2017-10-16 @ 14:00 UTC - Fedora QA Devel Meeting

[Tim Flink]

# Fedora QA Devel Meeting
# Date: 2017-10-16
# Time: 14:00 UTC
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto)
# Location: #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net


https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Qadevel-20171016

If you have any additional topics, please reply to this thread or add
them in the wiki doc.

Tim


Proposed Agenda
===

Announcements and Information
-
  - Please list announcements or significant information items below so
the meeting goes faster

Tasking
---
  - Does anyone need tasks to do?

Potential Other Topics
--

  - deployment of ansiblize branches

Open Floor
--
  - TBD


pgpE7_kHXa4TR.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
qa-devel mailing list -- qa-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to qa-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[EPEL-devel] Fedora EPEL 7 updates-testing report

[updates]

The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing:
 Age  URL
 952  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-1087   
dokuwiki-0-0.24.20140929c.el7
 714  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-dac7ed832f   
mcollective-2.8.4-1.el7
 296  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-04bc9dd81d   
libbsd-0.8.3-1.el7
 194  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-d241156dfe   
mod_cluster-1.3.3-10.el7
 191  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-7ecb12e378   
python-XStatic-jquery-ui-1.12.0.1-1.el7
  26  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-e27758bd23   
libmspack-0.6-0.1.alpha.el7
  23  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-52b8147c68   
openvpn-auth-ldap-2.0.3-15.el7
  14  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-4826761f5d   
openvpn-2.4.4-1.el7
  14  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-abe6f98ebf   
tor-0.2.9.12-1.el7
  14  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-0f92580f68   
yadifa-2.2.6-1.el7
  10  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-17b77b3268   
botan-1.10.17-1.el7
  10  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-3c06a7eecf   
nagios-4.3.4-3.el7
   7  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-9e6a789af9   
check-mk-1.2.8p26-1.el7
   2  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-853d71e01b   
tnef-1.4.15-1.el7


The following builds have been pushed to Fedora EPEL 7 updates-testing

fabric-1.14.0-1.el7
percolator-3.01.02-1.el7

Details about builds:



 fabric-1.14.0-1.el7 (FEDORA-EPEL-2017-2d454075eb)
 A simple Pythonic remote deployment tool

Update Information:

Update to 1.14.0 (rhbz #1485519)

References:

  [ 1 ] Bug #1485519 - fabric-1.14.0 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1485519




 percolator-3.01.02-1.el7 (FEDORA-EPEL-2017-55f697017d)
 Software for postprocessing of shotgun proteomics data

Update Information:

- Update to 3.01.02

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

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

[updates]

The following Fedora EPEL 6 Security updates need testing:
 Age  URL
 830  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-7031   
python-virtualenv-12.0.7-1.el6
 824  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-7168   
rubygem-crack-0.3.2-2.el6
 714  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-e2b4b5b2fb   
mcollective-2.8.4-1.el6
 686  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-35e240edd9   
thttpd-2.25b-24.el6
 296  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-e3e50897ac   
libbsd-0.8.3-2.el6
  26  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-4c76ddcc92   
libmspack-0.6-0.1.alpha.el6
  14  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-a437fba22e   
openvpn-2.4.4-1.el6
  14  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-e4d447e97c   
tor-0.2.9.12-1.el6
  10  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-1f4bfd5d1d   
botan-1.8.15-2.el6
  10  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-164cc614ff   
nagios-4.3.4-4.el6
   7  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-8abafd9ad0   
check-mk-1.2.6p16-5.el6
   3  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-0177a71c41   
tnef-1.4.15-1.el6
   2  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-f7e4cbd529   
golang-1.7.6-2.el6


The following builds have been pushed to Fedora EPEL 6 updates-testing

percolator-3.01.02-1.el6

Details about builds:



 percolator-3.01.02-1.el6 (FEDORA-EPEL-2017-81d89b08e7)
 Software for postprocessing of shotgun proteomics data

Update Information:

- Update to 3.01.02

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

Re: Updates for Firefox 57 beta

[Greg Evenden]

> Hello,
> 
> Now that FESCo has ruled that "firefox 57beta is removed from f25/f26
> updates-testing but stays in f27/rawhide", could we at least keep
> getting new builds in koji for f25/f26? Judging by the feedback in
> bodhi, the various threads here, rhbz and FESCo tickets, there is a
> number of users who don't mind sticking with Firefox 57. Going back to
> v56 would entail undoing a number of changes and dealing with possible
> breakages, only to repeat the whole process in about a month. By the
> way, beta 8 was released on Friday.
> 
> Best regards
as i have asked Martin himself via Email, he wont be compiling every BETA 
Release, more than likely he'll do Beta 9, Beta 11 an Beta 13, an then the 
Release Candidate.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Do I need Epoch: for downgrades in rawhide?

[Neal Gompa]

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 4:52 PM, William Moreno
 wrote:
>
>
> El 15/10/2017 10:36 a. m., "Neal Gompa"  escribió:
>
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Till Hofmann
>  wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> if I want to downgrade a package in rawhide only (I only pushed the
>> update to rawhide), do I need to add an Epoch?
>>
>> background:
>> I updated librealsense to librealsense2 and afterwards realized that the
>> new library is a major rewrite that does not support older camera
>> models. After consulting with upstream, I came to the conclusion that we
>> should stay with version 1 for the librealsense package and submit
>> librealsense2 as a separate package. I think Debian is planning to do
>> the same thing. Therefore, I need to downgrade librealsense in rawhide
>> to version 1.
>>
>
> I would suggest that you submit librealsense1 as a separate package,
> instead. The applications that use the older versions should probably
> be linked to the older one, but things should progressively migrate to
> the newer one.
>
>
> And add Provides: librealsense2 so people can find the same package name in
> debianland and fedoraland.
>
> I have seem than the README file of *a lot* of app list requirements and
> build requeriments using the names of packages in Debian/Ubuntu and some
> times it is not trivial to find the equivalent package name for epel/fedora
>

This doesn't actually make sense to do. People should be searching for
librealsense-devel for building against, and Debian ships
librealsense-dev, so it more or less matches.

Runtime libraries are automatically picked up by the dependency
generator, so people should never need to specify it.

-- 
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Do I need Epoch: for downgrades in rawhide?

[William Moreno]

--
Enviado desde mi móvil, disculpe la brevedad
William

El 15/10/2017 10:36 a. m., "Neal Gompa"  escribió:

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Till Hofmann
 wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> if I want to downgrade a package in rawhide only (I only pushed the
> update to rawhide), do I need to add an Epoch?
>
> background:
> I updated librealsense to librealsense2 and afterwards realized that the
> new library is a major rewrite that does not support older camera
> models. After consulting with upstream, I came to the conclusion that we
> should stay with version 1 for the librealsense package and submit
> librealsense2 as a separate package. I think Debian is planning to do
> the same thing. Therefore, I need to downgrade librealsense in rawhide
> to version 1.
>

I would suggest that you submit librealsense1 as a separate package,
instead. The applications that use the older versions should probably
be linked to the older one, but things should progressively migrate to
the newer one.


And add Provides: librealsense2 so people can find the same package name in
debianland and fedoraland.

I have seem than the README file of *a lot* of app list requirements and
build requeriments using the names of packages in Debian/Ubuntu and some
times it is not trivial to find the equivalent package name for epel/fedora
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1469031] Please update perl-Plack version

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1469031



--- Comment #5 from Emmanuel Seyman  ---
Okay... Investigating this bug, I found out two things:

a) perl-Plack has no owner on the EPEL7 branch. I've reached out to the repo
owners and asked for ownership.

b) The dependency on HTTP::Tiny 0.034 was introduced in Plack 1.0029 and the
package currently in EPEL7 should require it.

https://github.com/plack/Plack/commit/bb5f9cab31d6262b98edd5f10660163fc36020ee

Given this, I don't have much less of an issue releasing an update to 1.0033 in
EPEL7.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

EDB: a cross platform x86/x86-64 debugger - Status in Fedora

[Michael Cullen]

Hi,

I stumbled upon EDB [1] the other day and it looks fairly close to what
I've been looking for for a while now. It seems the Fedora package is
about 5 years out of date so I submitted a PR [2] for it. There's also a
COPR build of that branch [3] in case anyone wants to try it. Finally,
there's a ticket for the update here to match the usual process: [4]

There has been a FTBFS ticket [5] open since 2017-02-17 which this PR
also fixes (before removing the offending line completely!)  

As indicated in the PR, I am willing to take over this package if the
original maintainer is no longer interested.

Thanks,
Michael

[1] https://github.com/eteran/edb-debugger
[2] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/edb/pull-request/1
[3] https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mich181189/edb-update-test/
[4] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1502328
[5] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1423511
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Fedora Modular bikeshed compose report: 20171015.n.0 changes

[Fedora Rawhide Report]

OLD: Fedora-Modular-Bikeshed-20171014.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Modular-Bikeshed-20171015.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 of upgraded packages:   0.00 B
Size of downgraded packages: 0.00 B

Size change of upgraded packages:   0.00 B
Size change of downgraded packages: 0.00 B

= ADDED IMAGES =

= DROPPED IMAGES =

= ADDED PACKAGES =

= DROPPED PACKAGES =

= UPGRADED PACKAGES =

= DOWNGRADED PACKAGES =
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Fedora 27-20171015.n.0 compose check report

[Fedora compose checker]

Missing expected images:

Workstation live i386
Kde live i386

Failed openQA tests: 25/137 (x86_64), 2/22 (i386), 1/2 (arm)

New failures (same test did not fail in 27-20171014.n.0):

ID: 158211  Test: x86_64 universal install_xfs
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/158211
ID: 158216  Test: x86_64 universal install_blivet_btrfs
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/158216
ID: 158239  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_minimal_64bit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/158239
ID: 158255  Test: x86_64 universal install_shrink_ext4
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/158255

Old failures (same test failed in 27-20171014.n.0):

ID: 158123  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso base_services_start
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/158123
ID: 158147  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_no_user
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/158147
ID: 158149  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso base_services_start
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/158149
ID: 158153  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_update_graphical
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/158153
ID: 158164  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso install_default_upload
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/158164
ID: 158166  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso install_no_user
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/158166
ID: 158175  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_notifications_live
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/158175
ID: 158178  Test: arm Minimal-raw_xz-raw.xz base_services_start_arm
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/158178
ID: 158183  Test: x86_64 Workstation Ostree-dvd_ostree-iso install_no_user
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/158183
ID: 158185  Test: x86_64 Workstation Ostree-dvd_ostree-iso 
base_services_start
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/158185
ID: 158195  Test: x86_64 universal install_mirrorlist_graphical
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/158195
ID: 158227  Test: x86_64 universal install_package_set_kde
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/158227
ID: 158244  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_kde_64bit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/158244
ID: 158245  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_desktop_encrypted_64bit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/158245
ID: 158249  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_kde_64bit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/158249
ID: 158250  Test: x86_64 universal install_asian_language
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/158250
ID: 158260  Test: x86_64 universal install_rescue_encrypted
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/158260
ID: 158261  Test: x86_64 universal install_rescue_encrypted@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/158261
ID: 158268  Test: i386 universal upgrade_desktop_32bit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/158268
ID: 158278  Test: i386 universal install_package_set_kde
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/158278
ID: 158283  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/158283
ID: 158284  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_desktop_64bit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/158284
ID: 158291  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_server_domain_controller
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/158291
ID: 158316  Test: x86_64 universal install_cyrillic_language
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/158316

Soft failed openQA tests: 3/137 (x86_64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)

New soft failures (same test did not soft fail in 27-20171014.n.0):

ID: 158241  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_server_64bit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/158241

Old soft failures (same test soft failed in 27-20171014.n.0):

ID: 158246  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_minimal_64bit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/158246
ID: 158248  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_server_64bit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/158248

Passed openQA tests: 99/137 (x86_64), 20/22 (i386), 1/2 (arm)

New passes (same test did not pass in 27-20171014.n.0):

ID: 158118  Test: x86_64 Server-boot-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/158118
ID: 158208  Test: x86_64 universal install_delete_partial
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/158208
ID: 158230  Test: x86_64 universal install_multi_empty@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/158230
ID: 158247  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_desktop_64bit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/158247
ID: 158252  Test: x86_64 universal install_kickstart_nfs
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/158252
ID: 158287  Test: x86_64 universal install_software_raid@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/158287

Skipped openQA tests: 9 of 161

Installed system changes in test i386 Server-dvd-iso install_default: 
2 packages(s) 

Fedora Rawhide-20171015.n.0 compose check report

[Fedora compose checker]

Missing expected images:

Server dvd i386
Workstation live i386
Server boot i386
Kde live i386

Failed openQA tests: 85/128 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm)

New failures (same test did not fail in Rawhide-20171014.n.0):

ID: 157939  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso base_services_start
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/157939
ID: 157943  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_update_graphical
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/157943
ID: 157945  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_browser
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/157945

Old failures (same test failed in Rawhide-20171014.n.0):

ID: 157911  Test: x86_64 Server-boot-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/157911
ID: 157912  Test: x86_64 Server-boot-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/157912
ID: 157913  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_default_upload
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/157913
ID: 157914  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/157914
ID: 157921  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_repository_nfs_variation
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/157921
ID: 157922  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_repository_nfs_graphical
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/157922
ID: 157931  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_updates_nfs
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/157931
ID: 157933  Test: x86_64 Everything-boot-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/157933
ID: 157934  Test: x86_64 Everything-boot-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/157934
ID: 157937  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_no_user
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/157937
ID: 157948  Test: x86_64 Workstation-boot-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/157948
ID: 157949  Test: x86_64 Workstation-boot-iso memory_check@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/157949
ID: 157950  Test: x86_64 Workstation-boot-iso memory_check
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/157950
ID: 157951  Test: x86_64 Workstation-boot-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/157951
ID: 157952  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso install_default_upload
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/157952
ID: 157953  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/157953
ID: 157954  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso install_no_user
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/157954
ID: 157963  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_notifications_live
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/157963
ID: 157965  Test: arm Minimal-raw_xz-raw.xz 
install_arm_image_deployment_upload
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/157965
ID: 157967  Test: x86_64 Atomic-dvd_ostree-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/157967
ID: 157968  Test: x86_64 Atomic-dvd_ostree-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/157968
ID: 157969  Test: x86_64 universal install_package_set_minimal
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/157969
ID: 157970  Test: x86_64 universal install_anaconda_text
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/157970
ID: 157972  Test: x86_64 universal install_repository_http_variation
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/157972
ID: 157973  Test: x86_64 universal install_repository_http_graphical
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/157973
ID: 157974  Test: x86_64 universal install_mirrorlist_graphical
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/157974
ID: 157975  Test: x86_64 universal install_delete_pata
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/157975
ID: 157976  Test: x86_64 universal install_delete_pata@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/157976
ID: 157977  Test: x86_64 universal install_sata
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/157977
ID: 157978  Test: x86_64 universal install_sata@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/157978
ID: 157979  Test: x86_64 universal install_kickstart_user_creation
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/157979
ID: 157980  Test: x86_64 universal install_scsi_updates_img
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/157980
ID: 157981  Test: x86_64 universal install_multi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/157981
ID: 157982  Test: x86_64 universal install_multi@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/157982
ID: 157983  Test: x86_64 universal install_simple_encrypted
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/157983
ID: 157984  Test: x86_64 universal install_simple_free_space
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/157984
ID: 157985  Test: x86_64 universal install_multi_empty
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/157985
ID: 157986  Test: x86_64 universal 

Fedora Modular 27 compose report: 20171013.n.0 changes

[Fedora Branched Report]

OLD: Fedora-Modular-27-20171013.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Modular-27-20171013.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 of upgraded packages:   0.00 B
Size of downgraded packages: 0.00 B

Size change of upgraded packages:   0.00 B
Size change of downgraded packages: 0.00 B

= ADDED IMAGES =

= DROPPED IMAGES =

= ADDED PACKAGES =

= DROPPED PACKAGES =

= UPGRADED PACKAGES =

= DOWNGRADED PACKAGES =
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Do I need Epoch: for downgrades in rawhide?

[Randy Barlow]

On 10/15/2017 12:34 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
> I would suggest that you submit librealsense1 as a separate package,
> instead. The applications that use the older versions should probably
> be linked to the older one, but things should progressively migrate to
> the newer one.

This sounds like a reasonable suggestion to me, but I'll add that it
would be good to file a Change Request for this too, so that users and
other developers have a heads up about the change:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Policy



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Batched updates for development cycles

[Randy Barlow]

I filed an issue to request this change:

https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues/1895



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501399] perl-Mojolicious-7.47 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501399

Emmanuel Seyman  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
   Fixed In Version||perl-Mojolicious-7.47-1.fc2
   ||8
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2017-10-15 13:57:11



--- Comment #1 from Emmanuel Seyman  ---
Built for rawhide:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=984727

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501338] perl-Geo-IP-1.51 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501338

Emmanuel Seyman  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
   Fixed In Version||perl-Geo-IP-1.51-1.fc28
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2017-10-15 13:53:51



--- Comment #1 from Emmanuel Seyman  ---
Built for rawhide:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=984726

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501194] perl-Devel-Caller-IgnoreNamespaces-1.1 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501194

Emmanuel Seyman  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
   Fixed In Version||perl-Devel-Caller-IgnoreNam
   ||espaces-1.1-1.fc28
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2017-10-15 13:52:28



--- Comment #1 from Emmanuel Seyman  ---
Built for rawhide:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=984725

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501191] perl-DBIx-Class-Schema-Diff-1.07 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501191

Emmanuel Seyman  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
   Fixed In Version||perl-DBIx-Class-Schema-Diff
   ||-1.07-1.fc28
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2017-10-15 13:51:43



--- Comment #1 from Emmanuel Seyman  ---
Built for rawhide:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=984724

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Gerald B. Cox]

For those of you who were concerned about LastPass:

https://www.engadget.com/2017/10/13/lastpass-beta-firefox-57-webextension/

The beta version is available now - The final version will be ready when
the browser arrives on November 14th.

As I mentioned earlier, for those who want to use a GPLv3 product, check
out Bitwarden:

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/bitwarden-password-manager/
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Do I need Epoch: for downgrades in rawhide?

[Neal Gompa]

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Till Hofmann
 wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> if I want to downgrade a package in rawhide only (I only pushed the
> update to rawhide), do I need to add an Epoch?
>
> background:
> I updated librealsense to librealsense2 and afterwards realized that the
> new library is a major rewrite that does not support older camera
> models. After consulting with upstream, I came to the conclusion that we
> should stay with version 1 for the librealsense package and submit
> librealsense2 as a separate package. I think Debian is planning to do
> the same thing. Therefore, I need to downgrade librealsense in rawhide
> to version 1.
>

I would suggest that you submit librealsense1 as a separate package,
instead. The applications that use the older versions should probably
be linked to the older one, but things should progressively migrate to
the newer one.

Alternatively, you could do what's done for FUSE, and build both
versions within the same source package and ship each as subpackages.


-- 
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Gerald B. Cox]

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 7:47 AM, Gerald Henriksen 
wrote:

> Except FF57 is stable (at least no one so far is complaining about it
> being otherwise).
>
> For those who use its plugins then there may be an issue (depending on
> how many do a last minute update vs. can't/won't be udated) but that
> day of reckoning is coming sooner or later unless they choose to never
> update Firefox again.
>

Completely agree.  Fx 57 is an extremely important release for Mozilla and
they've done
and excellent job communicating the changes and getting the release ready.
The main
thing people are going to notice is the improved performance and cleaner
interface.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Do I need Epoch: for downgrades in rawhide?

[Till Hofmann]

Hi all,

if I want to downgrade a package in rawhide only (I only pushed the
update to rawhide), do I need to add an Epoch?

background:
I updated librealsense to librealsense2 and afterwards realized that the
new library is a major rewrite that does not support older camera
models. After consulting with upstream, I came to the conclusion that we
should stay with version 1 for the librealsense package and submit
librealsense2 as a separate package. I think Debian is planning to do
the same thing. Therefore, I need to downgrade librealsense in rawhide
to version 1.

Regards,
Till
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Gerald Henriksen]

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 15:35:56 +0200, you wrote:

>IMHO, it would be reasonable and common sense to either postpone F27 
>until FF57 has become stable or to revert the firefox change.

Except FF57 is stable (at least no one so far is complaining about it
being otherwise).

For those who use its plugins then there may be an issue (depending on
how many do a last minute update vs. can't/won't be udated) but that
day of reckoning is coming sooner or later unless they choose to never
update Firefox again.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Updates for Firefox 57 beta

[Gerald B. Cox]

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 3:45 AM, Alexander Ploumistos <
alex.ploumis...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Now that FESCo has ruled that "firefox 57beta is removed from f25/f26
> updates-testing but stays in f27/rawhide", could we at least keep
> getting new builds in koji for f25/f26? Judging by the feedback in
> bodhi, the various threads here, rhbz and FESCo tickets, there is a
> number of users who don't mind sticking with Firefox 57. Going back to
> v56 would entail undoing a number of changes and dealing with possible
> breakages, only to repeat the whole process in about a month. By the
> way, beta 8 was released on Friday.
>

I don't see why not, but that is up to the maintainer.  The issue wasn't
the testing.  It was the use
of the updates-testing process for something that wasn't intended to be
pushed to stable.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Ralf Corsepius]

On 10/13/2017 07:11 PM, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:


Which all means our release planning is too focused on Gnome and not enough 
thought is put into the roadmap of major non-Gnome desktop apps such as Firefox 
or Libreoffice. I'd argue that this kind of Firefox change is way more 
impacting for our users than the latest gnome settings redesign.


Definitely. Fedora in danger to become (or already is) Gnome's and 
Firefox's "puppet".



This needs to change. Fedora should be in service of its users not 
arbitrary upstreams or their package maintainers.



Too late to switch to ESR now, the best outcome would be to make FF57 a major 
feature of F27 (since it will be), ship it (even as prerelease) from day 1 and 
pretend that was always what our release engineering intended to do.
IMHO, it would be reasonable and common sense to either postpone F27 
until FF57 has become stable or to revert the firefox change.


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

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

[Simo Sorce]

On Sat, 2017-10-14 at 04:23 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> 
> Am 13.10.2017 um 18:58 schrieb Simo Sorce:
> > On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 09:43 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Adam not replying just to you but the general thread.
> > What is the point of bringing up all these plugins breakage ? If
> > Mozilla doesn't care, at most you are going to defer the inevitable
> > by
> > what? 2/3 weeks ? You can do the same by deferring your upgrade to
> > Fedora 27 on your own 
> 
> do you not realize that FF57 is in updates-testing of FEDORA 26
> currently?

Yes, that is a mistake, there is no need to get all heated up about
that.

Simo.

-- 
Simo Sorce
Sr. Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Updates for Firefox 57 beta

[Alexander Ploumistos]

Hello,

Now that FESCo has ruled that "firefox 57beta is removed from f25/f26
updates-testing but stays in f27/rawhide", could we at least keep
getting new builds in koji for f25/f26? Judging by the feedback in
bodhi, the various threads here, rhbz and FESCo tickets, there is a
number of users who don't mind sticking with Firefox 57. Going back to
v56 would entail undoing a number of changes and dealing with possible
breakages, only to repeat the whole process in about a month. By the
way, beta 8 was released on Friday.

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

[Bug 1502214] New: abi-compliance-checker: behavior changed within f26 release

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1502214

Bug ID: 1502214
   Summary: abi-compliance-checker: behavior changed within f26
release
   Product: Fedora
   Version: 26
 Component: abi-compliance-checker
  Keywords: Regression
  Assignee: hobbes1...@gmail.com
  Reporter: nmavr...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: hobbes1...@gmail.com, or...@nwra.com,
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org



Description of problem:
After updating my F26 CI systems, the gnutls CI fails with:

"ERROR: the version of the ABI dump is too old and unsupported anymore, please
regenerate it"


The CI works fine with the abi-compliance-checker included in the initial F26
builds (abi-compliance-checker-2.1-1.fc26.noarch). 

The error is far from easy or trivial to address as the files after which the
ABI was checked do not exist.


Please follow the rules for stable releases in updating on a stable release:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy#Stable_Releases

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Batched updates for development cycles

[Peter Robinson]

On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 11:14 PM, Randy Barlow
 wrote:
> On 10/14/2017 12:45 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
>>> Since branched releases have the updates-testing repository enabled by
>>> default, won't the effect you desire happen anyway?
>> No, because the updates-testing repo is enabled by default for
>> installs, it's not enabled for the composes so things like Live, ARM
>> and cloud images when composed don't include the contents of
>> updates-testing. If you updated them once they are booted they pull in
>> testing, but the pungi compose that generates them only consumes the
>> f27 tag.
>
> Ah, that makes sense. Do composes happen every day for branched, or are
> they special events? I ask because the way Bodhi moves updates from
> batched to stable is by running a very simple CLI (via cron). If the
> composes are special non-daily events, maybe releng could simply run
> that script when they want to make a compose. If they are daily events,
> I think we'll need to patch Bodhi so that it skips the batched thing for
> branched releases.

Daily run by cron job, only composes that are special events are
release candidates.

>>> I'm not opposed to modifying the system so that it doesn't batch for
>>> stable releases, but I'm curious why the default updates-testing repo
>>> doesn't satisfy the need.
>> You're confusing stable releases (F25 and F26) vs development/branched
>> releases (F27) and see above for the answer to that. IMO the stable
>> releases should have batched updates, the branched releases either
>> shouldn't or if they do the 'batches' should be sent out daily.
>
> Sorry, I meant to say "branched" instead of "stable", and actually that
> second paragraph was redundant with my first one and I could have just
> left it off ☺

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