[389-devel] 389 DS nightly 2021-05-16 - 95% PASS
https://fedorapeople.org/groups/389ds/ci/nightly/2021/05/16/report-389-ds-base-2.0.4-20210516git2a12316b7.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
Re: f34 - llvm12 update
On Sat, May 15, 2021 at 08:53:13PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Sat, May 15, 2021 at 08:42:33PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 02:20:41PM +0200, Serge Guelton wrote: > > > Hi folks, > > > > > > we're preparing an update of the LLVM package from 12.0.0rc1 to 12.0.0. > > > > > > In addition the package the llvm team maintain, the following packages > > > needs a rebuild: > > > > > > annobin-0:9.65 > > > bindgen-0:0.57.0 > > > clazy-0:1.9 > > > doxygen-1:1.9.1 > > > gnome-builder-0:3.40.0 > > > mesa-dri-drivers-0:21.0.2 > > > mesa-libOSMesa-0:21.0.2 > > > mesa-vulkan-drivers-0:21.0.2 > > > postgresql-llvmjit-0:13.2 > > > qt-creator-0:4.14.1 > > > qt6-doctools-0:6.0.3 > > > qt6-linguist-0:6.0.3 > > > > > > Once the llvm packaes are all rebuit, we will push these rebuilds in the > > > side-tag f34-build-side-41029. > > > > > > Feel free to contact sguel...@redhat.com and tstel...@redhat.com if you > > > have any > > > question/remark. > > > > american-fuzzy-lop is dependent on the major version of clang which > > probably hasn't changed, but maybe worth a rebuild? > > > > In general it'd be good if you could rebuild afl whenever clang major > > changes in future. However it unfortunately requires a trivial change > > to the spec file each time: > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/american-fuzzy-lop/blob/rawhide/f/american-fuzzy-lop.spec#_1 > > > > If clang exported an RPM symbol for the major version we could avoid > > needing to churn the specfile like this. > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/american-fuzzy-lop/pull-request/1 ? Thanks - I've included this and I'm doing a build now (in main Rawhide): https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=67995321 I still think it would be a good idea if bumps to clang on a side tag could include rebuilding AFL. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com virt-builder quickly builds VMs from scratch http://libguestfs.org/virt-builder.1.html ___ 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: f34 - llvm12 update
On Sat, May 15, 2021 at 08:42:33PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 02:20:41PM +0200, Serge Guelton wrote: > > Hi folks, > > > > we're preparing an update of the LLVM package from 12.0.0rc1 to 12.0.0. > > > > In addition the package the llvm team maintain, the following packages > > needs a rebuild: > > > > annobin-0:9.65 > > bindgen-0:0.57.0 > > clazy-0:1.9 > > doxygen-1:1.9.1 > > gnome-builder-0:3.40.0 > > mesa-dri-drivers-0:21.0.2 > > mesa-libOSMesa-0:21.0.2 > > mesa-vulkan-drivers-0:21.0.2 > > postgresql-llvmjit-0:13.2 > > qt-creator-0:4.14.1 > > qt6-doctools-0:6.0.3 > > qt6-linguist-0:6.0.3 > > > > Once the llvm packaes are all rebuit, we will push these rebuilds in the > > side-tag f34-build-side-41029. > > > > Feel free to contact sguel...@redhat.com and tstel...@redhat.com if you > > have any > > question/remark. > > american-fuzzy-lop is dependent on the major version of clang which > probably hasn't changed, but maybe worth a rebuild? > > In general it'd be good if you could rebuild afl whenever clang major > changes in future. However it unfortunately requires a trivial change > to the spec file each time: > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/american-fuzzy-lop/blob/rawhide/f/american-fuzzy-lop.spec#_1 > > If clang exported an RPM symbol for the major version we could avoid > needing to churn the specfile like this. https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/american-fuzzy-lop/pull-request/1 ? Zbyszek ___ 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: f34 - llvm12 update
On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 02:20:41PM +0200, Serge Guelton wrote: > Hi folks, > > we're preparing an update of the LLVM package from 12.0.0rc1 to 12.0.0. > > In addition the package the llvm team maintain, the following packages needs > a rebuild: > > annobin-0:9.65 > bindgen-0:0.57.0 > clazy-0:1.9 > doxygen-1:1.9.1 > gnome-builder-0:3.40.0 > mesa-dri-drivers-0:21.0.2 > mesa-libOSMesa-0:21.0.2 > mesa-vulkan-drivers-0:21.0.2 > postgresql-llvmjit-0:13.2 > qt-creator-0:4.14.1 > qt6-doctools-0:6.0.3 > qt6-linguist-0:6.0.3 > > Once the llvm packaes are all rebuit, we will push these rebuilds in the > side-tag f34-build-side-41029. > > Feel free to contact sguel...@redhat.com and tstel...@redhat.com if you have > any > question/remark. american-fuzzy-lop is dependent on the major version of clang which probably hasn't changed, but maybe worth a rebuild? In general it'd be good if you could rebuild afl whenever clang major changes in future. However it unfortunately requires a trivial change to the spec file each time: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/american-fuzzy-lop/blob/rawhide/f/american-fuzzy-lop.spec#_1 If clang exported an RPM symbol for the major version we could avoid needing to churn the specfile like this. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com Fedora Windows cross-compiler. Compile Windows programs, test, and build Windows installers. Over 100 libraries supported. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MinGW ___ 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: feature request: gnome-shell-extension-panel-date-format.rpm package
On Saturday, 15 May 2021 at 02:16, William Garber wrote: > the panel-date-format gnome shell extension is very useful and > popular. why not make it a standard rpm available in the repository > please? Someone has to commit to being the maintainer: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Package_maintainer_responsibilities/ Are you willing to be that someone? Regards, Dominik -- Fedora https://getfedora.org | RPM Fusion http://rpmfusion.org There should be a science of discontent. People need hard times and oppression to develop psychic muscles. -- from "Collected Sayings of Muad'Dib" by the Princess Irulan ___ 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 1960857] New: perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20210515 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1960857 Bug ID: 1960857 Summary: perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20210515 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged Assignee: jples...@redhat.com Reporter: upstream-release-monitor...@fedoraproject.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: iarn...@gmail.com, jples...@redhat.com, perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Latest upstream release: 5.20210515 Current version/release in rawhide: 5.20210505-1.fc35 URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/CPAN-Perl-Releases/ 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/5881/ -- 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
python-wloc package license change
Hello. License changed from "GPLv3+" to "GPLv3+ and MIT and ASL 2.0". -- Sincerely, Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org) ___ 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: F35 Change: Drop the the "Allow SSH root login with password" option from the installer GUI (Self-Contained Change proposal)
On 5/14/21 2:50 PM, Martin Kolman wrote: On Thu, 2021-05-13 at 20:09 +0200, Peter Boy wrote: We discussed that in the Fedora Server Edition Working Group and opted to leave it as is for the Server installation iso. A lot of servers are running in a protected environment. And there are situations when you need urgent access but do not sit at your desktop and don’t have the key available. So let the server admin decide what is best in a given installation context. In most cases it is the current default (disallow password login) Do those server deployments not have any users accounts other than root ? Creating a non-root user account, possibly with admin rights (all possible from within Anaconda) would seem like a safer option for accasional/emergency password based access to such machines over SSH. I don't see, how this would any safer than directly using "root". Ralf ___ 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-IoT-34-20210515.0 compose check report
Missing expected images: Iot dvd x86_64 Iot dvd aarch64 Failed openQA tests: 1/15 (aarch64) Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-IoT-34-20210512.1): ID: 887763 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_clevis@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/887763 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-34-20210512.1): ID: 887747 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_clevis URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/887747 Passed openQA tests: 15/16 (x86_64), 14/15 (aarch64) Installed system changes in test x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso install_default@uefi: System load changed from 0.11 to 0.29 Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/884866#downloads Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/887755#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: F35 Change: Drop the the "Allow SSH root login with password" option from the installer GUI (Self-Contained Change proposal)
On Friday, 14 May 2021 14:25:26 EEST PGNet Dev wrote: > On 5/14/21 2:05 AM, Juha Tuomala wrote: > > Sure. But this is devel list. Are developers themselves the target > > audience? > > > :) Hopefully not. Is it defined somewhere? > and, yes, 'developers themselves' -- again, "here" -- *are* a target > audience. their usage of OS installs, whether VM or baremetal, is far > higher than end-users'. - again, -- is it defined somewhere? :) Just asking. Tuju -- t...@iki.fi | http://tuju.fi | sip:t...@iki.fi | +358931575699 | +358401514000 Better to have one, and not need it, than to need one and not have it. ___ 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: Sundials-5.7.0
Hello everyone. I wish to complete the updating of Sundials in Rawhide, so these packages will be rebuilt in the next days by existing side-tag f35-build-side-37890: $ repoquery --whatrequires sundials*-devel --disablerepo=* --enablerepo=*-source Last metadata expiration check: 0:19:21 ago on Sat 15 May 2021 11:17:36 AM CEST. bout++-0:4.3.2-6.fc34.src dolfin-0:2019.1.0.post0-15.fc34.src octave-6:5.2.0-11.fc34.src octave-6:6.1.0-1.module_f34+11129+457484d3.src python-steps-0:3.5.0-7.fc34.src $ koji list-tagged --latest f35-build-side-37890 Build Tag Built by bout++-4.3.2-7.fc35 f35-build-side-37890 davidsch sundials-5.7.0-1.fc35 f35-build-side-37890 sagitter If maintainers are disagree, please let me know. On 2/22/21 7:13 PM, Antonio T. sagitter wrote: Hi all. 'sundials-5.7.0' is coming in Rawhide branch. Is reasonable pushing it in f34 too? Release notes: https://computing.llnl.gov/projects/sundials/release-history ___ 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 Regards. -- --- Antonio Trande Fedora Project mailto: sagit...@fedoraproject.org GPG key: 0x29FBC85D7A51CC2F GPG key server: https://keys.gnupg.net/ OpenPGP_0x29FBC85D7A51CC2F.asc Description: OpenPGP public key OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital 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
Fedora-Cloud-34-20210515.0 compose check report
No missing expected images. Failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64) Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-Cloud-34-20210514.0): ID: 887736 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/887736 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-34-20210514.0): ID: 887744 Test: aarch64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/887744 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
Fedora-Cloud-32-20210515.0 compose check report
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-32-20210514.0): ID: 887720 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/887720 ID: 887728 Test: aarch64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/887728 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
Fedora-Cloud-33-20210515.0 compose check report
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-33-20210514.0): ID: 887704 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/887704 ID: 887712 Test: aarch64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/887712 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
