Fedora-Rawhide-20210826.n.1 compose check report
No missing expected images. Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check! 3 of 43 required tests failed, 1 result missing openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING** below Unsatisfied gating requirements that could not be mapped to openQA tests: MISSING: fedora.Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2.x86_64.64bit - compose.cloud_autocloud Failed openQA tests: 18/207 (x86_64), 15/141 (aarch64) New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20210825.n.0): ID: 958949 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_role_deploy_domain_controller **GATING** URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/958949 ID: 958961 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso realmd_join_cockpit URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/958961 ID: 958975 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso realmd_join_sssd **GATING** URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/958975 ID: 958979 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_realmd_join_kickstart **GATING** URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/958979 ID: 958996 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_notifications_postinstall URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/958996 ID: 959051 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 base_system_logging@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/959051 ID: 959055 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 base_service_manipulation@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/959055 ID: 959073 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso server_role_deploy_database_server@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/959073 ID: 959085 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso install_vncconnect_client@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/959085 ID: 959097 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso install_vncconnect_server@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/959097 ID: 959105 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso server_database_client@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/959105 ID: 959125 Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz desktop_browser@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/959125 ID: 959152 Test: x86_64 universal install_package_set_minimal URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/959152 ID: 959192 Test: x86_64 universal install_simple_free_space@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/959192 ID: 959253 Test: aarch64 universal upgrade_2_server_domain_controller@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/959253 ID: 959273 Test: aarch64 universal upgrade_2_realmd_client@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/959273 Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20210825.n.0): ID: 958937 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso anaconda_help URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/958937 ID: 958960 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso modularity_tests URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/958960 ID: 958991 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso apps_startstop URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/958991 ID: 958992 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso anaconda_help URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/958992 ID: 959018 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso apps_startstop URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/959018 ID: 959019 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso anaconda_help URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/959019 ID: 959032 Test: x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso anaconda_help URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/959032 ID: 959048 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 base_selinux@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/959048 ID: 959074 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso anaconda_help@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/959074 ID: 959093 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso modularity_tests@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/959093 ID: 959107 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso server_cockpit_basic@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/959107 ID: 959126 Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz gedit@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/959126 ID: 959127 Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz desktop_terminal@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/959127 ID: 959138 Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz desktop_update_graphical@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/959138 ID: 959206 Test: x86_64 universal memtest URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/959206 ID: 959225 Test: aarch64 universal install_asian_language@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/959225 ID: 959257 Test: aarch64 universal upgrade_minimal_64bit@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/959257 Soft failed openQA tests: 21/207 (x86_64), 13/141 (aarch64) (Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug) Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20210825.n.0): ID: 958927 Test: x86_64 Server-boot-iso install_default URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/958927 ID: 958928 Test: x86_64 Server-boot-iso install_default@uefi URL:
Fedora rawhide compose report: 20210826.n.1 changes
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20210825.n.0 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20210826.n.1 = SUMMARY = Added images:3 Dropped images: 0 Added packages: 18 Dropped packages:1 Upgraded packages: 267 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 1.18 GiB Size of dropped packages:7.69 MiB Size of upgraded packages: 4.13 GiB Size of downgraded packages: 0 B Size change of upgraded packages: 13.87 MiB Size change of downgraded packages: 0 B = ADDED IMAGES = Image: LXDE live x86_64 Path: Spins/x86_64/iso/Fedora-LXDE-Live-x86_64-Rawhide-20210826.n.1.iso Image: LXQt live x86_64 Path: Spins/x86_64/iso/Fedora-LXQt-Live-x86_64-Rawhide-20210826.n.1.iso Image: Design_suite live x86_64 Path: Labs/x86_64/iso/Fedora-Design_suite-Live-x86_64-Rawhide-20210826.n.1.iso = DROPPED IMAGES = = ADDED PACKAGES = Package: f35-backgrounds-35.0.0-1.fc36 Summary: Fedora 35 default desktop background RPMs:f35-backgrounds f35-backgrounds-base f35-backgrounds-extras-base f35-backgrounds-extras-gnome f35-backgrounds-extras-kde f35-backgrounds-extras-mate f35-backgrounds-extras-xfce f35-backgrounds-gnome f35-backgrounds-kde f35-backgrounds-mate f35-backgrounds-xfce Size:28.07 MiB Package: ghc-8.10.6-101.module_f36+12695+fb87b83b Summary: Glasgow Haskell Compiler RPMs:ghc ghc-Cabal ghc-Cabal-devel ghc-Cabal-doc ghc-Cabal-prof ghc-array ghc-array-devel ghc-array-doc ghc-array-prof ghc-base ghc-base-devel ghc-base-doc ghc-base-prof ghc-binary ghc-binary-devel ghc-binary-doc ghc-binary-prof ghc-bytestring ghc-bytestring-devel ghc-bytestring-doc ghc-bytestring-prof ghc-compiler ghc-containers ghc-containers-devel ghc-containers-doc ghc-containers-prof ghc-deepseq ghc-deepseq-devel ghc-deepseq-doc ghc-deepseq-prof ghc-devel ghc-directory ghc-directory-devel ghc-directory-doc ghc-directory-prof ghc-doc ghc-doc-index ghc-exceptions ghc-exceptions-devel ghc-exceptions-doc ghc-exceptions-prof ghc-filepath ghc-filepath-devel ghc-filepath-doc ghc-filepath-prof ghc-ghc ghc-ghc-boot ghc-ghc-boot-devel ghc-ghc-boot-doc ghc-ghc-boot-prof ghc-ghc-boot-th ghc-ghc-boot-th-devel ghc-ghc-boot-th-doc ghc-ghc-boot-th-prof ghc-ghc-compact ghc-ghc-compact-devel ghc-ghc-compact-doc ghc-ghc-compact-prof ghc-ghc-devel ghc-ghc-doc ghc-ghc-heap ghc-ghc-heap-devel ghc-ghc-heap-doc ghc-ghc-heap-prof ghc-ghc-prof ghc-ghci ghc-ghci-devel ghc-ghci-doc ghc-ghci-prof ghc-haskeline ghc-haskeline-devel ghc-haskeline-doc ghc-haskeline-prof ghc-hpc ghc-hpc-devel ghc-hpc-doc ghc-hpc-prof ghc-libiserv ghc-libiserv-devel ghc-libiserv-doc ghc-libiserv-prof ghc-manual ghc-mtl ghc-mtl-devel ghc-mtl-doc ghc-mtl-prof ghc-parsec ghc-parsec-devel ghc-parsec-doc ghc-parsec-prof ghc-pretty ghc-pretty-devel ghc-pretty-doc ghc-pretty-prof ghc-process ghc-process-devel ghc-process-doc ghc-process-prof ghc-prof ghc-stm ghc-stm-devel ghc-stm-doc ghc-stm-prof ghc-template-haskell ghc-template-haskell-devel ghc-template-haskell-doc ghc-template-haskell-prof ghc-terminfo ghc-terminfo-devel ghc-terminfo-doc ghc-terminfo-prof ghc-text ghc-text-devel ghc-text-doc ghc-text-prof ghc-time ghc-time-devel ghc-time-doc ghc-time-prof ghc-transformers ghc-transformers-devel ghc-transformers-doc ghc-transformers-prof ghc-unix ghc-unix-devel ghc-unix-doc ghc-unix-prof ghc-xhtml ghc-xhtml-devel ghc-xhtml-doc ghc-xhtml-prof Size:1.13 GiB Package: lexertl14-0.1.0-1.20210825gitf8bb69f.fc36 Summary: C++14 version of lexertl RPMs:lexertl14-devel lexertl14-examples Size:510.20 KiB Package: libstrophe-0.10.1-4.fc36 Summary: An XMPP library for C RPMs:libstrophe libstrophe-devel libstrophe-doc Size:1.31 MiB Package: python-autopage-0.4.0-1.fc36 Summary: A Python library to provide automatic paging for console output RPMs:python3-autopage Size:38.33 KiB Package: python-google-cloud-functions-1.0.3-1.fc36 Summary: Python Client for Google Cloud Functions RPMs:python3-google-cloud-functions python3-google-cloud-functions-doc Size:256.73 KiB Package: python-google-cloud-kms-2.5.0-1.fc36 Summary: Python Client for Google Cloud Key Management Service (KMS) API RPMs:python3-google-cloud-kms python3-google-cloud-kms-doc Size:311.99 KiB Package: python-pydata-sphinx-theme-0.6.3-1.fc36 Summary: Bootstrap-based Sphinx theme from the PyData community RPMs:python-pydata-sphinx-theme-doc python3-pydata-sphinx-theme Size:2.13 MiB Package: rust-difflib-0.4.0-1.fc36 Summary: Port of Python's difflib library to Rust RPMs:rust-difflib+default-devel rust-difflib-devel Size:22.15 KiB Package: rust-exitfailure-0.5.1-1.fc36 Summary: Basic newtype wrappers for use with ? in main RPMs:rust-exitfailure+default-devel rust-exitfailure-devel Size:27.27 KiB Package: rust-pid-3.0.0-1.fc36 Summary: PID controller RPMs:rust-pid+default-devel rust-pid+serde-devel rust-pid-devel Size:26.78 KiB Package: rust-predicates1-1.0.8-1.fc36 Summary: Implementation of boolean-valued
[Bug 1997123] Upgrade perl-Text-Tabs+Wrap to 2021.0814
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1997123 --- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-fc79da3aef has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-fc79da3aef` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-fc79da3aef 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 1997110] Upgrade perl-Carp-Assert-More to 2.0.1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1997110 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-611fd43f88 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-611fd43f88` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-611fd43f88 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: Claiming ownership for gtg and pyhton-liblarch
Hi Miguel, to help you to get started the best is to read this: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers I am also getting started as you. Hope this helps. - Iago - En 26 ago. 2021 18:47, en 18:47, "Miguel Reis de Araújo" escribió: >Hello. > >The gtg package was retired 3 years ago because of inactive upstream, >but it's been active for a while so I'd like to maintain it. To do >this, I need to become the owner of the "gtg" package and the >"python-liblarch" package, which is a dependency of "gtg" and was also >retired because of inactive upstream, but has returned to activity >along with gtg. > >Thanks for your attention. > > > > > >___ >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: Self Introduction: Miguel Reis de Araújo
On Thu, 2021-08-26 at 13:37 -0300, Miguel Reis de Araújo wrote: > Hi. I am a 19 year old Brazilian Computer Science student Welcome Miguel. ___ 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
Claiming ownership for gtg and pyhton-liblarch
Hello. The gtg package was retired 3 years ago because of inactive upstream, but it's been active for a while so I'd like to maintain it. To do this, I need to become the owner of the "gtg" package and the "python-liblarch" package, which is a dependency of "gtg" and was also retired because of inactive upstream, but has returned to activity along with gtg. Thanks for your attention. ___ 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 1997123] Upgrade perl-Text-Tabs+Wrap to 2021.0814
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1997123 --- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-fc79da3aef has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-fc79da3aef -- 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
Self Introduction: Miguel Reis de Araújo
Hi. I am a 19 year old Brazilian Computer Science student at the University of São Paulo (ICMC campus) in my second semester of graduation, and this is the first time I have tried to contribute to any Free Software project. 2 years ago I started using Gnu/Linux and Fedora is my distro of choice, so I would like to contribute to the project by maintaining a package. The package in question is the "gtg" (Getting Things Gnome!) package, which was retired 3 years ago because of inactive upstream, but has been active for some time now. Thank you for the attention. ___ 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-backgrounds ready for review
Good answers On Thu, 2021-08-26 at 10:51 -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On Thu, 26 Aug 2021 at 10:03, Stephen Snow wrote: > > > > From my user POV, > > I never understood why backgrounds were versioned specific to the > > release number of Fedora Linux in the first place. I mean, is it > > actually a separate repo each time? Wouldn't it make sense to just > > call > > it backgrounds? > > > > 1. we have 20+ years of history of theming desktops to a set of > packages. Size of downloads were usually kept small for a very long > time because downloading megabytes of images for backgrounds over > even > an 1.4 MB DSL was slow. > 2. In the Red Hat Linux days, you might be using fvwm2 in one > release, > enlightenment in another and sawmill in a third. Each one would need > to tweak things for that window manager. > 3. While we had moved away from this by early Fedora GNOME2, we had > still release names which themed the desktop. Combine that with 1 and > you have a want for smaller downloads of just a specific release > which > you could cherry pick by hand if you wanted an old one. [The blue Sun > one is my favorite still...] > 4. When we dropped release names and could allow larger download > sizes, you end up dealing with community dynamics which were buried > before as 1,2,3 trumped them. Some people really really hate some > backgrounds.. they don't want them on their system at all. Other > people love certain ones. Others want to keep old ones but then start > asking for updates so that they look nice on their hidef monitors > [Hello could someone update Blue Sun... ] > 5. Finally you have artist dynamics which match up with people > dynamics where they want to focus on a set of deliverables and not be > asked to update old images constantly (and you do have to tweak > them.. > monitor colour depth, size, and other things over time have made > older > images look bad unless you tweak the images.) > > > > Just asking > > > > Stephen > > > > On Thu, 2021-08-26 at 09:23 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 08:40:49AM -0400, Link Dupont wrote: > > > > * fedora-backgrounds/f34 => fedora-backgrounds-34-1.fc34 > > > > * fedora-backgrounds/f35 => fedora-backgrounds-35-1.fc35 > > > > * fedora-backgrounds/f35 => fedora-backgrounds-35-2.fc35 > > > > But I must be missing something; this seems like its way too > > > > simple > > > > a solution. > > > > > > Well, the current solution -- or having subpackages -- lets you > > > install old > > > wallpaper on new systems. Since a lot of the old wallpaper is > > > _awesome_, > > > that's desirable. > > > > > > -- > > > Matthew Miller > > > > > > Fedora Project Leader > > > ___ > > > 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 > > > > -- > Stephen J Smoogen. > I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Flame wars in > sci.astro.orion. I have seen SPAM filters overload because of > Godwin's > Law. All those moments will be lost in time... like posts on a BBS... > time to shutdown -h now. > ___ > 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:
Re: f35-backgrounds ready for review
On Thu, Aug 26 2021 at 03:12:24 PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: True. But those subpackages could just be built from one source package: fedora-backgrounds/f34 => builds all subpackages in the range 21..34 fedora-backgrounds/f35 => builds all subpackages in the range 21..35 Assuming this range notation is a half-open interval, yes, I like this idea. Then each subsequent release could take the wallpapers from its predecessor and create a new subpackage named with the previous version. Would that get unwieldy as the spec file grows? Is there an opportunity for macros to make this more sustainable? ___ 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: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)
On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 02:39:13PM +0200, Ondrej Dubaj wrote: > Hi, > > thanks for your reply, there should not be any packages on critical path, > which are not building currently. I see grep on the list: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1943083 We should probably fix that quickly. 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: f35-backgrounds ready for review
On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 02:45:18PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 26. 08. 21 14:40, Link Dupont wrote: > >Wouldn't a source package named 'fedora-backgrounds' work? Yes please! > >Each > >branch in dist-git would allow for new wallpapers each release. An > >RPM using the Fedora version as its version would result in an NVR > >that clearly identifies the wallpapers: > > > >* fedora-backgrounds/f34 => fedora-backgrounds-34-1.fc34 > >* fedora-backgrounds/f35 => fedora-backgrounds-35-1.fc35 > >* fedora-backgrounds/f35 => fedora-backgrounds-35-2.fc35 > > > >But I must be missing something; this seems like its way too simple a > >solution. > > Nowadays, you can install e.g. f23-backgrounds on Fedora 34. If we > do it like you said, there would always be just one option. > > $ repoquery --repo=rawhide -a | egrep -- 'f[[:digit:]]+-backgrounds' > f21-backgrounds-0:21.1.0-13.fc35.noarch ... > f34-backgrounds-xfce-0:34.0.1-2.fc35.noarch True. But those subpackages could just be built from one source package: fedora-backgrounds/f34 => builds all subpackages in the range 21..34 fedora-backgrounds/f35 => builds all subpackages in the range 21..35 ... (This would likely mean that all fedora-backgrounds* source packages would be imported into fedora-backgrounds and retired.) 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
Unannounced libwebsockets soname bump
Seems to rebuild fine, but please don't, in the future, please and thank you. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/#_rawhide -- Gwyn Ciesla she/her/hers in your fear, seek only peace in your fear, seek only love -d. bowie Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. signature.asc 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
Re: f35-backgrounds ready for review
On Thu, 26 Aug 2021 at 10:03, Stephen Snow wrote: > > From my user POV, > I never understood why backgrounds were versioned specific to the > release number of Fedora Linux in the first place. I mean, is it > actually a separate repo each time? Wouldn't it make sense to just call > it backgrounds? > 1. we have 20+ years of history of theming desktops to a set of packages. Size of downloads were usually kept small for a very long time because downloading megabytes of images for backgrounds over even an 1.4 MB DSL was slow. 2. In the Red Hat Linux days, you might be using fvwm2 in one release, enlightenment in another and sawmill in a third. Each one would need to tweak things for that window manager. 3. While we had moved away from this by early Fedora GNOME2, we had still release names which themed the desktop. Combine that with 1 and you have a want for smaller downloads of just a specific release which you could cherry pick by hand if you wanted an old one. [The blue Sun one is my favorite still...] 4. When we dropped release names and could allow larger download sizes, you end up dealing with community dynamics which were buried before as 1,2,3 trumped them. Some people really really hate some backgrounds.. they don't want them on their system at all. Other people love certain ones. Others want to keep old ones but then start asking for updates so that they look nice on their hidef monitors [Hello could someone update Blue Sun... ] 5. Finally you have artist dynamics which match up with people dynamics where they want to focus on a set of deliverables and not be asked to update old images constantly (and you do have to tweak them.. monitor colour depth, size, and other things over time have made older images look bad unless you tweak the images.) > Just asking > > Stephen > > On Thu, 2021-08-26 at 09:23 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 08:40:49AM -0400, Link Dupont wrote: > > > * fedora-backgrounds/f34 => fedora-backgrounds-34-1.fc34 > > > * fedora-backgrounds/f35 => fedora-backgrounds-35-1.fc35 > > > * fedora-backgrounds/f35 => fedora-backgrounds-35-2.fc35 > > > But I must be missing something; this seems like its way too simple > > > a solution. > > > > Well, the current solution -- or having subpackages -- lets you > > install old > > wallpaper on new systems. Since a lot of the old wallpaper is > > _awesome_, > > that's desirable. > > > > -- > > Matthew Miller > > > > Fedora Project Leader > > ___ > > 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 -- Stephen J Smoogen. I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Flame wars in sci.astro.orion. I have seen SPAM filters overload because of Godwin's Law. All those moments will be lost in time... like posts on a BBS... time to shutdown -h now. ___ 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 1998176] perl-File-Find-Object-0.3.6 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1998176 --- Comment #2 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- the-new-hotness/release-monitoring.org's scratch build of perl-File-Find-Object-0.3.6-1.fc32.src.rpm for rawhide failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=74559493 -- 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 1998176] perl-File-Find-Object-0.3.6 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1998176 --- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- Created attachment 1817955 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1817955=edit [patch] Update to 0.3.6 (#1998176) -- 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 1998176] New: perl-File-Find-Object-0.3.6 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1998176 Bug ID: 1998176 Summary: perl-File-Find-Object-0.3.6 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-File-Find-Object Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged Assignee: p...@city-fan.org Reporter: upstream-release-monitor...@fedoraproject.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: i...@cicku.me, p...@city-fan.org, perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Latest upstream release: 0.3.6 Current version/release in rawhide: 0.3.5-7.fc35 URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/File-Find-Object/ 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/2886/ -- 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: OpenLDAP 2.5 - Fedora Release - Help Needed
On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 5:14 PM Simo Sorce wrote: > On Fri, 2021-06-18 at 16:27 +0200, Simon Pichugin wrote: > > Hi folks, > > my name is Simon Pichugin and I am a maintainer for OpenLDAP. > > > > Recently, OpenLDAP has released 2.5 version. > > It has quite a big amount of changes - > > https://www.openldap.org/software/release/announce.html > > And it includes a pretty important "Upgrading from 2.4.x" section - > > https://www.openldap.org/doc/admin25/guide.html#Upgrading%20from%202.4.x > > Also, OpenLDAP on Fedora currently has links to a versioned library: > > > > ❯ ldconfig -p | grep libldap > > libldap_r-2.4.so.2 (libc6,x86-64) => /lib64/libldap_r-2.4.so.2 > > libldap-2.4.so.2 (libc6,x86-64) => /lib64/libldap-2.4.so.2 > > > > Hi Simon, is upstream releasing libraries with the versioned name in? > Or was this a Fedora packaging decision? > > Are they actually breaking ABI between 2.4 and 2.5 ? > Hi Simo, thank you for the reply! It really had helped me to think through and shape the plan. Yes, upstream releases libraries with the versioned name in them. > > This makes it harder to upgrade as a lot of packages depend on the > > versioned one (and the new package has only libldap-2.5.so.2 library. (I > > even filed an issue to sudo but I think it's not related to them much - > > https://github.com/sudo-project/sudo/issues/105 ) > > > > I suggest carefully reading the sections that talk about SONAME in > here: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ > > > I came here for advice as the upgrade can be a sensitive subject for many > > users. > > > > What I think can be done: > > > >- Rework openldap-compat package for openldap 2.5, so it will include > >libldap-2.4 libs (both with and without '_r'). I am not exactly sure > what's > >the proper way to do this (make a tarball with the compiled > libldap-2.4 > >libs and place it to the repo - would be okay?) > > No, you would probably want to have a separate package with its own > sources. > > >- Openldap 2.5 package will include only libldap-2.5.so.2 library and > >while testing we will tag it with some build tag so we can make sure > that > >everything builds with it successfully. > > Are there any API changes in 2.5 ? > I am wondering, is this just a gratuitous rename from upstream? Or will > there be issues building code because API changed? What about the ABI? > > If the ABI hasn't changes we could even think about just providing > symlinks ... > The ABI report goes as follows: https://spichugi.fedorapeople.org/compat_report.html So ABI doesn't differ much between the versions. ldap_gssapi_bind and ldap_gssapi_bind_s are not used anywhere in IDM stack (FreeIPA, Samba, SSSD, 389-ds, or python-ldap), and the depreciation was actually discussed many years ago: https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6567 So probably, it's not used by anybody and libldap 2.4 -> 2.5 should transition well without issues. Still, I think we should go through the safe way and do the process through the Fedora Change proposal. I think we can do it similarly to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Autoconf_271 (but without a compact package as the issues other projects may have probably will be pretty minor and easily fixable and tested with the package with side-tag) What do you think? > > I am not sure how we can help openldap-servers package users. Should we > > create a change proposal that will include all of the information about > the > > upgrade (from the OpenLDAP Upstream guide)? And hope that they will read > it > > before the package upgrade? Is there any other way to notify them during > > 'dnf update'? > > One way to deal with this, if you create a compat package, is to > provide the 2.4 slapcat tool that is needed to perform the database > conversion. Then create an UPGRADE file with pointers in it to the > relevant documentation and *copy* it to the config directory (or > somwhere appropriate) in the pre-upgrade script if the package we are > upgrading to is from < 2.5 version. > Then add a check in the systemd unit file that will *prevent* the > server from being started if that file is present. > > Inside the file the last instruction will be to delete the file. > > This means the upgrade will not be seamless as the ldap server will not > restart until manually fixed, but at least it will be manageable by > admins. > > > Please, share any of your thoughts on this issue. I'll come to a decision > > sometime soon as we need to get OpenLDAP 2.5 at least in some state to > the > > Fedora Rawhide so it can be properly tested. > > > > Thank you for all of your great work on our awesome Fedora! > > > > Sincerely, > > Simon > > > > P.S. the PR for 2.5 change was filed by a community member and we already > > have some discussion there - > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/openldap/pull-request/6 > > Thanks for bringing this up, I do not envy the position you are in, > hairy upgrades are
Re: f35-backgrounds ready for review
From my user POV, I never understood why backgrounds were versioned specific to the release number of Fedora Linux in the first place. I mean, is it actually a separate repo each time? Wouldn't it make sense to just call it backgrounds? Just asking Stephen On Thu, 2021-08-26 at 09:23 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 08:40:49AM -0400, Link Dupont wrote: > > * fedora-backgrounds/f34 => fedora-backgrounds-34-1.fc34 > > * fedora-backgrounds/f35 => fedora-backgrounds-35-1.fc35 > > * fedora-backgrounds/f35 => fedora-backgrounds-35-2.fc35 > > But I must be missing something; this seems like its way too simple > > a solution. > > Well, the current solution -- or having subpackages -- lets you > install old > wallpaper on new systems. Since a lot of the old wallpaper is > _awesome_, > that's desirable. > > -- > Matthew Miller > > Fedora Project Leader > ___ > 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
Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2021-08-26 16:00 UTC)
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2021-08-26 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.libera.chat. Local time information (via. uitime): = Day: Thursday == 2021-08-26 09:00 PDT US/Pacific 2021-08-26 12:00 EDT --> US/Eastern <-- 2021-08-26 16:00 UTC UTC 2021-08-26 17:00 BST Europe/London 2021-08-26 18:00 CEST Europe/Berlin 2021-08-26 18:00 CEST Europe/Paris 2021-08-26 21:30 IST Asia/Calcutta New Day: Friday - 2021-08-27 00:00 HKT Asia/Hong_Kong 2021-08-27 00:00 +08 Asia/Singapore 2021-08-27 01:00 JST Asia/Tokyo 2021-08-27 02:00 AEST Australia/Brisbane Links to all tickets below can be found at: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issues?status=Open=meeting = Followup Actions = #topic #pr-814 * mhroncok talk to authors again, having a working example might help a lot = Followup Issues = #topic #886 Enable BRP for detecting RPATH .fpc 886 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/886 #topic #907 Which %__foo macros for executables are acceptable? .fpc 907 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/907 #topic #1058 How to handle %lang files in package owned directories? .fpc 1058 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1058 = Followup Pull Requests = #topic #pr-814 Add SELinux Independent Policy Guidelines. https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/814 #topic #pr-1045 WIP: Add discussion of macro names beginning with underscores. https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1045 #topic #pr-1071 Overhaul the RPATH section of the guidelines. https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1071 #topic #pr-1064 Update PIE section https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1064 #topic #pr-1066 Update compiler guidelines for compiler policy change https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1066 #topic #pr-1074 Require deleting unused bundled libraries during %prep https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1074 #topic #pr-1077 Introduce %sysusers_create https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1077 = Open Floor = For more complete details, please visit each individual ticket. The report of the agenda items can be found at: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issues?status=Open=meeting If you would like to add something to this agenda, you can: * Reply to this e-mail * File a new ticket at: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee * E-mail me directly * Bring it up at the end of the meeting, during the open floor topic. Note that added topics may be deferred until the following meeting. ___ 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 1997110] Upgrade perl-Carp-Assert-More to 2.0.1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1997110 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED --- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-611fd43f88 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-611fd43f88 -- 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: f35-backgrounds ready for review
On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 08:40:49AM -0400, Link Dupont wrote: > * fedora-backgrounds/f34 => fedora-backgrounds-34-1.fc34 > * fedora-backgrounds/f35 => fedora-backgrounds-35-1.fc35 > * fedora-backgrounds/f35 => fedora-backgrounds-35-2.fc35 > But I must be missing something; this seems like its way too simple > a solution. Well, the current solution -- or having subpackages -- lets you install old wallpaper on new systems. Since a lot of the old wallpaper is _awesome_, that's desirable. -- Matthew Miller Fedora Project Leader ___ 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-backgrounds ready for review
Could those be collected into an archive somewhere? Like fedora-backgrounds-extras or something similar? This would be a significant change to the way backgrounds are packaged. On Thu, Aug 26 2021 at 02:45:18 PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 26. 08. 21 14:40, Link Dupont wrote: Wouldn't a source package named 'fedora-backgrounds' work? Each branch in dist-git would allow for new wallpapers each release. An RPM using the Fedora version as its version would result in an NVR that clearly identifies the wallpapers: * fedora-backgrounds/f34 => fedora-backgrounds-34-1.fc34 * fedora-backgrounds/f35 => fedora-backgrounds-35-1.fc35 * fedora-backgrounds/f35 => fedora-backgrounds-35-2.fc35 But I must be missing something; this seems like its way too simple a solution. Nowadays, you can install e.g. f23-backgrounds on Fedora 34. If we do it like you said, there would always be just one option. $ repoquery --repo=rawhide -a | egrep -- 'f[[:digit:]]+-backgrounds' f21-backgrounds-0:21.1.0-13.fc35.noarch f21-backgrounds-base-0:21.1.0-13.fc35.noarch f21-backgrounds-extras-base-0:21.1.0-13.fc35.noarch f21-backgrounds-extras-gnome-0:21.1.0-13.fc35.noarch f21-backgrounds-extras-kde-0:21.1.0-13.fc35.noarch f21-backgrounds-extras-mate-0:21.1.0-13.fc35.noarch f21-backgrounds-extras-xfce-0:21.1.0-13.fc35.noarch f21-backgrounds-gnome-0:21.1.0-13.fc35.noarch f21-backgrounds-kde-0:21.1.0-13.fc35.noarch f21-backgrounds-mate-0:21.1.0-13.fc35.noarch f21-backgrounds-xfce-0:21.1.0-13.fc35.noarch f22-backgrounds-0:22.1.1-11.fc35.noarch f22-backgrounds-base-0:22.1.1-11.fc35.noarch f22-backgrounds-extras-base-0:22.1.1-11.fc35.noarch f22-backgrounds-extras-gnome-0:22.1.1-11.fc35.noarch f22-backgrounds-extras-kde-0:22.1.1-11.fc35.noarch f22-backgrounds-extras-mate-0:22.1.1-11.fc35.noarch f22-backgrounds-extras-xfce-0:22.1.1-11.fc35.noarch f22-backgrounds-gnome-0:22.1.1-11.fc35.noarch f22-backgrounds-kde-0:22.1.1-11.fc35.noarch f22-backgrounds-mate-0:22.1.1-11.fc35.noarch f22-backgrounds-xfce-0:22.1.1-11.fc35.noarch f23-backgrounds-0:23.1.0-12.fc35.noarch f23-backgrounds-base-0:23.1.0-12.fc35.noarch f23-backgrounds-extras-base-0:23.1.0-12.fc35.noarch f23-backgrounds-extras-gnome-0:23.1.0-12.fc35.noarch f23-backgrounds-extras-kde-0:23.1.0-12.fc35.noarch f23-backgrounds-extras-mate-0:23.1.0-12.fc35.noarch f23-backgrounds-extras-xfce-0:23.1.0-12.fc35.noarch f23-backgrounds-gnome-0:23.1.0-12.fc35.noarch f23-backgrounds-kde-0:23.1.0-12.fc35.noarch f23-backgrounds-mate-0:23.1.0-12.fc35.noarch f23-backgrounds-xfce-0:23.1.0-12.fc35.noarch f24-backgrounds-0:24.1.2-11.fc35.noarch f24-backgrounds-base-0:24.1.2-11.fc35.noarch f24-backgrounds-extras-base-0:24.1.2-11.fc35.noarch f24-backgrounds-extras-gnome-0:24.1.2-11.fc35.noarch f24-backgrounds-extras-kde-0:24.1.2-11.fc35.noarch f24-backgrounds-extras-mate-0:24.1.2-11.fc35.noarch f24-backgrounds-extras-xfce-0:24.1.2-11.fc35.noarch f24-backgrounds-gnome-0:24.1.2-11.fc35.noarch f24-backgrounds-kde-0:24.1.2-11.fc35.noarch f24-backgrounds-mate-0:24.1.2-11.fc35.noarch f24-backgrounds-xfce-0:24.1.2-11.fc35.noarch f25-backgrounds-0:25.1.1-12.fc35.noarch f25-backgrounds-base-0:25.1.1-12.fc35.noarch f25-backgrounds-extras-base-0:25.1.1-12.fc35.noarch f25-backgrounds-extras-gnome-0:25.1.1-12.fc35.noarch f25-backgrounds-extras-kde-0:25.1.1-12.fc35.noarch f25-backgrounds-extras-mate-0:25.1.1-12.fc35.noarch f25-backgrounds-extras-xfce-0:25.1.1-12.fc35.noarch f25-backgrounds-gnome-0:25.1.1-12.fc35.noarch f25-backgrounds-kde-0:25.1.1-12.fc35.noarch f25-backgrounds-mate-0:25.1.1-12.fc35.noarch f25-backgrounds-xfce-0:25.1.1-12.fc35.noarch f26-backgrounds-0:26.2.7-10.fc35.noarch f26-backgrounds-animated-0:26.2.7-10.fc35.noarch f26-backgrounds-base-0:26.2.7-10.fc35.noarch f26-backgrounds-extras-base-0:26.2.7-10.fc35.noarch f26-backgrounds-extras-gnome-0:26.2.7-10.fc35.noarch f26-backgrounds-extras-kde-0:26.2.7-10.fc35.noarch f26-backgrounds-extras-mate-0:26.2.7-10.fc35.noarch f26-backgrounds-extras-xfce-0:26.2.7-10.fc35.noarch f26-backgrounds-gnome-0:26.2.7-10.fc35.noarch f26-backgrounds-kde-0:26.2.7-10.fc35.noarch f26-backgrounds-mate-0:26.2.7-10.fc35.noarch f26-backgrounds-xfce-0:26.2.7-10.fc35.noarch f27-backgrounds-0:27.0.1-9.fc35.noarch f27-backgrounds-base-0:27.0.1-9.fc35.noarch f27-backgrounds-extras-base-0:27.0.1-9.fc35.noarch f27-backgrounds-extras-gnome-0:27.0.1-9.fc35.noarch f27-backgrounds-extras-kde-0:27.0.1-9.fc35.noarch f27-backgrounds-extras-mate-0:27.0.1-9.fc35.noarch f27-backgrounds-extras-xfce-0:27.0.1-9.fc35.noarch f27-backgrounds-gnome-0:27.0.1-9.fc35.noarch f27-backgrounds-kde-0:27.0.1-9.fc35.noarch f27-backgrounds-mate-0:27.0.1-9.fc35.noarch f27-backgrounds-xfce-0:27.0.1-9.fc35.noarch f28-backgrounds-0:28.1.5-7.fc35.noarch f28-backgrounds-base-0:28.1.5-7.fc35.noarch f28-backgrounds-extras-base-0:28.1.5-7.fc35.noarch f28-backgrounds-extras-gnome-0:28.1.5-7.fc35.noarch f28-backgrounds-extras-kde-0:28.1.5-7.fc35.noarch f28-backgrounds-extras-mate-0:28.1.5-7.fc35.noarch
Re: f35-backgrounds ready for review
On 26. 08. 21 14:40, Link Dupont wrote: Wouldn't a source package named 'fedora-backgrounds' work? Each branch in dist-git would allow for new wallpapers each release. An RPM using the Fedora version as its version would result in an NVR that clearly identifies the wallpapers: * fedora-backgrounds/f34 => fedora-backgrounds-34-1.fc34 * fedora-backgrounds/f35 => fedora-backgrounds-35-1.fc35 * fedora-backgrounds/f35 => fedora-backgrounds-35-2.fc35 But I must be missing something; this seems like its way too simple a solution. Nowadays, you can install e.g. f23-backgrounds on Fedora 34. If we do it like you said, there would always be just one option. $ repoquery --repo=rawhide -a | egrep -- 'f[[:digit:]]+-backgrounds' f21-backgrounds-0:21.1.0-13.fc35.noarch f21-backgrounds-base-0:21.1.0-13.fc35.noarch f21-backgrounds-extras-base-0:21.1.0-13.fc35.noarch f21-backgrounds-extras-gnome-0:21.1.0-13.fc35.noarch f21-backgrounds-extras-kde-0:21.1.0-13.fc35.noarch f21-backgrounds-extras-mate-0:21.1.0-13.fc35.noarch f21-backgrounds-extras-xfce-0:21.1.0-13.fc35.noarch f21-backgrounds-gnome-0:21.1.0-13.fc35.noarch f21-backgrounds-kde-0:21.1.0-13.fc35.noarch f21-backgrounds-mate-0:21.1.0-13.fc35.noarch f21-backgrounds-xfce-0:21.1.0-13.fc35.noarch f22-backgrounds-0:22.1.1-11.fc35.noarch f22-backgrounds-base-0:22.1.1-11.fc35.noarch f22-backgrounds-extras-base-0:22.1.1-11.fc35.noarch f22-backgrounds-extras-gnome-0:22.1.1-11.fc35.noarch f22-backgrounds-extras-kde-0:22.1.1-11.fc35.noarch f22-backgrounds-extras-mate-0:22.1.1-11.fc35.noarch f22-backgrounds-extras-xfce-0:22.1.1-11.fc35.noarch f22-backgrounds-gnome-0:22.1.1-11.fc35.noarch f22-backgrounds-kde-0:22.1.1-11.fc35.noarch f22-backgrounds-mate-0:22.1.1-11.fc35.noarch f22-backgrounds-xfce-0:22.1.1-11.fc35.noarch f23-backgrounds-0:23.1.0-12.fc35.noarch f23-backgrounds-base-0:23.1.0-12.fc35.noarch f23-backgrounds-extras-base-0:23.1.0-12.fc35.noarch f23-backgrounds-extras-gnome-0:23.1.0-12.fc35.noarch f23-backgrounds-extras-kde-0:23.1.0-12.fc35.noarch f23-backgrounds-extras-mate-0:23.1.0-12.fc35.noarch f23-backgrounds-extras-xfce-0:23.1.0-12.fc35.noarch f23-backgrounds-gnome-0:23.1.0-12.fc35.noarch f23-backgrounds-kde-0:23.1.0-12.fc35.noarch f23-backgrounds-mate-0:23.1.0-12.fc35.noarch f23-backgrounds-xfce-0:23.1.0-12.fc35.noarch f24-backgrounds-0:24.1.2-11.fc35.noarch f24-backgrounds-base-0:24.1.2-11.fc35.noarch f24-backgrounds-extras-base-0:24.1.2-11.fc35.noarch f24-backgrounds-extras-gnome-0:24.1.2-11.fc35.noarch f24-backgrounds-extras-kde-0:24.1.2-11.fc35.noarch f24-backgrounds-extras-mate-0:24.1.2-11.fc35.noarch f24-backgrounds-extras-xfce-0:24.1.2-11.fc35.noarch f24-backgrounds-gnome-0:24.1.2-11.fc35.noarch f24-backgrounds-kde-0:24.1.2-11.fc35.noarch f24-backgrounds-mate-0:24.1.2-11.fc35.noarch f24-backgrounds-xfce-0:24.1.2-11.fc35.noarch f25-backgrounds-0:25.1.1-12.fc35.noarch f25-backgrounds-base-0:25.1.1-12.fc35.noarch f25-backgrounds-extras-base-0:25.1.1-12.fc35.noarch f25-backgrounds-extras-gnome-0:25.1.1-12.fc35.noarch f25-backgrounds-extras-kde-0:25.1.1-12.fc35.noarch f25-backgrounds-extras-mate-0:25.1.1-12.fc35.noarch f25-backgrounds-extras-xfce-0:25.1.1-12.fc35.noarch f25-backgrounds-gnome-0:25.1.1-12.fc35.noarch f25-backgrounds-kde-0:25.1.1-12.fc35.noarch f25-backgrounds-mate-0:25.1.1-12.fc35.noarch f25-backgrounds-xfce-0:25.1.1-12.fc35.noarch f26-backgrounds-0:26.2.7-10.fc35.noarch f26-backgrounds-animated-0:26.2.7-10.fc35.noarch f26-backgrounds-base-0:26.2.7-10.fc35.noarch f26-backgrounds-extras-base-0:26.2.7-10.fc35.noarch f26-backgrounds-extras-gnome-0:26.2.7-10.fc35.noarch f26-backgrounds-extras-kde-0:26.2.7-10.fc35.noarch f26-backgrounds-extras-mate-0:26.2.7-10.fc35.noarch f26-backgrounds-extras-xfce-0:26.2.7-10.fc35.noarch f26-backgrounds-gnome-0:26.2.7-10.fc35.noarch f26-backgrounds-kde-0:26.2.7-10.fc35.noarch f26-backgrounds-mate-0:26.2.7-10.fc35.noarch f26-backgrounds-xfce-0:26.2.7-10.fc35.noarch f27-backgrounds-0:27.0.1-9.fc35.noarch f27-backgrounds-base-0:27.0.1-9.fc35.noarch f27-backgrounds-extras-base-0:27.0.1-9.fc35.noarch f27-backgrounds-extras-gnome-0:27.0.1-9.fc35.noarch f27-backgrounds-extras-kde-0:27.0.1-9.fc35.noarch f27-backgrounds-extras-mate-0:27.0.1-9.fc35.noarch f27-backgrounds-extras-xfce-0:27.0.1-9.fc35.noarch f27-backgrounds-gnome-0:27.0.1-9.fc35.noarch f27-backgrounds-kde-0:27.0.1-9.fc35.noarch f27-backgrounds-mate-0:27.0.1-9.fc35.noarch f27-backgrounds-xfce-0:27.0.1-9.fc35.noarch f28-backgrounds-0:28.1.5-7.fc35.noarch f28-backgrounds-base-0:28.1.5-7.fc35.noarch f28-backgrounds-extras-base-0:28.1.5-7.fc35.noarch f28-backgrounds-extras-gnome-0:28.1.5-7.fc35.noarch f28-backgrounds-extras-kde-0:28.1.5-7.fc35.noarch f28-backgrounds-extras-mate-0:28.1.5-7.fc35.noarch f28-backgrounds-extras-xfce-0:28.1.5-7.fc35.noarch f28-backgrounds-gnome-0:28.1.5-7.fc35.noarch f28-backgrounds-kde-0:28.1.5-7.fc35.noarch f28-backgrounds-mate-0:28.1.5-7.fc35.noarch f28-backgrounds-xfce-0:28.1.5-7.fc35.noarch
Re: f35-backgrounds ready for review
Wouldn't a source package named 'fedora-backgrounds' work? Each branch in dist-git would allow for new wallpapers each release. An RPM using the Fedora version as its version would result in an NVR that clearly identifies the wallpapers: * fedora-backgrounds/f34 => fedora-backgrounds-34-1.fc34 * fedora-backgrounds/f35 => fedora-backgrounds-35-1.fc35 * fedora-backgrounds/f35 => fedora-backgrounds-35-2.fc35 But I must be missing something; this seems like its way too simple a solution. On Wed, Aug 25 2021 at 09:54:05 PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 09:48:45PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: Back when we were distributing source RPM DVDs, there was a reason to have a new package every release, so the files for the older releases weren't taking up space. But since we don't do that much anymore, maybe it would be better to make one source package and add f35-backgrounds, f36-backgrounds, etc., etc. as new subpackages? (Maybe an f3x-backgrounds release, and start over at f4x-backgrounds, so it doesn't get too crazy?) That way, a new package review wouldn't be required every time. This is just a thought, though. If the current process is working for you, don't let me get in the way! -- Matthew Miller Fedora Project Leader ___ desktop mailing list -- desk...@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to desktop-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/desk...@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: Fedora 35 Change: Autoconf-2.71 (Self-Contained Change proposal)
Hi, thanks for your reply, there should not be any packages on critical path, which are not building currently. HEADS-UP: The plan for merging autoconf-2.71 to rawhide is Monday (30th Aug 2021), if no issues will come up. After that, there is no need to do a regular build of dependent packages, but we will schedule a scratch-build, which should be enough to test, if everything works as expected. According to results of these scratch-builds, F36FTBFS trackers in bugzilla will be created for each failed package. I will send a message to this thread after merging and building autoconf-2.71, to make things clear. Thanks. Ondrej On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 7:59 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 10:53:15AM +0200, Ondrej Dubaj wrote: > > Hello, > > > > In the near future, there is a plan to merge autoconf-2.71 to rawhide. > Due > > to the size of the change and possible breakage of multiple packages > going > > FTBFS. The number of these packages should not be many, currently we have > > ~32 opened FTBFS trackers according to autoconf-2.71, where the majority > of > > them are just ignored by maintainers [1]. This can also be a possibility > to > > remove unnecessary packages from Fedora. After merging the change, there > > Are any of these on the critical path (ie would cause composes to fail?) > I don't see any off hand, but if so, I would get those fixed before > landing if you can at all. Otherwise I would say land as soon as you > like. > > > should be a mechanism for validating. From my perspective, it is > effective > > to rebuild dependent packages (~1700 packages). After the rebuild, there > > should not be many FTBFS packages, but according to the change there will > > be some. There was enough time (~6 months) for the maintainers to prepare > > for this change. > > > > If there are any concerns or other opinions about the steps after merging > > the change, please share your thoughts and we can discuss them here. > > Thanks for all this work, it's appreciated. ;) > > > Thanks very much! > > > > Regards, > > Ondrej > > kevin > -- > > > > [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1942967 > > > > On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 7:52 AM Ondrej Dubaj wrote: > > > > > Hello, according to the size of this change and the possible breakage > of multiple packages before f35 mass rebuild, we decided (team working on > this change) to postpone this change to early lifecycle of f36, where we > will have enough time to resolve any problems until f36 mass rebuild. > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 2, 2021 at 5:18 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > > > >> On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 05:28:07PM +0100, Ondrej Dubaj wrote: > > >> > Currently, we are trying to stay away from the compat package and > with > > >> the > > >> > help of other package maintainers trying to fix the failures. We > will > > >> give > > >> > time to react accordingly and see other possible steps in a few > weeks > > >> time. > > >> > > > >> > Currently multiple FTBFS bugs in bugzilla were created according to > > >> > autoconf-2.71. More information available here: > > >> > > > >> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Autoconf_271 > > >> > > >> Whats the current status of this Change? > > >> > > >> It didn't land before mass rebuild. Is it still planned for f35? > > >> > > >> kevin > > >> ___ > > >> 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 > > ___ > 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: rocksdb had an unannounced soname bump?
On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 6:09 AM Kaleb Keithley wrote: > > Apparently so. > > I don't see an announcement! > > It broke the ceph install. :-( > A little more context would be helpful. Is it broken in rawhide, f35, f34? It looks like ceph is the only direct consumer of rocksdb so an email to rocksdb-maintain...@fedoraproject.org for some coordination would probably be helpful. Thanks, Richard ___ 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
[Fedocal] Reminder meeting : ELN SIG
Dear all, You are kindly invited to the meeting: ELN SIG on 2021-08-27 from 12:00:00 to 13:00:00 US/Eastern At fedora-meet...@irc.libera.chat The meeting will be about: Source: https://calendar.fedoraproject.org//meeting/9920/ ___ 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
rocksdb had an unannounced soname bump?
Apparently so. I don't see an announcement! It broke the ceph install. :-( -- Kaleb ___ 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-34-20210826.0 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-34-20210825.0): ID: 958229 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/958229 ID: 958235 Test: aarch64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/958235 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-33-20210826.0 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-33-20210825.0): ID: 958213 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/958213 ID: 958219 Test: aarch64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/958219 Passed openQA tests: 7/8 (aarch64), 7/8 (x86_64) New passes (same test not passed in Fedora-Cloud-33-20210825.0): ID: 958224 Test: aarch64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 base_service_manipulation@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/958224 -- 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
