Fedora-Rawhide-20210512.n.2 compose check report

[Fedora compose checker]

No missing expected images.

Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check!
1 of 43 required tests failed
openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING** 
below

Failed openQA tests: 8/133 (aarch64), 7/194 (x86_64)

New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20210510.n.0):

ID: 885443  Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso server_cockpit_basic@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/885443
ID: 885584  Test: aarch64 universal install_arabic_language@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/885584

Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20210510.n.0):

ID: 885381  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_terminal **GATING**
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/885381
ID: 885392  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso apps_startstop
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/885392
ID: 885479  Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz desktop_browser@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/885479
ID: 885532  Test: x86_64 universal install_asian_language
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/885532
ID: 885549  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_server_domain_controller
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/885549
ID: 885568  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_server_domain_controller
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/885568
ID: 885572  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_realmd_client
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/885572
ID: 885575  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_realmd_client
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/885575
ID: 885602  Test: aarch64 universal upgrade_2_server_domain_controller@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/885602
ID: 885603  Test: aarch64 universal install_asian_language@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/885603
ID: 885616  Test: aarch64 universal upgrade_server_domain_controller@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/885616
ID: 885619  Test: aarch64 universal upgrade_realmd_client@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/885619
ID: 885620  Test: aarch64 universal upgrade_2_realmd_client@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/885620

Soft failed openQA tests: 1/194 (x86_64), 3/133 (aarch64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)

Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20210510.n.0):

ID: 885411  Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/885411
ID: 885412  Test: aarch64 Minimal-raw_xz-raw.xz 
install_arm_image_deployment_upload@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/885412
ID: 885468  Test: aarch64 Server-raw_xz-raw.xz 
install_arm_image_deployment_upload@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/885468
ID: 885499  Test: aarch64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/885499

Passed openQA tests: 122/133 (aarch64), 186/194 (x86_64)

New passes (same test not passed in Fedora-Rawhide-20210510.n.0):

ID: 885429  Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso install_vncconnect_client@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/885429
ID: 885430  Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso install_vncconnect_server@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/885430
ID: 885484  Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz 
desktop_update_graphical@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/885484
ID: 885589  Test: aarch64 universal install_kickstart_firewall_disabled@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/885589

Installed system changes in test x86_64 Server-boot-iso install_default: 
System load changed from 0.40 to 0.22
Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/883276#downloads
Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/885294#downloads

Installed system changes in test x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_default_upload: 
1 packages(s) removed since previous compose: libtextstyle
Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/883297#downloads
Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/885315#downloads

Installed system changes in test x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_default@uefi: 
1 packages(s) removed since previous compose: libtextstyle
System load changed from 0.11 to 0.38
Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/883299#downloads
Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/885317#downloads

Installed system changes in test x86_64 Workstation-live-iso 
install_default@uefi: 
Used swap changed from 7 MiB to 4 MiB
1 packages(s) removed since previous compose: libtextstyle
System load changed from 0.92 to 1.07
Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/883335#downloads
Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/885353#downloads

Installed system changes in test x86_64 Workstation-live-iso 
install_default_upload: 
Used swap changed from 5 MiB to 6 MiB
1 packages(s) removed 

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

[updates]

The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing:
 Age  URL
  12  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-3f4ec3ba2a   
sympa-6.2.62-1.el7
  12  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-23a46d718e   
libopenmpt-0.5.8-1.el7
   8  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-314d2feba2   
chromium-90.0.4430.93-1.el7
   8  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-80d45ac7ec   
ansible-2.9.21-1.el7
   5  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-680600d10f   
python-impacket-0.9.22-3.el7
   0  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-352a65d3bc   
djvulibre-3.5.25.3-23.el7


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

mock-centos-sig-configs-0.2-1.el7

Details about builds:



 mock-centos-sig-configs-0.2-1.el7 (FEDORA-EPEL-2021-f844898938)
 Mock configs for CentOS SIGs

Update Information:

Update to 0.2

ChangeLog:

* Wed May 12 2021 Davide Cavalca  - 0.2-1
- Update to 0.2


___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[EPEL-devel] Re: Remmina crashes after latest updates.

[Troy Dawson]

It's looking like the general answer is, nobody on this list knows.
It's quite possible that the package maintainer isn't on this list, or has
it filtered off.
If you haven't already found the answer, I suggest opening a bug.

Troy


On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 9:05 AM  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I have a fully updated centos 7 machine running
> remmina-1.4.13-1.el7.x86_64.
> I installed the latest kernel and glibc updates and rebooted the machine.
>
> When I try to connect to a remote machine remmina starts up but when I try
> select
> a remote machine and try to connect it crashes.
>
> When I run remmina from the command line I see the following:
>
> (tigger pts7) $ remmina
> Load modules from /usr/lib64/remmina/plugins
> Remmina plugin glibsecret (type=Secret) has been registered, but is not
> yet initialized/activated. The initialization order is 2000.
> The glibsecret secret plugin  has been initialized and it will be your
> default secret plugin
> StatusNotifier/Appindicator support: not supported by desktop.
> libappindicator will try to fallback to GtkStatusIcon/xembed
>
> (org.remmina.Remmina:25367): Gtk-WARNING **: 10:43:46.717:
> gtk_menu_attach_to_widget(): menu already attached to GtkMenuItem
>
> (org.remmina.Remmina:25367): Gdk-CRITICAL **: 10:43:47.114:
> gdk_window_thaw_toplevel_updates: assertion
> 'window->update_and_descendants_freeze_count > 0' failed
>
> remmina: symbol lookup error:
> /usr/lib64/remmina/plugins/remmina-plugin-rdp.so: undefined symbol:
> freerdp_settings_set_uint32
> (tigger pts7)
>
> Does anyone know how to resolve this issue?
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Tom m...@tdiehl.org
> ___
> epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
>
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[rpms/perl-Plack] PR #1: Move Apache handler ro sub-packages

[Emmanuel Seyman]

eseyman merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-Plack` that you are 
following.

Merged pull-request:

``
Move Apache handler ro sub-packages
``

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Plack/pull-request/1
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

F35 Change: Drop the the "Allow SSH root login with password" option from the installer GUI (Self-Contained Change proposal)

[Ben Cotton]

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

== Summary ==
Since 2019 the Anaconda installer GUI hosted an option called "Allow
SSH root login with password", that made it possible to enable
password based root logins over SSH on the installed system. This was
always meant as a temporary option to help users transition to either
using key authentication or normal users with admin privileges. And
after two years of transition period it is now time to drop the option
from the GUI.

== Owner ==
* Name: [[User:M4rtink| Martin Kolman]]


== Detailed Description ==
At the moment the Anaconda installer used by Fedora contains an option
called "Allow SSH root login with password" on the root password
configuration screen.

This is how it looks like at the moment, on latest Fedora Rawhide
installer image:

https://m4rtink.fedorapeople.org/screenshots/fedora/rawhide_f35/root_password_screen.png

For some backstory - in 2015 the OpenSSH upstream decided to disable
password based root logins by default. This was done for security
reasons as an attacker needs to only guess password to gain access to
the root account. For a user account the attacker needs to guess both
the username and password and the user account not even have admin
privileges, making the remote password guessing attack both harder and
less useful.

The Fedora OpenSSH package carried downstream patches to revert this
upstream change up until summer 2019 when it was decided to restore the
upstream behavior and drop the downstream patches as enough tools that
required password based SSH login have been migrated to use either key
authentication or user based login methods.

Now back to the "Allow SSH root login with password" checkbox in
the installer GUI. :)

The option was added in 2019 when Fedora disabled password based root
SSH login by default, as a temporary migration aid for users of the
graphical installer.

Note that the checkbox is not ticked by default, the user needs to make
a conscious choice to allow this security problematic SSH login
behavior.

Now fast forward to today, it's 2021, any use cases that needed
password based root login via SSH had 2 more years to migrate while the
amount of password guessing attacks certainly didn't get any lower.

For that reason we in the Anaconda development team feel like it's a
good time to finally drop the "Allow SSH root login with password" from
the Anaconda GUI.

== Feedback ==
* it has been suggested to keep the "Allow SSH root login with
password" available per Fedora variant (eq. for Fedora Server, etc.) -
this is doable at the cost of some code complexity and we can consider
doing that if there is enough demand & confirmation the given SiG is
OK with it
* it has been suggested that making it easier to import SSH keys from
popular code hosting platforms (Pagure, GitHub, GitLab, etc.) could
provide a nice alternative to the dropped option - this seems like a
nice idea, but it's unclear if any Anaconda team members will have
time to work on this before F35 release; on the other hand, (good)
patches welcome! :)

== Benefit to Fedora ==
This change makes the Fedora systems installed by Anaconda more secure
from remote password guessing attacks targeting the root account as it
would no longer be possible to configure a system that allows root to
login via SSH with password.

A smaller benefit is making the root password configuration screen
less confusing by removing the "Allow SSH root login with password" &
Anaconda code cleanup related removing code related to setting up the
override in sshd.


== Scope ==
* Proposal owners:
Remove the "Allow SSH root login with password" and any related
backend code that configures the sshd override.

* Other developers:
* Release engineering:
* Policies and guidelines: N/A (not needed for this Change)
* Trademark approval: N/A (not needed for this Change)
* Alignment with Objectives:

== Upgrade/compatibility impact ==


== How To Test ==
Boot a Fedora netinst image, enter the root password configuration
screen. Check that "Allow SSH root login with password" option is not
present.


== User Experience ==
The users will no longer be able to use the unsecure "Allow SSH root
login with password" option on the root password configuration screen
of the installer and the root password configuration screen will be a
bit cleaner.


== Dependencies ==


== Contingency Plan ==
Revert the commit that removes the "Allow SSH root login with
password" option and do a new Anaconda build.

* Contingency mechanism: (What to do?  Who will do it?) N/A (not a
System Wide Change)
* Contingency deadline: N/A (not a System Wide Change)
* Blocks release? N/A

== Documentation ==

Original change that resulted in the "Allow SSH root login with
password" to be added:

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

A workaround for kickstart users that still need to enable password
based root login over SSH for some reason:

F35 Change: Drop the the "Allow SSH root login with password" option from the installer GUI (Self-Contained Change proposal)

[Ben Cotton]

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

== Summary ==
Since 2019 the Anaconda installer GUI hosted an option called "Allow
SSH root login with password", that made it possible to enable
password based root logins over SSH on the installed system. This was
always meant as a temporary option to help users transition to either
using key authentication or normal users with admin privileges. And
after two years of transition period it is now time to drop the option
from the GUI.

== Owner ==
* Name: [[User:M4rtink| Martin Kolman]]


== Detailed Description ==
At the moment the Anaconda installer used by Fedora contains an option
called "Allow SSH root login with password" on the root password
configuration screen.

This is how it looks like at the moment, on latest Fedora Rawhide
installer image:

https://m4rtink.fedorapeople.org/screenshots/fedora/rawhide_f35/root_password_screen.png

For some backstory - in 2015 the OpenSSH upstream decided to disable
password based root logins by default. This was done for security
reasons as an attacker needs to only guess password to gain access to
the root account. For a user account the attacker needs to guess both
the username and password and the user account not even have admin
privileges, making the remote password guessing attack both harder and
less useful.

The Fedora OpenSSH package carried downstream patches to revert this
upstream change up until summer 2019 when it was decided to restore the
upstream behavior and drop the downstream patches as enough tools that
required password based SSH login have been migrated to use either key
authentication or user based login methods.

Now back to the "Allow SSH root login with password" checkbox in
the installer GUI. :)

The option was added in 2019 when Fedora disabled password based root
SSH login by default, as a temporary migration aid for users of the
graphical installer.

Note that the checkbox is not ticked by default, the user needs to make
a conscious choice to allow this security problematic SSH login
behavior.

Now fast forward to today, it's 2021, any use cases that needed
password based root login via SSH had 2 more years to migrate while the
amount of password guessing attacks certainly didn't get any lower.

For that reason we in the Anaconda development team feel like it's a
good time to finally drop the "Allow SSH root login with password" from
the Anaconda GUI.

== Feedback ==
* it has been suggested to keep the "Allow SSH root login with
password" available per Fedora variant (eq. for Fedora Server, etc.) -
this is doable at the cost of some code complexity and we can consider
doing that if there is enough demand & confirmation the given SiG is
OK with it
* it has been suggested that making it easier to import SSH keys from
popular code hosting platforms (Pagure, GitHub, GitLab, etc.) could
provide a nice alternative to the dropped option - this seems like a
nice idea, but it's unclear if any Anaconda team members will have
time to work on this before F35 release; on the other hand, (good)
patches welcome! :)

== Benefit to Fedora ==
This change makes the Fedora systems installed by Anaconda more secure
from remote password guessing attacks targeting the root account as it
would no longer be possible to configure a system that allows root to
login via SSH with password.

A smaller benefit is making the root password configuration screen
less confusing by removing the "Allow SSH root login with password" &
Anaconda code cleanup related removing code related to setting up the
override in sshd.


== Scope ==
* Proposal owners:
Remove the "Allow SSH root login with password" and any related
backend code that configures the sshd override.

* Other developers:
* Release engineering:
* Policies and guidelines: N/A (not needed for this Change)
* Trademark approval: N/A (not needed for this Change)
* Alignment with Objectives:

== Upgrade/compatibility impact ==


== How To Test ==
Boot a Fedora netinst image, enter the root password configuration
screen. Check that "Allow SSH root login with password" option is not
present.


== User Experience ==
The users will no longer be able to use the unsecure "Allow SSH root
login with password" option on the root password configuration screen
of the installer and the root password configuration screen will be a
bit cleaner.


== Dependencies ==


== Contingency Plan ==
Revert the commit that removes the "Allow SSH root login with
password" option and do a new Anaconda build.

* Contingency mechanism: (What to do?  Who will do it?) N/A (not a
System Wide Change)
* Contingency deadline: N/A (not a System Wide Change)
* Blocks release? N/A

== Documentation ==

Original change that resulted in the "Allow SSH root login with
password" to be added:

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

A workaround for kickstart users that still need to enable password
based root login over SSH for some reason:

[Bug 1955741] perl-experimental-0.024 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1955741



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2021-7709e714e7 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository.
If problem still persists, 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
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: Packaging for EPEL8 with gcc-9+

[Евгений Пивнев]

This works, thank you: 
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=67775500

> 12 мая 2021 г., в 18:45, Gary Buhrmaster  
> написал(а):
> 
> On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 9:49 AM Евгений Пивнев  wrote:
>> 
>> Is there any real package .spec that use cc-toolset-9 as example?
>> SCL documentation is too extensive and mostly about creating new SCL,
>> I cannot find short description how simply to make one new package using 
>> modern C++.
>> 
> 
> Not sure if it is a real package (or if this
> is even the way it should be done), but I
> have seen the following in spec files
> along with the needed (for your package)
> (%if ...) tests for epel8.
> 
>  BuildRequires:  gcc-toolset-9
> 
> and at the top of the %build section:
> 
>  source scl_source enable gcc-toolset-9 >/dev/null 2>/dev/null && true || true
> 
> As I recall, depend on what that package
> requires/is doing in other sections one may
> also need to do the same source scl_source
> in those sections.
> 
> Good luck.
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: 
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives: 
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Bug 1959929] New: perl-Test2-Suite-0.000140 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1959929

Bug ID: 1959929
   Summary: perl-Test2-Suite-0.000140 is available
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
 Component: perl-Test2-Suite
  Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
  Assignee: mspa...@redhat.com
  Reporter: upstream-release-monitor...@fedoraproject.org
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: mspa...@redhat.com,
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org, ppi...@redhat.com
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Latest upstream release: 0.000140
Current version/release in rawhide: 0.000139-2.fc34
URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Test2-Suite/

Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a
stable branch: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/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/9536/


-- 
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 Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: Packaging for EPEL8 with gcc-9+

[Marek Polacek]

On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 03:45:01PM +, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
> On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 9:49 AM Евгений Пивнев  wrote:
> >
> > Is there any real package .spec that use cc-toolset-9 as example?
> > SCL documentation is too extensive and mostly about creating new SCL,
> > I cannot find short description how simply to make one new package using 
> > modern C++.
> >
> 
> Not sure if it is a real package (or if this
> is even the way it should be done), but I
> have seen the following in spec files
> along with the needed (for your package)
> (%if ...) tests for epel8.
> 
>   BuildRequires:  gcc-toolset-9
> 
> and at the top of the %build section:
> 
>   source scl_source enable gcc-toolset-9 >/dev/null 2>/dev/null && true || 
> true
> 
> As I recall, depend on what that package
> requires/is doing in other sections one may
> also need to do the same source scl_source
> in those sections.

A long time ago I added the %enable_devtoolset9 macro to make this easier,
you might want to try that.  But I don't think it has (m)any users, so
I can't guarantee that it works as expected.

Marek
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: Packaging for EPEL8 with gcc-9+

[Gary Buhrmaster]

On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 9:49 AM Евгений Пивнев  wrote:
>
> Is there any real package .spec that use cc-toolset-9 as example?
> SCL documentation is too extensive and mostly about creating new SCL,
> I cannot find short description how simply to make one new package using 
> modern C++.
>

Not sure if it is a real package (or if this
is even the way it should be done), but I
have seen the following in spec files
along with the needed (for your package)
(%if ...) tests for epel8.

  BuildRequires:  gcc-toolset-9

and at the top of the %build section:

  source scl_source enable gcc-toolset-9 >/dev/null 2>/dev/null && true || true

As I recall, depend on what that package
requires/is doing in other sections one may
also need to do the same source scl_source
in those sections.

Good luck.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[EPEL-devel] Re: Fwd: fmt soname bump in EPEL7

[Leon Fauster]

On 11.05.21 23:44, Troy Dawson wrote:



On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 2:02 PM Kevin Fenzi > wrote:


On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 09:35:40PM +0200, Leon Fauster wrote:
 > On 11.05.21 14:02, Christoph Karl wrote:
 > > Hi!
 > >
 > > On 11.05.21 at 12:30 Leon Fauster wrote:
 > > > While reading this I noticed that the recent fluidsynth-libs
update
 > > > also introduced a soname bump. Affected EPEL packages
 > > > - audacious-plugins-amidi
 > > > - qsynth
 > >
 > > Yes, this was me. I am already trying to clean up this.
 > >
 >
 >
 > BTW: As also stated here:
 >
 >
https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2021-May/076864.html

 >
 > previous releases (multiple) are not kept but I was assuming that its
 > possible to downgrade at least to ONE version before but it isn't.
 >
 > - Was there ever a downgrade option in EPEL?

no.

 > CentOS Stream suffered from that but covered yet:
 >
 >
https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2021-May/076839.html

 >
 > Would it not be beneficially? Especially for such cases like
these ...

There's a number of reasons we haven't implemented this over the years:
tooling isn't setup for it easily, desire to not keep publishing
insecure/broken/vulnerable packages, etc. We could revist it again, but
it's not something that would change quickly.




To be honest I asked out of curiosity and less to advocate for it,
but lets put that hat on and start a dialetic speech.
(and before that; I love EPEL and I do shout out a big thank
you to all volunteer maintainers + EPEL SIG members!):



Context:

I understand that the toolbox is a beast [1], "highly complex" and also a
"strain on the Fedora volunteers" [2] and "nobody is paid to work on 
EPEL" [3]


[1] 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/HKNX6N3NVL2WCT3FQPNLP3BDSDZFVG2O/


[2] 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/3UAANIDFQNIMBOZ4DEHM6KUPUUL3B5MG/


[3] 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/KW2UE3U4SPNUJZGFZQLFFDSNO4LEK56S/




CentOS Stream 8 can have major changes, with little warning of those 
changes.  An example is qt5 was recently updated to qt5-5.15, from 5.12.
If they hadn't implemented the backup stuff before that, all new KDE 
users would be stuck.
So, CentOS Stream has very good motivation to make that change to their 
repo.


EPEL is supposed to be stable.  With things like what happened on this 
thread, being the exception, instead of the rule.



State:

The intention is to be stable but it isn't and Smooge clearly explains 
it here:


https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/VGF65WVDAZMNT2FK5EAO3YQ6XJ4HBCEE/ 



and also a nice illustration that explains the state: "EPEL is more of a
Stone Soup collection of packages branched from Fedora." [3]


It the last 48-hours two soname bumps that cause deps problems (also 
against rpmfusion):


https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/MF4MAQ4ZKPYNI3JXEMNX5RAZDXVRXNEI/

https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/JP4YUYTLLA4GLUEHXEAJGIFSY6L3TIML/



We do realize that at each RHEL minor release, things can change, and 
because of that we archive/backup when this happens.  So, in one sense, 
we do have a backup, just not an active backup.  It's more like a six 
month snapshot.


Summary:  EPEL and CentOS Stream have different release cadence and 
policies.



I do not wanted to compare this two and achieving the same functionality
seems to me to be a "giant project" [1] now, but reading your answer
following is coming into my mind: EPEL-next - a set of packages built
against CentOS Stream. So, the same state will spread over to EPEL-next.



Proposals:

"yum downgrade" out of the box seems to be unrealistic. What about the 
archives:


EPEL snapshots of releases:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/QLYF7M7UU7FFSBQTOIK7MFCAYS6TXDVZ/

People like programmatically ways: How reach the "downgrade" goal
via such archives?

Would a repo config for the archives in epel-release be a viable
solution? (details have been intentionally omitted)


As Kevin said, the whole situation could be revised. I'd appreciate 
hearing your suggestions.


--
Leon

___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: 

[389-devel] 389 DS nightly 2021-05-12 - 94% PASS

[vashirov]

https://fedorapeople.org/groups/389ds/ci/nightly/2021/05/12/report-389-ds-base-2.0.4-20210512git8006632e7.fc34.x86_64.html
___
389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 389-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Bug 1955741] perl-experimental-0.024 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1955741

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Fixed In Version|perl-experimental-0.024-1.f |perl-experimental-0.024-1.f
   |c35 |c35
   |perl-experimental-0.024-1.f |perl-experimental-0.024-1.f
   |c34 |c34
   ||perl-experimental-0.024-1.f
   ||c33



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2021-7709e714e7 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository.
If problem still persists, 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
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[rpms/perl-HTTP-Message] PR #3: 6.31 bump

[Michal Josef Špaček]

mspacek merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-HTTP-Message` that you 
are following.

Merged pull-request:

``
6.31 bump
``

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-HTTP-Message/pull-request/3
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[rpms/perl-DateTime-Format-Strptime] PR #1: Update to 1.79

[Michal Josef Špaček]

mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: 
`perl-DateTime-Format-Strptime` that you are following:
``
Update to 1.79
``

To reply, visit the link below
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-DateTime-Format-Strptime/pull-request/1
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Bug 1959553] perl-HTTP-Message-6.31 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1959553

Michal Josef Spacek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value




-- 
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 Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[rpms/perl-HTTP-Message] PR #3: 6.31 bump

[Michal Josef Špaček]

mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-HTTP-Message` that 
you are following:
``
6.31 bump
``

To reply, visit the link below
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-HTTP-Message/pull-request/3
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Fedora-IoT-34-20210512.1 compose check report

[Fedora compose checker]

Missing expected images:

Iot dvd x86_64
Iot dvd aarch64

Failed openQA tests: 1/15 (aarch64)

Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-IoT-34-20210505.0):

ID: 884874  Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_clevis@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/884874

Soft failed openQA tests: 1/16 (x86_64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)

Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-IoT-34-20210505.0):

ID: 884858  Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_clevis
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/884858

Passed openQA tests: 15/16 (x86_64), 14/15 (aarch64)

Installed system changes in test x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso 
install_default_upload: 
System load changed from 0.24 to 0.38
Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/879269#downloads
Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/884856#downloads

Installed system changes in test aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso 
install_default_upload@uefi: 
System load changed from 0.26 to 0.42
Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/879285#downloads
Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/884872#downloads
-- 
Mail generated by check-compose:
https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: plocate?

[Michal Sekletar]

On Tue, May 4, 2021 at 1:25 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <
zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote:

>
> I agree. Plocate/mlocate is useful technology, but it's not important
> enough to justify maintaining two or three different implementations.
> If we can make plocate cover all bases, and it's faster, I'd just make
> it *the* implementation. Let's get the agreement of mlocate maintainer
> first though. Michal, wdyt?
>
>
Hi everyone,

I agree that we should transition to the newer (faster and well maintained)
implementation and in the long run we should have only one locate
implementation in the distribution. However, I think we should have some
transition period (e.g. two Fedora release cycles), during which both
packages will be present. Introducing alternatives scaffolding seems like
an overkill for something that is going away in a year, hence plain
Conflits: tag would be enough. As for maintenance, I think that having an
older (mlocate) package available for a year or so while we iron out
potential compat issues or bugs shouldn't add too much work.

Zbigniew, please take plocate through the review process and once it is
included in the distro I am willing to take up (co)maintenance of the
package.

Cheers,
Michal
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Fedora-Cloud-34-20210512.0 compose check report

[Fedora compose checker]

No missing expected images.

Failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64)

Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-Cloud-34-20210511.0):

ID: 884805  Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/884805

Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8 (aarch64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)

Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-34-20210511.0):

ID: 884813  Test: aarch64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/884813

Passed openQA tests: 7/8 (x86_64), 7/8 (aarch64)
-- 
Mail generated by check-compose:
https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: soname bump on fluidsynth-libs in f32

[Hans de Goede]

Hi,

On 5/11/21 1:56 PM, Christoph Karl wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> Trying to fix two security issues
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=194953
> and
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1955611
> I made an unintended soname bump in f32.
> As far as I have seen, this is only in f32.

Given that F32 is almost EOL, you could just
drop the update, assuming that the troublesome fluidsynth-libs
has not yet hit the stable updates repo.

If it has hit the stable repo, you could still
consider doing a rollback, by:

Adding an epoch 1, starting at f33+ (and not touching f32)
once the epoch bump has landed in f33+ you can do an epoch bump,
combined with a downgrade in f32 (the epoch bump will still
make it an update from rpm-s pov).

Regards,

Hans



> Carl Georg help me and already rebuild:
> 
> audacious-plugins-3.10.1-8.fc32
> Carla-2.2.0-2.fc32
> csound-6.15.0-2.fc32
> denemo-2.4.0-2.fc32
> drumstick-1.1.3-3.fc32
> gstreamer1-plugins-bad-free-1.16.2-4.fc32
> minuet-20.08.3-2.fc32
> openttd-1.11.2-2.fc32
> prboom-plus-2.5.1.4-19.fc32
> qsynth-0.9.2-2.fc32
> scummvm-2.2.0-3.fc32
> tuxguitar-1.5.3-3.fc32
> 
> The following are not building OK:
> ardour5-5.12.0-19.fc32 -
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=67397828
> fluidsynth-dssi-1.0.0-22.fc32 -
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=67398025
> lmms-1.1.3-16.fc32 -
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=67398113
> muse-3.0.2-10.fc32 -
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=67398110
> swami-2.0.0-22.20110806svn386.fc32 -
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=67398310
> 
> I will try to find out why.
> 
> Best Regards
> Christoph
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: 
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives: 
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: Packaging for EPEL8 with gcc-9+

[Евгений Пивнев]

Is there any real package .spec that use cc-toolset-9 as example?
SCL documentation is too extensive and mostly about creating new SCL,
I cannot find short description how simply to make one new package using modern 
C++.

> 5 мая 2021 г., в 16:09, Stephen John Smoogen  ):
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, 5 May 2021 at 03:33, Евгений Пивнев  > wrote:
> May be this is trivial question but I cannot find how to package application 
> for EPEL8 that requires C++17+
> Adding «Requires: gcc-toolchain-10» into *.spec not helps.
> 
> The package name is gcc-toolset-9 and it is a SCL so you need to set up the 
> build environment like it is using other SCL's with an `scl enable` in the 
> spec file.
> 

___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Fedora-Cloud-32-20210512.0 compose check report

[Fedora compose checker]

No missing expected images.

Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64), 1/8 (aarch64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)

Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-32-20210511.0):

ID: 884789  Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/884789
ID: 884797  Test: aarch64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/884797

Passed openQA tests: 7/8 (x86_64), 7/8 (aarch64)
-- 
Mail generated by check-compose:
https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[EPEL-devel] Re: dpkg Requires po4a >= 0.59 on epel 8 but version available is po4a-0.52-4.el8

[Sérgio Basto]

On Tue, 2021-05-11 at 21:54 -0500, Carl George wrote:
> PowerTools is the CentOS equivalent of the RHEL CRB repository.  EPEL
> doesn't have any control over it.  You'll have to convince the RHEL
> maintainer to rebase that package.
> 
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Red Hat Enterprise
> Linux 8=po4a=CentOS Stream


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1959750

Thanks

> On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 6:13 PM Sérgio Basto  wrote:
> > 
> > Hi,
> > Since this commit [1] I need po4a >= 0.59 to build dpkg , but [2],
> > po4a is in powertools repo [3]  , can we do something to update it ?
> > 
> > Thank you.
> > 
> > 
> > [1]
> > https://github.com/guillemj/dpkg/commit/a74a91310260efe55cc986506fe208ae2776a45a
> > 
> > [2]
> > https://git.centos.org/rpms/po4a/
> > import po4a-0.52-4.el8  CentOS Sources committed 2 years ago
> > 
> > [3]
> > dnf repoquery po4a --qf "%{repoid} %{sourcerpm}" --quiet
> > powertools po4a-0.52-4.el8.src.rpm
> > 
> > --
> > Sérgio M. B.
> > ___
> > epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> > To unsubscribe send an email to 
> > epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> > Fedora Code of Conduct: 
> > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> > List Guidelines: 
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> > List Archives: 
> > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> > Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
> > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Carl George
> ___
> epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to 
> epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: 
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives: 
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

-- 
Sérgio M. B.
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[389-devel] Please review: Issue 4765 - database suffix unexpectdly changed from .db to .db4 #4766

[Pierre Rogier]

A simple fix to solve a nasty side effect of moving include db.h to the
db-bdb plugin:

https://github.com/389ds/389-ds-base/pull/4766

-- 
--

389 Directory Server Development Team
___
389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 389-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: Update python3-pystray to latest availabe upstream version in f34 and f33

[Johannes Lips]

Sorry, to bother again, but I missed that you only created the update for f35, 
but for at least f34 this should be an update to push into stable.

Thanks again.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: RPM build errors: Illegal char '@' (0x40) in: @2.15.0@

[Petr Pisar]

V Wed, May 12, 2021 at 10:22:29AM +0200, Sandro Mani napsal(a):
> Provides: libimagequant = 2.15.0-1.fc35 libimagequant(x86-64) = 2.15.0-1.fc35 
> libimagequant.so.0()(64bit)
> Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) 
> <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
> Requires: libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.14)(64bit) 
> libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) 
> libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) 
> libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgomp.so.1()(64bit) 
> libgomp.so.1(GOMP_1.0)(64bit) libgomp.so.1(GOMP_4.0)(64bit) 
> libgomp.so.1(OMP_1.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) 
> libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.27)(64bit) libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.29)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
> Processing files: libimagequant-devel-2.15.0-1.fc35.x86_64
> error: Illegal char '@' (0x40) in: @2.15.0@

It happened when processing files of libimagequant-devel.

[test@fedora-35 libimagequant-2.15.0]$ grep -Hnr '@2.15.0@'
imagequant.pc:8:Version: @2.15.0@

imagequant.pc is one of them:

%files devel
%{_includedir}/%{name}.h
%{_libdir}/%{name}.so
%{_libdir}/pkgconfig/imagequant.pc

So your imagequant.pc is broken. This pkg-config file would generate
an illegal "pkgconfig(imagequant) = @2.15.0@" provide. It seems that
imagequant.pc.in is wrongly translated into imagequant.pc:

$ grep Version: imagequant.pc*
imagequant.pc:Version: @2.15.0@
imagequant.pc.in:Version: @VERSION@

It seems a sed script in Makefile is wrong:

$ grep -Hnr imagequant.pc
CMakeLists.txt:45:configure_file(imagequant.pc.in imagequant.pc @ONLY)
CMakeLists.txt:50:install(FILES ${CMAKE_BINARY_DIR}/imagequant.pc 
DESTINATION lib/pkgconfig)
.gitignore:2:imagequant.pc
Makefile:29:DISTFILES = $(OBJS:.o=.c) *.h README.md CHANGELOG COPYRIGHT 
Makefile configure imagequant.pc.in
Makefile:32:PKGCONFIG = imagequant.pc
Makefile:111:   rm -f imagequant.pc
Makefile:137:   sed 's|PREFIX|$(PREFIX)|;s|VERSION|$(VERSION)|' < 
imagequant.pc.in > $(PKGCONFIG)

-- Petr


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: RPM build errors: Illegal char '@' (0x40) in: @2.15.0@

[Tom Hughes via devel]

On 12/05/2021 09:22, Sandro Mani wrote:


Provides: libimagequant = 2.15.0-1.fc35 libimagequant(x86-64) = 2.15.0-1.fc35 
libimagequant.so.0()(64bit)
Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 
4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
Requires: libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.14)(64bit) 
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) 
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) 
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgomp.so.1()(64bit) 
libgomp.so.1(GOMP_1.0)(64bit) libgomp.so.1(GOMP_4.0)(64bit) 
libgomp.so.1(OMP_1.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) 
libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.27)(64bit) libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.29)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Processing files: libimagequant-devel-2.15.0-1.fc35.x86_64
error: Illegal char '@' (0x40) in: @2.15.0@
Provides: libimagequant-devel = 2.15.0-1.fc35 libimagequant-devel(x86-64) = 
2.15.0-1.fc35
Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 
4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
Requires: /usr/bin/pkg-config libimagequant.so.0()(64bit)
RPM build errors:
 Illegal char '@' (0x40) in: @2.15.0@
Child return code was: 1

2.15.0 is the version of the package. Any ideas where this one comes from? 
Apparently not from elfdeps:


Already reported and fixed upstream I think:

https://github.com/ImageOptim/libimagequant/issues/54

Tom

--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: RPM build errors: Illegal char '@' (0x40) in: @2.15.0@

[Sandro Mani]

In the build log, I see:
sed 's|PREFIX|/usr|;s|VERSION|2.15.0|' < imagequant.pc.in > imagequant.pc

And it says @VERSION@ to be substituted by CMake, so this ends up as @2.15.0@.

See the diff:
https://github.com/ImageOptim/libimagequant/compare/2.14.1..2.15.0

IOW, you can stop doing that manually.


Ohh, good catch, thanks!

Sandro
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: RPM build errors: Illegal char '@' (0x40) in: @2.15.0@

[Elliott Sales de Andrade]

On Wed, 12 May 2021 at 04:23, Sandro Mani  wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> This is a new one [1] (koji task [2]):
>
> Provides: libimagequant = 2.15.0-1.fc35 libimagequant(x86-64) = 2.15.0-1.fc35 
> libimagequant.so.0()(64bit)
> Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) 
> <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
> Requires: libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.14)(64bit) 
> libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) 
> libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) 
> libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgomp.so.1()(64bit) 
> libgomp.so.1(GOMP_1.0)(64bit) libgomp.so.1(GOMP_4.0)(64bit) 
> libgomp.so.1(OMP_1.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) 
> libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.27)(64bit) libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.29)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
> Processing files: libimagequant-devel-2.15.0-1.fc35.x86_64
> error: Illegal char '@' (0x40) in: @2.15.0@
> Provides: libimagequant-devel = 2.15.0-1.fc35 libimagequant-devel(x86-64) = 
> 2.15.0-1.fc35
> Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) 
> <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
> Requires: /usr/bin/pkg-config libimagequant.so.0()(64bit)
> RPM build errors:
> Illegal char '@' (0x40) in: @2.15.0@
> Child return code was: 1
>
> 2.15.0 is the version of the package. Any ideas where this one comes from?

In the build log, I see:
sed 's|PREFIX|/usr|;s|VERSION|2.15.0|' < imagequant.pc.in > imagequant.pc

And it says @VERSION@ to be substituted by CMake, so this ends up as @2.15.0@.

See the diff:
https://github.com/ImageOptim/libimagequant/compare/2.14.1..2.15.0

IOW, you can stop doing that manually.

> Apparently not from elfdeps:
>
> $ /usr/lib/rpm/elfdeps --provides libimagequant.so
> libimagequant.so.0()(64bit)
> $ /usr/lib/rpm/elfdeps --requires libimagequant.so
> libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit)
> libgomp.so.1(GOMP_4.0)(64bit)
> libgomp.so.1(GOMP_1.0)(64bit)
> libgomp.so.1(OMP_1.0)(64bit)
> libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.27)(64bit)
> libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
> libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.29)(64bit)
> libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit)
> libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.14)(64bit)
> libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit)
> libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
> libm.so.6()(64bit)
> libgomp.so.1()(64bit)
> libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
> libc.so.6()(64bit)
> rtld(GNU_HASH)
>
> Thanks
> Sandro
>
> [1] https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/743/67740743/build.log
> [2] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=67740603
>
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: 
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives: 
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure



-- 
Elliott
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

RPM build errors: Illegal char '@' (0x40) in: @2.15.0@

[Sandro Mani]

Hi

This is a new one [1] (koji task [2]):

Provides: libimagequant = 2.15.0-1.fc35 libimagequant(x86-64) = 2.15.0-1.fc35 
libimagequant.so.0()(64bit)
Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 
4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
Requires: libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.14)(64bit) 
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) 
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) 
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libgomp.so.1()(64bit) 
libgomp.so.1(GOMP_1.0)(64bit) libgomp.so.1(GOMP_4.0)(64bit) 
libgomp.so.1(OMP_1.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) 
libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.27)(64bit) libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.29)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Processing files: libimagequant-devel-2.15.0-1.fc35.x86_64
error: Illegal char '@' (0x40) in: @2.15.0@
Provides: libimagequant-devel = 2.15.0-1.fc35 libimagequant-devel(x86-64) = 
2.15.0-1.fc35
Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 
4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
Requires: /usr/bin/pkg-config libimagequant.so.0()(64bit)
RPM build errors:
Illegal char '@' (0x40) in: @2.15.0@
Child return code was: 1

2.15.0 is the version of the package. Any ideas where this one comes from? 
Apparently not from elfdeps:

$ /usr/lib/rpm/elfdeps --provides libimagequant.so
libimagequant.so.0()(64bit)
$ /usr/lib/rpm/elfdeps --requires libimagequant.so
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit)
libgomp.so.1(GOMP_4.0)(64bit)
libgomp.so.1(GOMP_1.0)(64bit)
libgomp.so.1(OMP_1.0)(64bit)
libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.27)(64bit)
libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.29)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.14)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
libgomp.so.1()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)

Thanks
Sandro

[1] https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/743/67740743/build.log
[2] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=67740603

___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: [rpms/perl-Plack] PR #1: Move Apache handler ro sub-packages

[Emmanuel Seyman]

* Ralf Corsepius [11/05/2021 07:25] :
>
> Actually, I am surprized and irritated about not having been informed
> beforehand nor having been CC:-ed by any means.

Strange, I got an email and I supposed you had too.

> I can't deny thinking, Fedoras infrastructure has derailed into an unusable,
> bureaucratic mess.
> 
> No idea. Firstly I'd have to have look into this. Unfortunately, I probably
> will not have any time available for Fedora throughout the next couple of
> weeks..

Given that the release of Perl 5.34 is in a few days, waiting a number
of weeks sounds bureaucratic to the extreme.

I will merge this later today so the the rebase to 5.34 can happen. We
can always revert any number of these commits or improve them further.

Emmanuel
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Fedora-Cloud-33-20210512.0 compose check report

[Fedora compose checker]

No missing expected images.

Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64), 1/8 (aarch64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)

Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-33-20210511.0):

ID: 884773  Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/884773
ID: 884781  Test: aarch64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/884781

Passed openQA tests: 7/8 (x86_64), 7/8 (aarch64)

New passes (same test not passed in Fedora-Cloud-33-20210511.0):

ID: 884772  Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 base_selinux
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/884772
-- 
Mail generated by check-compose:
https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Bug 1959040] perl-HTTP-Message-6.30 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1959040

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2021-05e5658d6f has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing
--advisory=FEDORA-2021-05e5658d6f`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-05e5658d6f

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information
on how to test updates.


-- 
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 Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: Help with LDFLAGS for a golang package

[Jérémy Bertozzi]

Same result as you after re-install a few days later, looks like some cache
issue...

Sorry for the noise, and thanks for your time!

On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 11:41 AM Alejandro Saez Morollon 
wrote:

> Did you figure it out?
> I installed the package from your COPR build and I can see the correct
> version:
>
> ```
> Smug - tmux session manager. Version 0.2.2
> ```
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
>
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Bug 1957176] perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20210505 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1957176



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2021-6066e97060 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing
--advisory=FEDORA-2021-6066e97060`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-6066e97060

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information
on how to test updates.


-- 
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 Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Bug 1957176] perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20210505 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1957176



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2021-ba30b8e548 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing
--advisory=FEDORA-2021-ba30b8e548`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-ba30b8e548

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information
on how to test updates.


-- 
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 Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: Upgrade to Fedora 34 broke the boot menu.

[Chris Murphy]

On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 8:54 AM Björn Persson  wrote:
>
> Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Do you have any idea what went wrong? I don't recall hearing of anyone
> > else having this trouble, yet. And we've definitely had pre-BLS
> > installs upgraded, as people hit the GNOME login bug on them...
>
> The current hypothesis is that the system was using and updating
> /boot/grub2/grub.cfg, leaving /boot/efi/EFI/fedora/grub.cfg to go stale,
> and the upgrade replaced the file in use with the stale one.
>
> This would mean that different programs have different ideas about
> which grub.cfg is in use.
>
> See also https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1958540

A grubx64.efi created by grub2-install, on any version of Fedora, will
use /boot/grub2/grub.cfg

-- 
Chris Murphy
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Bug 1957176] perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20210505 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1957176

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2021-4294bed030 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing
--advisory=FEDORA-2021-4294bed030`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-4294bed030

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information
on how to test updates.


-- 
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 Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Bug 1953617] CVE-2021-22204 perl-Image-ExifTool: improper neutralization of user data in the DjVu file format allows arbitrary code execution when parsing a malicious image [fedora-all]

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1953617

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Fixed In Version|perl-Image-ExifTool-12.16-3 |perl-Image-ExifTool-12.16-3
   |.fc33   |.fc33
   |perl-Image-ExifTool-12.16-3 |perl-Image-ExifTool-12.16-3
   |.fc32   |.fc32
   |perl-Image-ExifTool-12.16-3 |perl-Image-ExifTool-12.16-3
   |.fc34   |.fc34
   |perl-Image-ExifTool-12.16-3 |perl-Image-ExifTool-12.16-3
   |.el7|.el7
   ||perl-Image-ExifTool-12.16-3
   ||.el8



--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-b308580516 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable
repository.
If problem still persists, 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
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure