The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
3 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-0454ca80fd
clamav-0.103.9-1.el7
3 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-254992a2ef
chromium-116.0.5845.96-1.el7
The following builds
The following Fedora EPEL 8 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
5 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-9a26de25cf
GitPython-3.1.18-2.el8
3 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-37fa993c81
clamav-0.103.9-1.el8
3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232990
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2023-903bd708be has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232990
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #5 from
On Sun, Aug 20, 2023 at 9:11 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>
> New projection when we will be finished is 2025-01-11 (we are slowing down.
> Again. :( ). Pure linear approximation.
It might not be as bad as you think!
All rust-* packages had been excluded from tracking since the start,
so the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=637
Adam Williamson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||2203264
Referenced Bugs:
On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 7:02 PM Michel Alexandre Salim
wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> exiv2 has had a new release for a few months now - 0.28.0 - which causes
> an soname bump.
>
> I've put up a PR for the update -
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/exiv2/pull-request/3 - would
> appreciate people
I think it is actually because of a change proposal, there was a recent
email about the webkit2gtk4.0 package changing:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/IFRPWZNEFEGXGQFRNTH4LTFFLTJ5DOCL/,
so it is actually a problem I think.
-Ian
On Mon, Aug 21,
On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 02:01:37PM -0500, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> exiv2 has had a new release for a few months now - 0.28.0 - which causes
> an soname bump.
>
> I've put up a PR for the update -
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/exiv2/pull-request/3 - would
> appreciate
Dear all,
exiv2 has had a new release for a few months now - 0.28.0 - which causes
an soname bump.
I've put up a PR for the update -
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/exiv2/pull-request/3 - would
appreciate people taking a close look at this; I'll also prepare a COPR
with the dependent packages
Looks like it is a mirror issue. Adding --enablerepo=local corrects it.
Please disregard my previous email.
Steve
On 8/21/23 02:41 PM, Steven A. Falco wrote:
Not sure if this is a known problem, but I'm getting build failures from mock
on rawhide. F37, F38, and F39 are ok.
Not sure if this is a known problem, but I'm getting build failures from mock
on rawhide. F37, F38, and F39 are ok.
Steve
Error:
Problem: package wxGTK-devel-3.2.2.1-5.fc39.x86_64 from fedora requires
libwx_gtk3u_webview-3.2.so.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2229718
Upstream Release Monitoring
changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|perl-Mozilla-CA-20230807 is |perl-Mozilla-CA-20230821
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2229718
--- Comment #7 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
Created attachment 1984435
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1984435=edit
Update to 20230821 (#2229718)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC l
']' returned non-zero exit status 1.
StdOut:
setting SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH=1692576000
error: Bad file: ./Mozilla-CA-20230821.tar.gz: No such file or directory
RPM build errors:
Bad file: ./Mozilla-CA-20230821.tar.gz: No such file or directory
Traceback:
File
"/usr/local/lib/python3.11/site-pac
On Sat, Aug 19, 2023 at 4:58 PM Maxwell G wrote:
>
> On Sat Aug 19, 2023 at 22:13 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > On 19. 08. 23 19:44, Maxwell G wrote:
> > > Hi Pythonistas,
> > >
> > > %pyproject_save_files automatically handles marking license files
> > > with %license when a build backend
The following packages are orphaned and will be retired when they
are orphaned for six weeks, unless someone adopts them. If you know for sure
that the package should be retired, please do so now with a proper reason:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_remove_a_package_at_end_of_life
Note: If
In one week, 2023-08-28, I plan to update abseil-cpp from 20230125.3 to
20230802.0 (Abseil LTS branch, Aug 2023)[1] in side tags for F40/Rawhide
and F39/Branched.
Like all new calendar versions of abseil-cpp, this breaks ABI
compatibility and bumps the SONAME version. There are no intentional
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232990
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2023-83b10b142b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-83b10b142b
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232990
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2023-903bd708be has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-903bd708be
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232990
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version||perl-BibTeX-Parser-1.04-1.f
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2229845
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2230299
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232993
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Status|MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232990
Bug 2232990 depends on bug 2232993, which changed state.
Bug 2232993 Summary: perl-LaTeX-ToUnicode-0.53 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232993
What|Removed |Added
The following packages are orphaned and will be retired when they
are orphaned for six weeks, unless someone adopts them. If you know for sure
that the package should be retired, please do so now with a proper reason:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_remove_a_package_at_end_of_life
Note: If
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232990
--- Comment #2 from Petr Pisar ---
The minimal version seems arbitrary. I will retain the old value and push this
into all Fedora releases.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232993
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2229845
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|jples...@redhat.com,|
|ka...@ucw.cz,
On Mon, Aug 21, 2023 at 03:17:21PM +0200, Marián Konček wrote:
> I opened a PR adding mingw subpackages to libsodium according to my best
> knowledge (which is not too large related to mingw packaging):
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libsodium/pull-request/3
>
> I talked with the maintainer
Hi
Please check out [1] for a sample unified native/mingw spec with
autotools build. Specific remarks:
- Add %{?mingw_debug_package}
- Explicit BR on mingw-binutils probably unnecessary
- Try %global _configure ../configure instead of cloning the entire
source tree
- Add
I opened a PR adding mingw subpackages to libsodium according to my best
knowledge (which is not too large related to mingw packaging):
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libsodium/pull-request/3
I talked with the maintainer and it could be accepted, but I would like
someone more experienced
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232993
--- Comment #1 from Petr Pisar ---
Many new code. Safer for Rawhide only.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232993
Report this comment as SPAM:
Sounds good!
Leslie Satenstein
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 05:08:06 a.m. GMT-4, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
On Do, 17.08.23 08:25, Chris Adams (li...@cmadams.net) wrote:
> Once upon a time, Lennart Poettering said:
> > Yes, and if this is not what you want, then disable the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232993
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232993
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||2232990
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232990
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||2232993
--- Comment #1 from Petr Pisar
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232990
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232889
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version||perl-ORLite-2.00-1.fc39
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232294
Miro Hrončok changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|perl-Wx-GLCanvas|perl-Wx
Blocks|2168842
Hello.
I am the main admin of python-argcomplete in Fedora. The package is severely
outdated but works.
I don't want to maintain it, but pytest uses it for tests, so I don't want to
be retired. Is there somebody else who would take better care of it than I do?
$ repoquery -q
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232889
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2233072
Bug ID: 2233072
Summary: perl-DB_File-1.859 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-DB_File
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
On Do, 17.08.23 08:25, Chris Adams (li...@cmadams.net) wrote:
> Once upon a time, Lennart Poettering said:
> > Yes, and if this is not what you want, then disable the
> > ratelimit. That's what I am saying?
>
> It would be useful for systemd to have "cooldown periods" for things,
> similar to
Dne 21. 08. 23 v 10:32 Florian Weimer napsal(a):
Over the time we had several workshops about SPDX. Some people did the SPDX
migrations for others (me included).
Some of the PR are not merged yet. E.g.
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/redhat-rpm-config/pull-request/251
The License: field
* Miroslav Suchý:
> Over the time we had several workshops about SPDX. Some people did the SPDX
> migrations for others (me included).
>
> Some of the PR are not merged yet. E.g.
>
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/redhat-rpm-config/pull-request/251
The License: field is incomplete, it needs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2232294
--- Comment #8 from Michal Josef Spacek ---
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #6)
> However, perl-Wx-0.9932-29.fc39 was built with wxGTK 3.2.2.1-3.fc39
>
> See https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=2248887
There is
47 matches
Mail list logo
