red Hat, Brisbane signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[Bug 1396310] New: perl-Contextual-Return-0.004009 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1396310 Bug ID: 1396310 Summary: perl-Contextual-Return-0.004009 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: perl-Contextual-Return Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged

[389-devel] Re: Urgent review: 49041 ssl fails to start on f24

> >> > >> Any advice would be greatly appreciated... > > My curiosity is only around how William found this bug in the first > > place and what makes it so urgent. > Ok. Thanks, Rob! Yes, I'm curious, too. :) Please see https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/49041#comment:3 The issue is

Re: Recommended upgrade procedure for >1 release upgrades

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 12:25 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2016-11-17 at 12:18 -0800, Chris Murphy wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Adam Williamson >> wrote: >> >> > You'll notice we don't explicitly specify *how* you

Orphaning bijiben

Hi, bijiben is GNOME notes. Since i am not any more working on bijiben upstream, i am now orphaning package. So, upstream maintainer is needed [1]. The most important is to port to newer WebKit version [2]. Upstream bug has partial patch for this so its quite doable. Cheers Pierre-Yves [1]

Re: Upgrade pip in EPEL

What version is in EPEL now? > On Nov 17, 2016, at 4:25 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote: > > I'm thinking about upgrading pip in EPEL, but I don't really know about any > backwards compatibility ramifications. Can anyone enlighten me about possible > issues? > > > -- > Orion

Upgrade pip in EPEL

I'm thinking about upgrading pip in EPEL, but I don't really know about any backwards compatibility ramifications. Can anyone enlighten me about possible issues? -- Orion Poplawski Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222 NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702

[389-devel] Re: Urgent review: 49041 ssl fails to start on f24

On 11/17/2016 12:25 PM, Rob Crittenden wrote: Noriko Hosoi wrote: On 11/17/2016 11:22 AM, Rob Crittenden wrote: Noriko Hosoi wrote: On 11/17/2016 06:36 AM, Rob Crittenden wrote: William Brown wrote: https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/49041

Re: Recommended upgrade procedure for >1 release upgrades

On Thu, 2016-11-17 at 12:18 -0800, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Adam Williamson > wrote: > > > You'll notice we don't explicitly specify *how* you should do this. > > That is, > > if you're currently running Fedora 23, and you want to

Re: Recommended upgrade procedure for >1 release upgrades

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > You'll notice we don't explicitly specify *how* you should do this. That is, > if you're currently running Fedora 23, and you want to upgrade to Fedora 25 > next week, are you supposed to: > > i) Upgrade to

Re: Recommended upgrade procedure for >1 release upgrades

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: > On 17/11/16 10:26 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: >> Hi, folks! >> >> While looking into an issue with how GNOME Software decides which >> release to offer an upgrade to when there's more than one plausible >>

Re: Recommended upgrade procedure for >1 release upgrades

On 11/17/2016 09:01 PM, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: > On 17/11/16 10:26 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: >> Hi, folks! >> >> While looking into an issue with how GNOME Software decides which >> release to offer an upgrade to when there's more than one plausible >> candidate, I noticed something

Re: Recommended upgrade procedure for >1 release upgrades

On 17/11/16 10:26 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > Hi, folks! > > While looking into an issue with how GNOME Software decides which > release to offer an upgrade to when there's more than one plausible > candidate, I noticed something interesting: we do not actually have a > policy on what we

[389-devel] Re: Urgent review: 49041 ssl fails to start on f24

On 11/17/2016 11:22 AM, Rob Crittenden wrote: Noriko Hosoi wrote: On 11/17/2016 06:36 AM, Rob Crittenden wrote: William Brown wrote: https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/49041 https://fedorahosted.org/389/attachment/ticket/49041/0001-Ticket-49041-SSL-fails-to-start-due-to-NSS-db-versio.patch

Re: Fedora on Macs, removing the release criterion

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On 2016-11-17 11:22 AM, Chris Murphy wrote: >> >> For some time now, the system partition is not HFS+ and not >> identifiable as HFS+ and cannot be mounted on Linux in any way. The >> default installation uses

Re: F26 Self Contained Change: Module Build Service

On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 05:55:21PM -0500, Ben Rosser wrote: > On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 4:13 AM, Jan Kurik wrote: > > > For the Fedora 26 timeframe, we will lock down the users who can > > submit to the MBS to a small number of Modularity WG members. This is > > not ideal, but

Re: Fedora on Macs, removing the release criterion

On 2016-11-17 11:22 AM, Chris Murphy wrote: For some time now, the system partition is not HFS+ and not identifiable as HFS+ and cannot be mounted on Linux in any way. The default installation uses Core Storage (Apple's LVM like thing), and even converts non-Core Storage systems upon upgrade so

[389-devel] Re: Urgent review: 49041 ssl fails to start on f24

Noriko Hosoi wrote: > On 11/17/2016 06:36 AM, Rob Crittenden wrote: >> William Brown wrote: >>> https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/49041 >>> >>> https://fedorahosted.org/389/attachment/ticket/49041/0001-Ticket-49041-SSL-fails-to-start-due-to-NSS-db-versio.patch >>> >>> >>> I think this should be

Re: Fedora on Macs, removing the release criterion

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On 2016-11-17 10:30 AM, Chris Murphy wrote: >> >> Not exactly. I do the same tests every cycle and assumed I had done >> those tests, and I still think I did, but it's possible there's some >> unusual nuance in

Re: F26 Self Contained Change: Module Build Service

Hey, sorry I didn't respond sooner. I failed to see this hit the list. Responses follow inline, below. On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 07:22:12AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 4:13 AM, Jan Kurik wrote: > > = Proposed Self Contained Change: Module Build Service =

Re: Fedora on Macs, removing the release criterion

On 2016-11-17 10:30 AM, Chris Murphy wrote: Not exactly. I do the same tests every cycle and assumed I had done those tests, and I still think I did, but it's possible there's some unusual nuance in my particular setup that caused me to not hit the bug. But I'm not traveling with my Mac at the

Fedora Rawhide-20161117.n.0 compose check report

Missing expected images: Cloud_base qcow2 x86_64 Atomic qcow2 x86_64 Workstation live i386 Kde live x86_64 Cloud_base raw-xz x86_64 Atomic raw-xz x86_64 Workstation live x86_64 Kde live i386 Failed openQA tests: 54/79 (x86_64), 14/15 (i386), 1/2 (arm) Old failures (same test failed in

[389-devel] Re: Urgent review: 49041 ssl fails to start on f24

On 11/17/2016 06:36 AM, Rob Crittenden wrote: William Brown wrote: https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/49041 https://fedorahosted.org/389/attachment/ticket/49041/0001-Ticket-49041-SSL-fails-to-start-due-to-NSS-db-versio.patch I think this should be reviewed urgently and backported. This can

Re: Fedora on Macs, removing the release criterion

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 7:43 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > 2. The Fedora QA group has 1 mac mini which is very old and is only > used for total install and not dual boot. It would not have found this > issue. The Fedora QA group also has no one using Mac hardware day to >

Recommended upgrade procedure for >1 release upgrades

Hi, folks! While looking into an issue with how GNOME Software decides which release to offer an upgrade to when there's more than one plausible candidate, I noticed something interesting: we do not actually have a policy on what we 'recommend' people to do in this case. There's one

Fedora 25 Final compose 1.3 is considered as GOLD and the status is GO

At the second round of Fedora 25 Final Go/No-Go Meeting, has just been Fedora 25 Final compose 1.3 declared as GOLD. GA of this release is planed on Tuesday 2016-November-22. Meeting details can be seen here: Log:

Fedora 25 Final compose 1.3 is considered as GOLD and the status is GO

At the second round of Fedora 25 Final Go/No-Go Meeting, has just been Fedora 25 Final compose 1.3 declared as GOLD. GA of this release is planed on Tuesday 2016-November-22. Meeting details can be seen here: Log:

Re: Fedora on Macs, removing the release criterion

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 7:09 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On 17 November 2016 at 09:08, Bastien Nocera wrote: >> >> >> - Original Message - >>> On 11 November 2016 at 03:20, Andreas Tunek wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > As a

Schedule for Friday's FESCo Meeting (2016-11-18)

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo meeting Friday at 16:00UTC in #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net. To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UTCHowto or run: date -d '2016-11-18 16:00 UTC' Links to all issues below

F26 System Wide Change: Fedora 26 Boost 1.63 upgrade

= System Wide Change: Fedora 26 Boost 1.63 upgrade = https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/F26Boost163 Change owner(s): * Jonathan Wakely < jwakely AT redhat DOT com > This change brings Boost 1.63.0 to Fedora 26. This will mean F26 ships with a recent upstream Boost release. == Detailed

Re: Fedora on Macs, removing the release criterion

On 17 November 2016 at 11:40, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Adam Williamson > wrote: >> On 2016-11-17 07:43 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: >>> >>> 2. The Fedora QA group has 1 mac mini which is very old and is only

Re: Fedora on Macs, removing the release criterion

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On 2016-11-17 07:43 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: >> >> 2. The Fedora QA group has 1 mac mini which is very old and is only >> used for total install and not dual boot. It would not have found this >> issue.

Re: Fedora on Macs, removing the release criterion

On 2016-11-17 07:43 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: 2. The Fedora QA group has 1 mac mini which is very old and is only used for total install and not dual boot. It would not have found this issue. The Fedora QA group also has no one using Mac hardware day to day. This bit isn't quite true. We

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20161117.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20161116.n.0 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20161117.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:0 Dropped images: 0 Added packages: 9 Dropped packages:1 Upgraded packages: 66 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 3.35 MiB Size of dropped packages

Fedora 25-20161117.n.0 compose check report

No missing expected images. Failed openQA tests: 7/101 (x86_64), 2/17 (i386) New failures (same test did not fail in 25-20161116.n.0): ID: 48821 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso install_default@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/48821 ID: 48826 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso

Broken dependencies: perl-Data-Alias

perl-Data-Alias has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree: On x86_64: perl-Data-Alias-1.20-2.fc24.x86_64 requires libperl.so.5.22()(64bit) perl-Data-Alias-1.20-2.fc24.x86_64 requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.22.1) On armhfp: perl-Data-Alias-1.20-2.fc24.armv7hl requires

Broken dependencies: perl-Alien-ROOT

perl-Alien-ROOT has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree: On aarch64: perl-Alien-ROOT-5.34.36.1-2.fc26.noarch requires root-core On ppc64: perl-Alien-ROOT-5.34.36.1-2.fc26.noarch requires root-core On ppc64le: perl-Alien-ROOT-5.34.36.1-2.fc26.noarch requires root-core

Re: Fedora on Macs, removing the release criterion

On 17 November 2016 at 10:22, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > > - Original Message - > >> No I am not asking for continuous testing. I am asking that if people >> really care about the hardware support they get in the muck and do >> just a little of the work in an organized

Re: Fedora on Macs, removing the release criterion

- Original Message - > No I am not asking for continuous testing. I am asking that if people > really care about the hardware support they get in the muck and do > just a little of the work in an organized fashion. Put together a Mac > SIG that focuses on getting the best experience on

Re: Fedora on Macs, removing the release criterion

> >> No I am not asking for continuous testing. I am asking that if people >> really care about the hardware support they get in the muck and do >> just a little of the work in an organized fashion. Put together a Mac >> SIG that focuses on getting the best experience on the hardware. Send >>

Re: Fedora on Macs, removing the release criterion

On 17 November 2016 at 09:08, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > > - Original Message - >> On 11 November 2016 at 03:20, Andreas Tunek wrote: >> > >> > >> > As a mac owner (although one that is not very well supported by >> > Linux*) I really

[389-devel] Re: Urgent review: 49041 ssl fails to start on f24

William Brown wrote: > https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/49041 > > https://fedorahosted.org/389/attachment/ticket/49041/0001-Ticket-49041-SSL-fails-to-start-due-to-NSS-db-versio.patch > > I think this should be reviewed urgently and backported. This can cause > SSL to fail to start on F24 and

Fedora 25 compose report: 20161117.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-25-20161116.n.0 NEW: Fedora-25-20161117.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:0 Dropped images: 0 Added packages: 0 Dropped packages:0 Upgraded packages: 0 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 0.00 B Size of dropped packages:0.00 B Size

Re: Fedora on Macs, removing the release criterion

- Original Message - > On 11 November 2016 at 03:20, Andreas Tunek wrote: > > > > > > As a mac owner (although one that is not very well supported by > > Linux*) I really appreciate the fact that Fedora works. And saying you > > do not want to support that

[Bug 1395461] perl-PDF-Create-1.38 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1395461 --- Comment #11 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- Patches were not touched. All were applied properly -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 1395461] perl-PDF-Create-1.38 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1395461 --- Comment #9 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- Patching or scratch build for perl-PDF-Create-1.35 failed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 1395461] perl-PDF-Create-1.38 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1395461 --- Comment #10 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- Created attachment 1221537 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1221537=edit Rebase-helper rebase-helper-debug.log log file.

[EPEL-devel] Fedora EPEL 6 updates-testing report

The following Fedora EPEL 6 Security updates need testing: Age URL 497 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-7031 python-virtualenv-12.0.7-1.el6 491 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-7168 rubygem-crack-0.3.2-2.el6 423

[Bug 1395461] perl-PDF-Create-1.38 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1395461 Upstream Release Monitoring changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug 1389631] perl-Crypt-OpenSSL-DSA-0.18 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389631 --- Comment #6 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- Created attachment 1221532 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1221532=edit Rebase-helper rebase-helper-debug.log log file.

[Bug 1389631] perl-Crypt-OpenSSL-DSA-0.18 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389631 --- Comment #7 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- Following patches has been unapplied: ['Crypt-OpenSSL-DSA-0.15-Adapt-to-OpenSSL-1.1.0.patch'] -- You are receiving this mail because: You

[Bug 1389631] perl-Crypt-OpenSSL-DSA-0.18 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389631 --- Comment #5 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- Patching or scratch build for perl-Crypt-OpenSSL-DSA-0.15 failed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the

[Bug 1389631] perl-Crypt-OpenSSL-DSA-0.18 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389631 Upstream Release Monitoring changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug 1395923] perl-DateTime-1.41 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1395923 Paul Howarth changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Fixed In

[Bug 1395923] perl-DateTime-1.41 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1395923 --- Comment #4 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- pghmcfc's perl-DateTime-1.41-1.fc26 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=818480 -- You are receiving this mail

[EPEL-devel] Retiring Mono from Epel5, question about Mono in Epel6

Hello, now that Mono 4.2 is in Epel7, we should look at Mono in Epel5 and Epel6. Laxathom aka Smoother1rOgZ, the contact person for the Mono package, agreed on IRC that we should retire Mono 1.2 on Epel5. So I will work on this topic next week. If someone has concerns, please let me know. What

Re: List of packages owning %{python3_sitelib}/__pycache__

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 2:49 AM, Athos Ribeiro wrote: > Hello, Hi, > > Guidelines say that %{python3_sitelib}/__pycache__ should not be owned > by python packages because python3-libs already owns it [1]. That > directory is actually owned by system-python-libs. > > While

[EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL-ANNOUNCE Major Mono update for EL7

Hello, > As previously agreed on epel-devel and by the EPEL Steering Committee, > I have pushed the Mono 4.2 packages and packages depending on it to > epel-testing on EL7. > > These updates will sit in epel-testing for a significant period of > time to allow adequate notice and time for testing.

[Bug 1395931] perl-Math-BigInt-1.999800 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1395931 Paul Howarth changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1395932

[Bug 1395932] perl-Math-BigInt-GMP-1.6000 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1395932 Paul Howarth changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1395931 ---

pghmcfc uploaded Math-BigInt-GMP-1.6000.tar.gz for perl-Math-BigInt-GMP

226dc854ceb7923fcfea3a08484c1cdd Math-BigInt-GMP-1.6000.tar.gz http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/lookaside/pkgs/perl-Math-BigInt-GMP/Math-BigInt-GMP-1.6000.tar.gz/md5/226dc854ceb7923fcfea3a08484c1cdd/Math-BigInt-GMP-1.6000.tar.gz ___ perl-devel