Fedora Rawhide-20180117.n.1 compose check report

[Fedora compose checker]

No missing expected images.

Failed openQA tests: 28/129 (x86_64), 11/24 (i386), 1/2 (arm)

New failures (same test did not fail in Rawhide-20180116.n.0):

ID: 186693  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_browser
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186693
ID: 186694  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso 
desktop_notifications_postinstall
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186694
ID: 186784  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_desktop_encrypted_64bit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186784

Old failures (same test failed in Rawhide-20180116.n.0):

ID: 186654  Test: x86_64 Server-boot-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186654
ID: 186655  Test: x86_64 Server-boot-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186655
ID: 186667  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_filesystem_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186667
ID: 186669  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_role_deploy_domain_controller
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186669
ID: 186677  Test: i386 Server-boot-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186677
ID: 186700  Test: i386 Workstation-boot-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186700
ID: 186701  Test: i386 Workstation-boot-iso memory_check
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186701
ID: 186702  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_notifications_live
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186702
ID: 186703  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso install_default_upload
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186703
ID: 186704  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186704
ID: 186705  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso install_no_user
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186705
ID: 186715  Test: i386 KDE-live-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186715
ID: 186716  Test: arm Minimal-raw_xz-raw.xz 
install_arm_image_deployment_upload
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186716
ID: 186724  Test: x86_64 universal install_blivet_no_swap
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186724
ID: 186725  Test: x86_64 universal install_blivet_software_raid
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186725
ID: 186731  Test: x86_64 universal install_blivet_btrfs
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186731
ID: 186732  Test: x86_64 universal install_blivet_xfs
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186732
ID: 186734  Test: x86_64 universal install_blivet_lvmthin
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186734
ID: 186737  Test: x86_64 universal install_blivet_btrfs@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186737
ID: 186738  Test: x86_64 universal install_blivet_no_swap@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186738
ID: 186740  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_kde_64bit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186740
ID: 186745  Test: x86_64 universal install_package_set_kde
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186745
ID: 186748  Test: x86_64 universal install_blivet_software_raid@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186748
ID: 186749  Test: x86_64 universal install_blivet_lvmthin@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186749
ID: 186758  Test: x86_64 universal install_blivet_ext3
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186758
ID: 186768  Test: x86_64 universal install_blivet_ext3@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186768
ID: 186780  Test: x86_64 universal install_blivet_xfs@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186780
ID: 186793  Test: i386 universal install_blivet_xfs
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186793
ID: 186794  Test: i386 universal install_package_set_kde
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186794
ID: 186797  Test: i386 universal install_blivet_ext3
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186797
ID: 186798  Test: i386 universal install_blivet_btrfs
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186798
ID: 186799  Test: i386 universal install_blivet_no_swap
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186799
ID: 186804  Test: i386 universal install_blivet_software_raid
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186804
ID: 186805  Test: i386 universal install_blivet_lvmthin
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186805
ID: 186836  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_server_domain_controller
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186836
ID: 186837  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_realmd_client
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186837
ID: 186840  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_kde_64bit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186840

Soft failed openQA tests: 16/129 (x86_64), 4/24 (i386)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)

Old soft failures (same test soft failed in 

[Bug 1392472] root is not built for ppc64

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1392472



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
root-6.12.04-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-2cb0650968

-- 
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 1392478] root is not built for ppc64le

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1392478



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
root-6.12.04-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-2cb0650968

-- 
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 1533867] perl-Socket-2.026 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1533867

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-Socket-2.027-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 testing repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-cb6a92a511

-- 
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 1534083] perl-Socket-2.027 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1534083

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-Socket-2.027-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 testing repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-cb6a92a511

-- 
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

[Test-Announce] Fedora 28 Rawhide 20180117.n.1 nightly compose nominated for testing

[rawhide]

Announcing the creation of a new nightly release validation test event
for Fedora 28 Rawhide 20180117.n.1. Please help run some tests for this
nightly compose if you have time. For more information on nightly
release validation testing, see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Release_validation_test_plan

Notable package version changes:
pungi - 20180111.n.0: pungi-4.1.21-3.fc28.src, 20180117.n.1: 
pungi-4.1.21-4.fc28.src

Test coverage information for the current release can be seen at:
https://www.happyassassin.net/testcase_stats/28

You can see all results, find testing instructions and image download
locations, and enter results on the Summary page:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_28_Rawhide_20180117.n.1_Summary

The individual test result pages are:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_28_Rawhide_20180117.n.1_Installation
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_28_Rawhide_20180117.n.1_Base
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_28_Rawhide_20180117.n.1_Server
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_28_Rawhide_20180117.n.1_Cloud
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_28_Rawhide_20180117.n.1_Desktop
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_28_Rawhide_20180117.n.1_Security_Lab

Thank you for testing!
-- 
Mail generated by relvalconsumer: https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/relvalconsumer
___
test-announce mailing list -- test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-announce-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1392478] root is not built for ppc64le

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1392478



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
root-6.12.04-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-b23b84434f

-- 
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 1392472] root is not built for ppc64

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1392472



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
root-6.12.04-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-b23b84434f

-- 
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

Fedora Rawhide-20180116.n.0 compose check report

[Fedora compose checker]

Missing expected images:

Atomic qcow2 x86_64
Atomic raw-xz x86_64

Failed openQA tests: 27/129 (x86_64), 11/24 (i386), 1/2 (arm)

New failures (same test did not fail in Rawhide-20180115.n.0):

ID: 186259  Test: x86_64 Workstation-boot-iso memory_check@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186259
ID: 186286  Test: x86_64 universal install_blivet_no_swap
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186286
ID: 186287  Test: x86_64 universal install_blivet_software_raid
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186287
ID: 186293  Test: x86_64 universal install_blivet_btrfs
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186293
ID: 186294  Test: x86_64 universal install_blivet_xfs
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186294
ID: 186296  Test: x86_64 universal install_blivet_lvmthin
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186296
ID: 186299  Test: x86_64 universal install_blivet_btrfs@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186299
ID: 186300  Test: x86_64 universal install_blivet_no_swap@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186300
ID: 186302  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_kde_64bit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186302
ID: 186310  Test: x86_64 universal install_blivet_software_raid@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186310
ID: 186311  Test: x86_64 universal install_blivet_lvmthin@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186311
ID: 186318  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_kde_64bit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186318
ID: 186320  Test: x86_64 universal install_blivet_ext3
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186320
ID: 186322  Test: x86_64 universal install_multi@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186322
ID: 186330  Test: x86_64 universal install_blivet_ext3@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186330
ID: 186342  Test: x86_64 universal install_blivet_xfs@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186342
ID: 186355  Test: i386 universal install_blivet_xfs
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186355
ID: 186359  Test: i386 universal install_blivet_ext3
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186359
ID: 186360  Test: i386 universal install_blivet_btrfs
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186360
ID: 186361  Test: i386 universal install_blivet_no_swap
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186361
ID: 186366  Test: i386 universal install_blivet_software_raid
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186366
ID: 186367  Test: i386 universal install_blivet_lvmthin
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186367

Old failures (same test failed in Rawhide-20180115.n.0):

ID: 186216  Test: x86_64 Server-boot-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186216
ID: 186217  Test: x86_64 Server-boot-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186217
ID: 186229  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_filesystem_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186229
ID: 186231  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_role_deploy_domain_controller
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186231
ID: 186239  Test: i386 Server-boot-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186239
ID: 186262  Test: i386 Workstation-boot-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186262
ID: 186263  Test: i386 Workstation-boot-iso memory_check
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186263
ID: 186264  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_notifications_live
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186264
ID: 186265  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso install_default_upload
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186265
ID: 186266  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186266
ID: 186267  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso install_no_user
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186267
ID: 186277  Test: i386 KDE-live-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186277
ID: 186278  Test: arm Minimal-raw_xz-raw.xz 
install_arm_image_deployment_upload
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186278
ID: 186307  Test: x86_64 universal install_package_set_kde
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186307
ID: 186356  Test: i386 universal install_package_set_kde
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186356
ID: 186652  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_server_domain_controller
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186652
ID: 186653  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_realmd_client
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186653

Soft failed openQA tests: 25/129 (x86_64), 5/24 (i386)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)

New soft failures (same test did not soft fail in Rawhide-20180115.n.0):

ID: 186326  Test: x86_64 universal install_iscsi
URL: 

[Bug 1392472] root is not built for ppc64

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1392472

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
root-6.12.04-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-cf857aea6b

-- 
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 1392478] root is not built for ppc64le

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1392478

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
root-6.12.04-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-cf857aea6b

-- 
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 1535738] perl-Net-Twitter-4.01043 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1535738



--- Comment #2 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
hotness's scratch build of perl-Net-Twitter-4.01043-1.el7.src.rpm for rawhide
completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=24252726

-- 
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 1535738] perl-Net-Twitter-4.01043 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1535738



--- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
Created attachment 1382664
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1382664=edit
[patch] Update to 4.01043 (#1535738)

-- 
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 1535738] New: perl-Net-Twitter-4.01043 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1535738

Bug ID: 1535738
   Summary: perl-Net-Twitter-4.01043 is available
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: perl-Net-Twitter
  Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
  Assignee: jd...@aquezada.com
  Reporter: upstream-release-monitor...@fedoraproject.org
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: jd...@aquezada.com, perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org



Latest upstream release: 4.01043
Current version/release in rawhide: 4.01042-3.fc27
URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Net-Twitter/

Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a
stable branch: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy

More information about the service that created this bug can be found at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring

Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging
changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your
responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still
correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added
upstream.

Based on the information from anitya: 
https://release-monitoring.org/project/3167/

-- 
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 1535735] New: perl-MongoDB-v1.8.1 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1535735

Bug ID: 1535735
   Summary: perl-MongoDB-v1.8.1 is available
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: perl-MongoDB
  Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
  Assignee: ppi...@redhat.com
  Reporter: upstream-release-monitor...@fedoraproject.org
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: m...@v3.sk, perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org,
ppi...@redhat.com



Latest upstream release: v1.8.1
Current version/release in rawhide: 1.8.0-2.fc27
URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/MongoDB/

Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a
stable branch: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy

More information about the service that created this bug can be found at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring

Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging
changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your
responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still
correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added
upstream.

Based on the information from anitya: 
https://release-monitoring.org/project/3121/

-- 
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 1535729] New: perl-Log-Any-1.705 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1535729

Bug ID: 1535729
   Summary: perl-Log-Any-1.705 is available
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: perl-Log-Any
  Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
  Assignee: ticot...@gmail.com
  Reporter: upstream-release-monitor...@fedoraproject.org
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org, st...@silug.org,
ticot...@gmail.com, xav...@bachelot.org



Latest upstream release: 1.705
Current version/release in rawhide: 1.704-1.fc28
URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Log-Any/

Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a
stable branch: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy

More information about the service that created this bug can be found at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring

Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging
changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your
responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still
correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added
upstream.

Based on the information from anitya: 
https://release-monitoring.org/project/6480/

-- 
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

Fedora Objective: Fedora Modularization — The Release

[Langdon White]

I wanted to share with you that the Fedora Council has approved[0] the
latest installment of the Modularity Objective during today's meeting. The
new Objective is "Fedora Modularization — The Release[1]" and the first
"implementation vehicle" is captured in the F28 Addon Modularity Change[2].

As you may have heard, we tried to release the F27 Server Edition as a
"Modular Distribution" but we ran in to some pretty severe problems. As a
result, we have rethought the approach to be even less invasive and allow
for a simpler, phased approach to adoption. If you would like to read more
about the new architecture and why we think it will succeed, see Stephen
Gallagher excellent blog post[3]. He and I will also be presenting on the
topic at two sessions[4][5] on DevConf.  Adam Samalik & I will be
presenting at FOSDEM[6]. Finally, I will also be presenting at SCALE 16x[7].

Please let us know if you have questions or comments here or in
#fedora-modularity.

Langdon White
Modularity Objective Lead^3

[0]: https://pagure.io/Fedora-Council/tickets/issue/170
[1]:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Objectives/Fedora_Modularization_%E2%80%94_The_Release
[2]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/F28AddonModularity

[3]:
https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/modularity-dead-long-live-modularity/

Expect changes in the titles and abstracts:
[4]:
https://devconfcz2018.sched.com/event/DJV6/modules-servers-and-containers-oh-my
[5]:
https://devconfcz2018.sched.com/event/DJYL/fedora-modular-server-in-the-real-world
[6]: https://fosdem.org/2018/schedule/event/fedora_modularity/
[7]: Schedule hasn't been posted yet:
https://www.socallinuxexpo.org/scale/16x
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/F28AddonModularity

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

Re: Status of SWDB (Unified database for DNF)

[Greg Evenden]

ohh okz.  i guess the real questrion is, will DNF3 be usable before Branching 
point? 
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Status of SWDB (Unified database for DNF)

[Adam Williamson]

On Wed, 2018-01-17 at 23:08 +, Greg Evenden wrote:
> igor as long as DNF3 is working/stable before Beta Freeze im sure
> DNF3 can still make it into F28,

Christ, no. DNF's behaviour has consequences just about *everywhere*
you look in the distro. A major new DNF release needs to be landed
*well* before the branch point, at a bare minimum.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Status of SWDB (Unified database for DNF)

[Greg Evenden]

igor as long as DNF3 is working/stable before Beta Freeze im sure DNF3 can 
still make it into F28, however there does need to be a system-wide change made 
for it for f28 IMO 
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Intent to retire: yaml-cpp03

[Richard Shaw]

The only package I am aware of using it was OpenColorIO but the new 1.1.0
release now uses 5.x.

Fedora 27:
# for lib in "libyaml-cpp.so.0.3" "libyaml-cpp.so.0.3()(64bit)"; do
repoquery --source --whatrequires "$lib"; done
Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:00 ago on Wed 17 Jan 2018 02:57:49 PM
CST.
OpenColorIO-1.0.9-18.fc27.src.rpm
yaml-cpp03-0.3.0-13.fc27.src.rpm
Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:01 ago on Wed 17 Jan 2018 02:57:49 PM
CST.
OpenColorIO-1.0.9-18.fc27.src.rpm
yaml-cpp03-0.3.0-13.fc27.src.rpm

Rawhide:
# for lib in "libyaml-cpp.so.0.3" "libyaml-cpp.so.0.3()(64bit)"; do
repoquery --repoid=rawhide --source --whatrequires "$lib"; done
Last metadata expiration check: 0:08:55 ago on Wed 17 Jan 2018 02:49:36 PM
CST.
yaml-cpp03-0.3.0-13.fc27.src.rpm
Last metadata expiration check: 0:08:56 ago on Wed 17 Jan 2018 02:49:36 PM
CST.
yaml-cpp03-0.3.0-13.fc27.src.rpm

Let me know if there are any objections.

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

Re: Self Introduction: Matyas (Mat) Selmeci

[Matthew Miller]

On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 11:25:43AM -0600, Mátyás Selmeci wrote:
> My name is Matyas Selmeci and I work for the Open Science Grid, a
> collaboration of ~100 universities and research labs around the US
> that share batch computing resources with each other. We've been
> developing an RPM-based software stack for our users, some of which
> are based on EPEL packages, and would like to contribute our changes
> and any packages that we think are of general use into EPEL. I look
> forward to being part of the community and working with all of you!

Welcome -- thanks for this effort. Let me know if you run into any
snags or need help getting on board.

-- 
Matthew Miller

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

[Bug 1522691] Upgrade perl-DBD-Firebird to 1.31

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1522691

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Fixed In Version|perl-DBD-Firebird-1.31-1.fc |perl-DBD-Firebird-1.31-1.fc
   |26  |26
   |perl-DBD-Firebird-1.31-1.fc |perl-DBD-Firebird-1.31-1.fc
   |27  |27
   |perl-DBD-Firebird-1.31-1.el |perl-DBD-Firebird-1.31-1.el
   |7   |7
   ||perl-DBD-Firebird-1.31-1.el
   ||6



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-DBD-Firebird-1.31-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.

-- 
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: Self Introduction: Matyas (Mat) Selmeci

[Charalampos Stratakis]

Hello Matyas and welcome!

- Original Message -
> From: "Mátyás Selmeci" 
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" 
> 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 6:25:43 PM
> Subject: Self Introduction: Matyas (Mat) Selmeci
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> My name is Matyas Selmeci and I work for the Open Science Grid, a
> collaboration of ~100 universities and research labs around the US that
> share batch computing resources with each other. We've been developing
> an RPM-based software stack for our users, some of which are based on
> EPEL packages, and would like to contribute our changes and any packages
> that we think are of general use into EPEL. I look forward to being part
> of the community and working with all of you!
> 
> Thanks,
> -Mat
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> 

-- 
Regards,

Charalampos Stratakis
Software Engineer
Python Maintenance Team, Red Hat
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1522691] Upgrade perl-DBD-Firebird to 1.31

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1522691

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Fixed In Version|perl-DBD-Firebird-1.31-1.fc |perl-DBD-Firebird-1.31-1.fc
   |26  |26
   |perl-DBD-Firebird-1.31-1.fc |perl-DBD-Firebird-1.31-1.fc
   |27  |27
   ||perl-DBD-Firebird-1.31-1.el
   ||7



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-DBD-Firebird-1.31-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.

-- 
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

Self Introduction: Matyas (Mat) Selmeci

[Mátyás Selmeci]

Hi all,

My name is Matyas Selmeci and I work for the Open Science Grid, a 
collaboration of ~100 universities and research labs around the US that 
share batch computing resources with each other. We've been developing 
an RPM-based software stack for our users, some of which are based on 
EPEL packages, and would like to contribute our changes and any packages 
that we think are of general use into EPEL. I look forward to being part 
of the community and working with all of you!


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

[389-devel] revised: Ticket 49370 - local password policies are not pulling in the on/off defaults

[Mark Reynolds]

https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/issue/raw/files/1487a0f5a5664a56a03fc9d685fa66e8effaab30136fbf0f5287c74a3ba6cb99-0001-Ticket-49370-Add-all-the-password-policy-defaults-to.patch

On 01/17/2018 08:44 AM, Mark Reynolds wrote:
> https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/issue/49370
>
> https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/issue/raw/files/d69272b079e9f3d52b74bd35f3168b576c2777a1125c8c9e50ddaa8706a6e35e-0001-Ticket-49370-Add-all-the-password-policy-defaults-to.patch
> ___
> 389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to 389-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
___
389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 389-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[EPEL-devel] Re: libsodium upgrade for EPEL7

[Neal Gompa]

On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 12:17 PM, Carl George  wrote:
> To facilitate packages that require a newer version of libsodium, I have 
> coordinated an update of libsodium in EPEL7 from version 1.0.5 
> (libsodium.so.13) to version 1.0.16 (libsodium.so.23).  To avoid any ABI 
> breakage for existing packages, a new libsodium13 compatibility package has 
> been created that will continue to provide the old version.
>
> The following packages link against libsodium:
> - cjdns
> - dnscrypt-proxy
> - dnsdist
> - fastd
> - php-pecl-libsodium
> - zeromq
>
> Remi has already rebuilt php-pecl-libsodium against the new version with an 
> override.  In my testing, the other packages continue to be installable and 
> just resolve to libsodium13 instead of libsodium, as expected.
>
> I have read through the update policies [1][2], but I am unsure where this 
> would fall since the old version will continue to be available with the 
> compatibility package.  Do I need to take any additional steps other than 
> submitting the bodhi update for libsodium-1.0.16-1.el7 and 
> libsodium13-1.0.5-1.el7?
>

My understanding is that this should be sufficient.



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

[EPEL-devel] libsodium upgrade for EPEL7

[Carl George]

To facilitate packages that require a newer version of libsodium, I have 
coordinated an update of libsodium in EPEL7 from version 1.0.5 
(libsodium.so.13) to version 1.0.16 (libsodium.so.23).  To avoid any ABI 
breakage for existing packages, a new libsodium13 compatibility package has 
been created that will continue to provide the old version.

The following packages link against libsodium:
- cjdns
- dnscrypt-proxy
- dnsdist
- fastd
- php-pecl-libsodium
- zeromq

Remi has already rebuilt php-pecl-libsodium against the new version with an 
override.  In my testing, the other packages continue to be installable and 
just resolve to libsodium13 instead of libsodium, as expected.

I have read through the update policies [1][2], but I am unsure where this 
would fall since the old version will continue to be available with the 
compatibility package.  Do I need to take any additional steps other than 
submitting the bodhi update for libsodium-1.0.16-1.el7 and 
libsodium13-1.0.5-1.el7?

[1]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL_Updates_Policy
[2]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL_incompatible_upgrades_policy
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Exploring the idea of CentOS/RHEL branches in dist-git [was Re: Python3 will be in next major RHEL release, please adjust %if statements accordingly]

[Matthew Miller]

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 08:18:42AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> - Better Git frontend for CentOS
> - Possibility to submit PRs against RHEL branches
> - Easy to see changes from RHEL and Fedora (and CentOS).
> What are some others?

I'd like to see these branches as candidates for inclusion in modules
built on Fedora bases. That way, we'd have a maintained source of
slower-moving dependencies.

-- 
Matthew Miller

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

[Bug 1392478] root is not built for ppc64le

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1392478



--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System  ---
root-6.12.04-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-2cb0650968

-- 
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 1392472] root is not built for ppc64

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1392472



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
root-6.12.04-1.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-b23b84434f

-- 
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 1392478] root is not built for ppc64le

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1392478



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
root-6.12.04-1.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-b23b84434f

-- 
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 1392472] root is not built for ppc64

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1392472



--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System  ---
root-6.12.04-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-cf857aea6b

-- 
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 1392472] root is not built for ppc64

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1392472



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
root-6.12.04-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-2cb0650968

-- 
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 1392478] root is not built for ppc64le

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1392478



--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System  ---
root-6.12.04-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-cf857aea6b

-- 
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: Packaging and dependencies

[Richard Shaw]

More or less, yes, but you should add the dependent package review requests
as blockers to the main package review request.

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

Packaging and dependencies

[Timothée Floure]

Hello,

Let's say I want to package a program depending on libraries which are
not (yet) part of Fedora. Is the following procedure correct ?

1) Submit a review for the original package, and a review for each
dependency. Mention into the reviews how they are linked to the original
submission.

2) Wait for all the reviews to be accepted.

3) Build the packages for the dependencies in rawhide.

4) Build the original package in rawhide, against the dependencies
previously built.

I didn't see this case in the wiki [0], did I miss something ?

[0]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Package_Maintainers?rd=PackageMaintainers

Thanks !

--
Timothée



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: HEADS UP - Changes to Ghostscript package in F28

[Michael Cronenworth]

On 01/09/2018 04:51 PM, David Kaspar [Dee'Kej] wrote:
Initial NOTE: I have made some bigger changes in Ghostscript package during the 
cleanup, which should be self-contained. In my opinion those changes are not so 
significant to create "self-contained change" wiki page for it (for F28), but if 
the consensus of people here will be the opposite, then I will create it 
additionally...


You should create a change request for this. It's very significant, IMHO.

I've encountered a problem with this change. ImageMagick tests require the 
'gs_resmp.ps' resource file to be around, but I cannot find where this file lives 
now. Where is it now?

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

Fedora Infrastructure manager change

[Jim Perrin]

Hello  Fedora developers,
I know some of you may not be familiar with me[1] unless you’re also
working with CentOS or EPEL, but I’d like to take this opportunity to
introduce myself a bit more formally on the list.

As of 1 February, I’ll be the reporting manager for the Fedora
Infrastructure Administration team, and the Fedora Infrastructure
Applications team[2], as well as the CentOS engineering team internal to
Red Hat.  For the most part, this is a Red Hat internal organizational
change that doesn’t really impact anything in the community. Paul
Frields set a good example of being transparent with the community, and
I want to continue that with this transition. Paul won’t be going too
far as part of this transition, as he’s taking a promotion of his own,
and I’ll be reporting to him as part of the new structure.


This is a fantastic group of people, and I’m excited to be working with
them. There will be a bit of transition time as Paul and I work through
the team organization and update the wiki to reflect the changes, but
you’ll probably be seeing a bit more of me around here.
You may now return to your regularly scheduled mailing list.

1. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jperrin
2. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Engineering
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Security updates and batched pushes

[Randy Barlow]

On 01/17/2018 08:47 AM, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote:
> Clearly what we have now is, in practice, not working as intended.

The original intent as I understood it from the thread long ago[0] was
to reduce the number of updates that go out on non-Tuesdays, and make
most updates happen on Tuesdays. The data that Kevin cited seems to be
accomplishing that purpose.


[0]
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/HFTB6Z5DAXZV6O4OGFK4I2GQIE42XMHR/#M5EH2C3CDRZ477PO5ADKAVRGO444P34M




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: Fedora rawhide compose report: 20180101.n.0 changes

[Jonathan Wakely]

On 03/01/18 14:07 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:

On 03/01/18 12:55 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:

On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 11:43:34AM +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:

On 02/01/18 12:45 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:

On Mon, Jan 01, 2018 at 10:13:15PM +, Fedora Rawhide Report wrote:

[python-lmiwbem]
python2-lmiwbem-0.7.2-16.fc28.aarch64 requires boost-python >= 0:1.50.0

Hmm, boost-python was renamed to python2-boost, and then to boost-python2, and
the Provides for the old name was lost in the second step. Is this intentional?
/cc jwakely


boost-python[23] is not a Python module, it's a C++ library. The rules
for naming of Python modules do not apply to this package.

But I think it should still provide the old name.


Agreed on both counts ;) I guess Provides:boost-python, boost-python%_isa must
following the same lifecycle as %python_provide, i.e. when %python_provide
switches the unversioned name to point to python3 version, boost-python
should likewise stop pointing to boost-python2.


I'll add the Provides later today.


Sorry for the delay, I've made this change now and boost-1.64.0-7.fc28
is in rawhide.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Security updates and batched pushes

[mcatanzaro]

Thanks, Kevin. Knowing when the updates are actually going out adds 
important context to this discussion.


On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 7:30 AM, Kevin Kofler  
wrote:

I don't see how this is helpful.


Kevin has a point here. Clearly what we have now is, in practice, not 
working as intended.


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

Re: Security updates and batched pushes

[Kevin Kofler]

Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On 01/09/2018 12:57 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>>> If we update a repo for some minor enhancements it means everyone in the
>>> world has to pay for that. If we just push all those out every tuesday
>>> and don't update those unless there's something urgent we save everyone
>>> a lot of bandwith and us computing time/resources.
>> 
>> This does not work in practice because there are always updates that are
>> not batched.
> 
> I... have seen updates pushes that do not take place when I have been
> pushing updates, so I assert you are incorrect. True, it doesn't happen
> as often as I was hoping, but it does and has happened.

This week, there have been almost daily nonempty update pushes (listing only 
the SRPMs here, and only the updates that affected me):
* Jan 10 (previous batch)
* Jan 11 (not batched, gtk3 and microcode-ctl)
* Jan 12 (not batched, kernel, dhcp, dnfdragora, hplip, webkitgtk4)
* none on Sat Jan 13 (some updates from RPM Fusion, but those have separate
  repodata, so they don't count)
* Jan 14/15 (night, not batched, bluez, python-nbconvert, python-qtconsole)
* Jan 15/16 (night, not batched, llvm with all its revdeps, hplip again)
and now today (Jan 17)'s batch includes (for me) 135 (!) binary packages 
(less if you count the SRPMs, but in the end, the binary packages are what 
really matter).

I don't see how this is helpful.

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

[Bug 1535448] New: perl-Data-Dump-Color-0.240 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1535448

Bug ID: 1535448
   Summary: perl-Data-Dump-Color-0.240 is available
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: perl-Data-Dump-Color
  Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
  Assignee: emman...@seyman.fr
  Reporter: upstream-release-monitor...@fedoraproject.org
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: emman...@seyman.fr, jples...@redhat.com,
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org, ppi...@redhat.com



Latest upstream release: 0.240
Current version/release in rawhide: 0.23-8.fc27
URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Data-Dump-Color/

Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a
stable branch: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy

More information about the service that created this bug can be found at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring

Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging
changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your
responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still
correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added
upstream.

Based on the information from anitya: 
https://release-monitoring.org/project/2759/

-- 
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: Python3 will be in next major RHEL release, please adjust %if statements accordingly

[Richard W.M. Jones]

On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 01:02:32PM -0800, Troy Dawson wrote:
> Hello,
> Python3 will be in the next major RHEL release.  I don't mean RHEL
> 7.6, but with numbers higher than 7.
> There are many, many packages with something like the following
> 
>   if 0%{?fedora}
>%define with_python3 1
>   %endif
> 
> If you have something like that, please change it to something like this.
> 
>   if 0%{?fedora} || 0%{?rhel} > 7
>%define with_python3 1
>   %endif

I'll say it once again, but why can't we just have
%{python2_available} and %{python3_available} macros defined in the
base system?

Rich.

-- 
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com
virt-top is 'top' for virtual machines.  Tiny program with many
powerful monitoring features, net stats, disk stats, logging, etc.
http://people.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-top
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1534083] perl-Socket-2.027 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1534083



--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-Socket-2.027-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-cb6a92a511

-- 
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 1533867] perl-Socket-2.026 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1533867



--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-Socket-2.027-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-cb6a92a511

-- 
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: F28 System Wide Change: Binutils version 2.29.1

[Florian Weimer]

On 01/09/2018 04:16 PM, Tomasz Torcz ️ wrote:

   I'm a bit perplexed by this change.  It looks like minor version
  update, in such case it need no to be announced so widely.
   On the other hand, you are changing the source.  According to the
  guidelines, changing source requires re-review.
   So why this is a system-wide change?


We've since realized that we should build software with -z defs to 
enable proper symbol versioning (you can't version undefined symbols), 
so that might be a justification for a system-wide change.


(rawhide binutils supports -z undefs to undo the effect.)

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

Re: Pulling in rpmfusion appstream data with weak dependencies?

[Ankur Sinha]

Hi Igor,

On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 10:52:50 +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> > to the rpmfusion appstream data spec files. However, based on my
> > understanding of how these things work, this implies that the rpmfusion
> > appstream data packages are pulled into a transaction only if the fedora
> > appstream data package is being installed or updated too. Is that right?
> 
> I expected that it's not, but it is...
> 
> > If it is, is there a way to pull in rpmfusion appstream data if fedora
> > appstream data is already installed on the system, and not part of the
> > current transaction? Any suggestions on how this should be done?
> 
> I would probably open bug against "libsolv" to behave as you would expect.

Thanks - I'll do that then. I wasn't quite sure of what the expected
behaviour is but I'll take it up with upstream now.

-- 
Thanks,
Regards,

Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD"

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha


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

Re: Pulling in rpmfusion appstream data with weak dependencies?

[Igor Gnatenko]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

On Tue, 2018-01-16 at 18:08 +, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> We're generating appstream data for rpmfusion packages nowadays to
> enable users to install packages from there using gnome-software and
> friends too.
> 
> Is there a way to automatically pull in the rpmfusion appstream data
> packages? We looked at weak dependencies, specifically backward
> dependencies. So, we added:
> 
> Supplements:appstream-data
> 
> to the rpmfusion appstream data spec files. However, based on my
> understanding of how these things work, this implies that the rpmfusion
> appstream data packages are pulled into a transaction only if the fedora
> appstream data package is being installed or updated too. Is that right?

I expected that it's not, but it is...

> If it is, is there a way to pull in rpmfusion appstream data if fedora
> appstream data is already installed on the system, and not part of the
> current transaction? Any suggestions on how this should be done?

I would probably open bug against "libsolv" to behave as you would expect.
- -- 
- -Igor Gnatenko
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
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=DdyY
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Status of SWDB (Unified database for DNF)

[Igor Gnatenko]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

On Wed, 2018-01-17 at 09:33 +, Eduard Cuba wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> SWDB is in DNF upstream since October 19. However, it's not released yet
> and it's being reworked due to changes in database design and performance
> issues. Also, the GObject-introspection bindings are being dropped and
> replaced by C++ API with SWIG bindings to match long-term libdnf
> development goals.
> 
> See https://github.com/rpm-software-management/libdnf/pull/368
> 
> SWDB will be introduced with DNF 3.0 release and it's expected to be in F28.

I would argue here, because this is system-wide/self-contained change and it
has not been submitted for FESCo for F28 release.. While time for system-wide
changes is over, there is still little time for self-contained changes...

But since you are talking about DNF 3.0, it must be system-wide change... So
F29 then ☺

> --
> Regards,
> Eduard Čuba
> 
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 6:29 PM Kevin Kofler  wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > does anybody know what the current status of:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Unified_database_for_DNF
> > is? It obviously did not make Fedora 27, so:
> > * is this still being worked on?
> > * when can we expect it in production in Fedora?
> > 
> > It is quite sad that PackageKit operations still don't show up in the
> > history in DNF and in DNF frontends such as dnfdragora.
> > 
> > Kevin Kofler
> > ___
> > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> > 
> 
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

- -- 
- -Igor Gnatenko
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-

iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEhLFO09aHZVqO+CM6aVcUvRu8X0wFAlpfG+8ACgkQaVcUvRu8
X0xmtg/7Bi52fXQad7EjAl9JWUhvZaw+xFYFScaMe+hODCfRv8aobIy1ERKoVb5f
RlJJxf/nQd7cwiY6QJ/xzQ7vVwQ8zK6FnQK0e9eQKOIkNoo9zUFuORB4gTcA1E2r
hcQD5fvkdGlAaJPkDbfFCx+UrZuQGnb4lUkxk9R4sKarK0QxTj/F+yBD7kxgXlL3
s8kryrehfSxbKz5p6plZ+UMmvepWXN8ooZox7p89F9Nj7rZy5CVrT1HkwsY1Kkhv
FZ7mOf9ApzILHy7Hu+yk6iUnLDvdOACiv51d3Q5gGhtfm7vOYyQG1Uq9h9yfC3wB
r6FB/kshOe+h2NPFBxBnsyd0PthSgIr1gvvFEjFPoZ1fnvOUjzBGkCifQ4q+UBL8
8lOkgiPk8UplR4z7amuiSW/RvctzApXKSVRawOFiOE8mPK17qRkDhZqjZAvgNlzg
tGW3qzjNE8KlOVDNRRbvhrsI7NkKjis0wOl4QoqLUkz02BPYKHqIFPJofPzfkhVN
Imlc1RD2AL6ZGJuAQa64tfMAn0tNpWhVJe7uhAXkoeqIafpb7HPOR4YQJD9BRQWj
0ogyL/ny9ap9DbmnIqtZNWuPff/4rug/3kVQTUaFJYOCZT3HWmUYZ7HCwASERqMA
a7yON25ed5XcHlWGGaMh292L0Xh2n6wA+W9g3EhDfSPdUBDbqJI=
=7VAk
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Status of SWDB (Unified database for DNF)

[Eduard Cuba]

Hello,

SWDB is in DNF upstream since October 19. However, it's not released yet
and it's being reworked due to changes in database design and performance
issues. Also, the GObject-introspection bindings are being dropped and
replaced by C++ API with SWIG bindings to match long-term libdnf
development goals.

See https://github.com/rpm-software-management/libdnf/pull/368

SWDB will be introduced with DNF 3.0 release and it's expected to be in F28.

--
Regards,
Eduard Čuba

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 6:29 PM Kevin Kofler  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> does anybody know what the current status of:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Unified_database_for_DNF
> is? It obviously did not make Fedora 27, so:
> * is this still being worked on?
> * when can we expect it in production in Fedora?
>
> It is quite sad that PackageKit operations still don't show up in the
> history in DNF and in DNF frontends such as dnfdragora.
>
> Kevin Kofler
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
>
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

F28 Self Contained Change: Chinese Default Fonts to Google Noto

[Jan Kurik]

= Proposed Self Contained Change: Chinese Default Fonts to Google Noto =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ChineseDefaultFontsToNoto

Change owner(s):
* Peng Wu 

Changes the default fonts for Chinese to Google Noto.


== Detailed Description ==
Changes the default fonts for Chinese to Google Noto. each typefaces
will be changed as the following:
* sans-serif
  * Source Han Sans -> Noto Sans CJK
* serif
  * Source Han Serif -> Noto Serif CJK
* monospace
  * Source Han Sans -> Noto Sans Mono CJK


== Scope ==
* Proposal owners:
- Update packages with the proper priority of fontconfig config file
(adobe-source-han-*-fonts, google-cjk-noto-*-sc-fonts and
google-cjk-noto-*-tc-fonts)
- Update comps

* Other developers:
N/A (not a System Wide Change)

* Release engineering:
#7271: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7271

* List of deliverables:
N/A (not a System Wide Change)

* Policies and guidelines:
N/A (not a System Wide Change)

* Trademark approval:
N/A (not needed for this Change)
-- 
Jan Kuřík
Platform & Fedora Program Manager
Red Hat Czech s.r.o., Purkynova 99/71, 612 45 Brno, Czech Republic
___
devel-announce mailing list -- devel-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-announce-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

F28 Self Contained Change: Chinese Default Fonts to Google Noto

[Jan Kurik]

= Proposed Self Contained Change: Chinese Default Fonts to Google Noto =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ChineseDefaultFontsToNoto

Change owner(s):
* Peng Wu 

Changes the default fonts for Chinese to Google Noto.


== Detailed Description ==
Changes the default fonts for Chinese to Google Noto. each typefaces
will be changed as the following:
* sans-serif
  * Source Han Sans -> Noto Sans CJK
* serif
  * Source Han Serif -> Noto Serif CJK
* monospace
  * Source Han Sans -> Noto Sans Mono CJK


== Scope ==
* Proposal owners:
- Update packages with the proper priority of fontconfig config file
(adobe-source-han-*-fonts, google-cjk-noto-*-sc-fonts and
google-cjk-noto-*-tc-fonts)
- Update comps

* Other developers:
N/A (not a System Wide Change)

* Release engineering:
#7271: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7271

* List of deliverables:
N/A (not a System Wide Change)

* Policies and guidelines:
N/A (not a System Wide Change)

* Trademark approval:
N/A (not needed for this Change)
-- 
Jan Kuřík
Platform & Fedora Program Manager
Red Hat Czech s.r.o., Purkynova 99/71, 612 45 Brno, Czech Republic
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Fedora Rawhide-20180115.n.0 compose check report

[Fedora compose checker]

No missing expected images.

Failed openQA tests: 12/129 (x86_64), 5/24 (i386), 1/2 (arm)

Old failures (same test failed in Rawhide-20180114.n.0):

ID: 185983  Test: x86_64 Server-boot-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/185983
ID: 185984  Test: x86_64 Server-boot-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/185984
ID: 185996  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_filesystem_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/185996
ID: 185998  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_role_deploy_domain_controller
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/185998
ID: 186006  Test: i386 Server-boot-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186006
ID: 186029  Test: i386 Workstation-boot-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186029
ID: 186030  Test: i386 Workstation-boot-iso memory_check
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186030
ID: 186031  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_notifications_live
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186031
ID: 186032  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso install_default_upload
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186032
ID: 186033  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186033
ID: 186034  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso install_no_user
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186034
ID: 186044  Test: i386 KDE-live-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186044
ID: 186045  Test: arm Minimal-raw_xz-raw.xz 
install_arm_image_deployment_upload
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186045
ID: 186074  Test: x86_64 universal install_package_set_kde
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186074
ID: 186093  Test: x86_64 universal install_iscsi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186093
ID: 186123  Test: i386 universal install_package_set_kde
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186123
ID: 186484  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_server_domain_controller
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186484
ID: 186485  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_realmd_client
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186485

Soft failed openQA tests: 77/129 (x86_64), 19/24 (i386)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)

Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Rawhide-20180114.n.0):

ID: 185986  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_repository_nfs_variation
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/185986
ID: 185987  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_repository_nfs_graphical
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/185987
ID: 185988  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_updates_nfs
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/185988
ID: 185989  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_default_upload
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/185989
ID: 185990  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/185990
ID: 186007  Test: i386 Server-dvd-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186007
ID: 186008  Test: x86_64 Everything-boot-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186008
ID: 186009  Test: x86_64 Everything-boot-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186009
ID: 186010  Test: i386 Everything-boot-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186010
ID: 186011  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_default_upload
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186011
ID: 186013  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186013
ID: 186014  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_no_user
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186014
ID: 186024  Test: x86_64 Workstation-boot-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186024
ID: 186027  Test: x86_64 Workstation-boot-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186027
ID: 186028  Test: i386 Workstation-live-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186028
ID: 186047  Test: x86_64 Atomic-dvd_ostree-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186047
ID: 186048  Test: x86_64 Atomic-dvd_ostree-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186048
ID: 186050  Test: x86_64 universal install_simple_encrypted@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186050
ID: 186051  Test: x86_64 universal install_simple_free_space@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186051
ID: 186052  Test: x86_64 universal install_repository_http_variation
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186052
ID: 186053  Test: x86_64 universal install_blivet_no_swap
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/186053
ID: 186054  Test: x86_64 universal install_blivet_software_raid
URL: