[Bug 2059740] perl-Sys-Virt-8.1.0 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2059740

Jitka Plesnikova  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
   Fixed In Version||perl-Sys-Virt-8.1.0-1.fc37
 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Last Closed||2022-03-02 07:18:09




-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2059740
___
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 2059740] perl-Sys-Virt-8.1.0 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2059740

Jitka Plesnikova  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC|berra...@redhat.com,|
   |crobi...@redhat.com,|
   |jples...@redhat.com,|
   |st...@silug.org |
   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value




-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2059740
___
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: List of long term FTBFS packages to be retired tomorrow

[Chuck Anderson]

On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 07:45:26PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> And just for the record, this is the current list of packages that FTBFS at 
> least since Fedora 35:
> 
> perl-Crypt-PWSafe3
>
> If they continue to fail, they will be included in my report in ~5 months.

Upstream has fixed the issue and I have built and pushed updates for this.
___
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: Chromium security bugs remain unfixed for > 1 month

[Demi Marie Obenour]

On 3/1/22 22:44, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
>> Me too.  I am surprised that the answer is not to automatically
>> download and install Canonical’s Snap package; they seem to have
>> figured out everything already.  Arch manages to do it by having very
>> few patches and using the upstream source tarball.
> 
> If you think that just using the binary blobs provided by upstream or some 
> third party (e.g., Canonical) is a solution for anything, you clearly have 
> not understood how distribution packaging works.

Arch uses the upstream *source* code, but not the binaries, if I
understand correctly.  They just don’t have anywhere near as many
patches as Fedora does.  I suspect this is a combination of factors.
First, Arch builds use clang and more bundled libraries, so they are
more similar to what Google itself uses and break less often.  Second,
Arch has zero problems with shipping patent-encumbered media codecs, as
(if I recall correctly) Arch is based in a nation where such patents
simply are not enforceable.  So they can just use the codecs that
Chromium comes with already.

> At most, that approach can work for leaf applications such as the Chromium 
> browser, but the Chromium code is also used in QtWebEngine and in Electron, 
> both of which are used to build many desktop applications. QtWebEngine is 
> used in browsers (Falkon, Angelfish), mail clients (KMail, Kontact), etc.

Electron is going to be a nightmare for all sorts of other reasons,
starting with the need to rebuild all of the minified JavaScript,
CSS, and HTML from unminified source code.  Can Fedora just reuse the
upstream QtWebEngine build scripts?

> As far as qt5-qtwebengine is concerned, there is no way I can issue a 
> security update at this time because the security fixes have not been 
> backported by Qt upstream yet:
> https://code.qt.io/cgit/qt/qtwebengine-chromium.git/log/?h=87-based
> The fixes up to CVE-2021-4102 are included in the 5.15.8 security update 
> that I pushed, CVE-2022-* are not backported upstream yet.
> 
> (Well, technically, I suppose I could attempt to backport them from 90-
> based, i.e., from QtWebengine 6.2:
> https://code.qt.io/cgit/qt/qtwebengine-chromium.git/log/?h=90-based
> or even directly from Chromium upstream, but that is extremely time-
> consuming and not something I can do on a regular basis.)

What would it take to get tall of the users of QtWebEngine onto 6.2?  I
don’t think Fedora should ship any version of QtWebEngine except the
latest, since only the latest version appears to get regular patches.

> And for a library such as QtWebEngine, Snap or Flatpak do not work at all.

Yeah, but for QtWebEngine I imagine much of the work is handled by The
Qt Company and Fedora can just reuse their build scripts.

> Even if you only care about the standalone Chromium, using a third-party 
> blob will lose you the benefits of distribution packaging.

For standalone Chromium, a blob that gets regular security updates is
better than a proper package that does not.  The first is at least safe
to use, the second isn’t.

-- 
Sincerely,
Demi Marie Obenour (she/her/hers)

OpenPGP_0xB288B55FFF9C22C1.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

Re: Chromium security bugs remain unfixed for > 1 month

[Demi Marie Obenour]

On 3/1/22 23:14, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2022-03-01 at 19:21 -0500, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
>> On 3/1/22 16:02, Jonathan Schleifer wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> It looks like Chromium on Fedora is not receiving timely updates. It 
>>> hasn't been updated in over a month and there were many bugs fixed 
>>> upstream. At the very least, Chromium on Fedora is vulnerable to the 
>>> following:
>>>
>>> CVE-2022-0452: Use after free in Safe Browsing.
>>> CVE-2022-0453: Use after free in Reader Mode.
>>> CVE-2022-0454: Heap buffer overflow in ANGLE.
>>> CVE-2022-0455: Inappropriate implementation in Full Screen Mode.
>>> CVE-2022-0456: Use after free in Web Search.
>>> CVE-2022-0457: Type Confusion in V8.
>>> CVE-2022-0458: Use after free in Thumbnail Tab Strip.
>>> CVE-2022-0459 Use after free in Screen Capture.
>>> CVE-2022-0603: Use after free in File Manager.
>>> CVE-2022-0604: Heap buffer overflow in Tab Groups.
>>> CVE-2022-0605: Use after free in Webstore API.
>>> CVE-2022-0606: Use after free in ANGLE.
>>> CVE-2022-0607: Use after free in GPU.
>>> CVE-2022-0608: Integer overflow in Mojo.
>>> CVE-2022-0609: Use after free in Animation.
>>>
>>> Google reports these as being actively exploited in the wild, which means:
>>>
>>> ** If you use Chromium on Fedora, stop using it NOW **
>>>
>>> Can we fix this situation somehow? Browsers are the most critical thing 
>>> to get security updates as fast as possible. Having bugs unfixed for a 
>>> month that are exploited in the wild is *bad* and puts our users at 
>>> serious risk.
>>>
>>> RPMFusion seems to push timely updates - can we reuse that? Should users 
>>> be pointed towards RPMFusion instead in the meantime?
>>
>> What are the differences between the RPMFusion SRPM and the
>> Fedora SRPM?
> 
> There is no need to guess about this. You can read both spec files.
> These are open projects. The Fedora spec is heavily commented, with
> explanations of what all the patches etc. are for.
> 
> Fedora spec:
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/chromium/blob/rawhide/f/chromium.spec
> 
> RPMFusion spec:
> https://github.com/rpmfusion/chromium-freeworld/blob/master/chromium-freeworld.spec
> 
> As you can see, the Fedora spec is doing more work to fit in with the
> letter and spirit of Fedora guidelines, especially around stopping
> Chromium bundling and doing weird things to libraries. The RPMFusion
> spec does some, but not as much.
> 
> If Chromium didn't do so much messy stuff with libraries and
> proprietary blobs that the package has to work around, I imagine
> maintaining it would be much easier. I sure wouldn't want the job.

Is trying to prevent Chromium from bundling libraries even worthwhile?
I think the first priority should be to come up with a spec that (a)
allows shipping new versions quickly and (b) doesn’t create any legal
problems.  The rest can come later.

-- 
Sincerely,
Demi Marie Obenour (she/her/hers)

OpenPGP_0xB288B55FFF9C22C1.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

[Bug 1939424] perl-Crypt-PWSafe3-1.22-17.fc35 FTBFS: Failed test 'open a pwsafe3 database ('blocksize' is not a recognized argument at /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Crypt/CBC.pm line 309.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1939424



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2022-2fa03c4f5d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-2fa03c4f5d


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1939424
___
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 1964646] F35FailsToInstall: perl-Crypt-PWSafe3

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1964646



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2022-2fa03c4f5d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-2fa03c4f5d


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1964646
___
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 1964646] F35FailsToInstall: perl-Crypt-PWSafe3

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1964646



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2022-9af00d105b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-9af00d105b


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1964646
___
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 1939424] perl-Crypt-PWSafe3-1.22-17.fc35 FTBFS: Failed test 'open a pwsafe3 database ('blocksize' is not a recognized argument at /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Crypt/CBC.pm line 309.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1939424



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2022-9af00d105b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-9af00d105b


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1939424
___
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 1964646] F35FailsToInstall: perl-Crypt-PWSafe3

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1964646

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2022-e541fc8d0d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-e541fc8d0d


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1964646
___
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 1939424] perl-Crypt-PWSafe3-1.22-17.fc35 FTBFS: Failed test 'open a pwsafe3 database ('blocksize' is not a recognized argument at /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Crypt/CBC.pm line 309.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1939424



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2022-e541fc8d0d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-e541fc8d0d


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1939424
___
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: Chromium security bugs remain unfixed for > 1 month

[Adam Williamson]

On Tue, 2022-03-01 at 19:21 -0500, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
> On 3/1/22 16:02, Jonathan Schleifer wrote:
> > Hi!
> > 
> > It looks like Chromium on Fedora is not receiving timely updates. It 
> > hasn't been updated in over a month and there were many bugs fixed 
> > upstream. At the very least, Chromium on Fedora is vulnerable to the 
> > following:
> > 
> > CVE-2022-0452: Use after free in Safe Browsing.
> > CVE-2022-0453: Use after free in Reader Mode.
> > CVE-2022-0454: Heap buffer overflow in ANGLE.
> > CVE-2022-0455: Inappropriate implementation in Full Screen Mode.
> > CVE-2022-0456: Use after free in Web Search.
> > CVE-2022-0457: Type Confusion in V8.
> > CVE-2022-0458: Use after free in Thumbnail Tab Strip.
> > CVE-2022-0459 Use after free in Screen Capture.
> > CVE-2022-0603: Use after free in File Manager.
> > CVE-2022-0604: Heap buffer overflow in Tab Groups.
> > CVE-2022-0605: Use after free in Webstore API.
> > CVE-2022-0606: Use after free in ANGLE.
> > CVE-2022-0607: Use after free in GPU.
> > CVE-2022-0608: Integer overflow in Mojo.
> > CVE-2022-0609: Use after free in Animation.
> > 
> > Google reports these as being actively exploited in the wild, which means:
> > 
> > ** If you use Chromium on Fedora, stop using it NOW **
> > 
> > Can we fix this situation somehow? Browsers are the most critical thing 
> > to get security updates as fast as possible. Having bugs unfixed for a 
> > month that are exploited in the wild is *bad* and puts our users at 
> > serious risk.
> > 
> > RPMFusion seems to push timely updates - can we reuse that? Should users 
> > be pointed towards RPMFusion instead in the meantime?
> 
> What are the differences between the RPMFusion SRPM and the
> Fedora SRPM?

There is no need to guess about this. You can read both spec files.
These are open projects. The Fedora spec is heavily commented, with
explanations of what all the patches etc. are for.

Fedora spec:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/chromium/blob/rawhide/f/chromium.spec

RPMFusion spec:
https://github.com/rpmfusion/chromium-freeworld/blob/master/chromium-freeworld.spec

As you can see, the Fedora spec is doing more work to fit in with the
letter and spirit of Fedora guidelines, especially around stopping
Chromium bundling and doing weird things to libraries. The RPMFusion
spec does some, but not as much.

If Chromium didn't do so much messy stuff with libraries and
proprietary blobs that the package has to work around, I imagine
maintaining it would be much easier. I sure wouldn't want the job.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA
IRC: adamw | Twitter: adamw_ha
https://www.happyassassin.net

___
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: Chromium security bugs remain unfixed for > 1 month

[Kevin Kofler via devel]

Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> (Well, technically, I suppose I could attempt to backport them from 90-
> based, i.e., from QtWebengine 6.2:
> https://code.qt.io/cgit/qt/qtwebengine-chromium.git/log/?h=90-based
> or even directly from Chromium upstream, but that is extremely time-
> consuming and not something I can do on a regular basis.)

PS: Note that even for 6.2, the fixes were backported only between 12 and 2 
days ago, and have not yet been released in a QtWebEngine release.

Kevin Kofler
___
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 1964646] F35FailsToInstall: perl-Crypt-PWSafe3

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1964646
Bug 1964646 depends on bug 1939424, which changed state.

Bug 1939424 Summary: perl-Crypt-PWSafe3-1.22-17.fc35 FTBFS: Failed test 'open a 
pwsafe3 database ('blocksize' is not a recognized argument at 
/usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Crypt/CBC.pm line 309.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1939424

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA




-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1964646
___
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 1939424] perl-Crypt-PWSafe3-1.22-17.fc35 FTBFS: Failed test 'open a pwsafe3 database ('blocksize' is not a recognized argument at /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Crypt/CBC.pm line 309.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1939424

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Fixed In Version||perl-Crypt-PWSafe3-1.23~202
   ||20227git002b0f0-1.fc37
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
 Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED
Last Closed||2022-03-02 03:54:13



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2022-e0421d0f66 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1939424
___
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 1939424] perl-Crypt-PWSafe3-1.22-17.fc35 FTBFS: Failed test 'open a pwsafe3 database ('blocksize' is not a recognized argument at /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl/Crypt/CBC.pm line 309.

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1939424

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2022-e0421d0f66 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-e0421d0f66


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1939424
___
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: Chromium security bugs remain unfixed for > 1 month

[Kevin Kofler via devel]

Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
> Me too.  I am surprised that the answer is not to automatically
> download and install Canonical’s Snap package; they seem to have
> figured out everything already.  Arch manages to do it by having very
> few patches and using the upstream source tarball.

If you think that just using the binary blobs provided by upstream or some 
third party (e.g., Canonical) is a solution for anything, you clearly have 
not understood how distribution packaging works.

At most, that approach can work for leaf applications such as the Chromium 
browser, but the Chromium code is also used in QtWebEngine and in Electron, 
both of which are used to build many desktop applications. QtWebEngine is 
used in browsers (Falkon, Angelfish), mail clients (KMail, Kontact), etc.

As far as qt5-qtwebengine is concerned, there is no way I can issue a 
security update at this time because the security fixes have not been 
backported by Qt upstream yet:
https://code.qt.io/cgit/qt/qtwebengine-chromium.git/log/?h=87-based
The fixes up to CVE-2021-4102 are included in the 5.15.8 security update 
that I pushed, CVE-2022-* are not backported upstream yet.

(Well, technically, I suppose I could attempt to backport them from 90-
based, i.e., from QtWebengine 6.2:
https://code.qt.io/cgit/qt/qtwebengine-chromium.git/log/?h=90-based
or even directly from Chromium upstream, but that is extremely time-
consuming and not something I can do on a regular basis.)

And for a library such as QtWebEngine, Snap or Flatpak do not work at all.

Even if you only care about the standalone Chromium, using a third-party 
blob will lose you the benefits of distribution packaging.

Kevin Kofler
___
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: Blender failed to build with ffmpeg enabled

[Luya Tshimbalanga]

On 2022-03-01 01:14, Neal Gompa wrote:



Thanks! Next step is to remove libavdevice.h from Blender as ffmpeg-free 
excluded it.

Scratch result with applied patch so 
far:https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=83502291

Scratch result with removed 
libavdecice.h:https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=83503990


We didn't exclude it. FFmpeg 5.0 removed it entirely. They replaced
the header with libavdevice/avdevice.h.


Thanks for pointing that out. It looks like upstream Blender will need 
to address that issue.


--
Luya Tshimbalanga
Fedora Design Team
Fedora Design Suite maintainer
___
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: Chromium security bugs remain unfixed for > 1 month

[Demi Marie Obenour]

On 3/1/22 19:42, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 1 2022 at 07:21:14 PM -0500, Demi Marie Obenour 
>  wrote:
>> Tom Callaway, what is the hardest part for you?
> 
> Keep in mind Tom is a volunteer and Chromium packaging is not fun. I'm 
> impressed that anybody is willing to attempt it tbh.

Me too.  I am surprised that the answer is not to automatically
download and install Canonical’s Snap package; they seem to have
figured out everything already.  Arch manages to do it by having very
few patches and using the upstream source tarball.
-- 
Sincerely,
Demi Marie Obenour (she/her/hers)

OpenPGP_0xB288B55FFF9C22C1.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

Re: Chromium security bugs remain unfixed for > 1 month

[Michael Catanzaro]

On Tue, Mar 1 2022 at 07:21:14 PM -0500, Demi Marie Obenour 
 wrote:

Tom Callaway, what is the hardest part for you?


Keep in mind Tom is a volunteer and Chromium packaging is not fun. I'm 
impressed that anybody is willing to attempt it tbh.


Michael

___
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

FedoraRespin-35-updates-20220301.0 compose check report

[Fedora compose checker]

No missing expected images.

Failed openQA tests: 5/48 (x86_64)

ID: 1155330 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso gnome_text_editor
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1155330
ID: 1155355 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_login
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1155355
ID: 1155357 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_update_graphical
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1155357
ID: 1155359 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso apps_startstop
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1155359
ID: 1155362 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_notifications_postinstall
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1155362

Soft failed openQA tests: 1/48 (x86_64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)

ID: 1155343 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso eog
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1155343

Passed openQA tests: 42/48 (x86_64)
-- 
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: Chromium security bugs remain unfixed for > 1 month

[Demi Marie Obenour]

On 3/1/22 16:02, Jonathan Schleifer wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> It looks like Chromium on Fedora is not receiving timely updates. It 
> hasn't been updated in over a month and there were many bugs fixed 
> upstream. At the very least, Chromium on Fedora is vulnerable to the 
> following:
> 
> CVE-2022-0452: Use after free in Safe Browsing.
> CVE-2022-0453: Use after free in Reader Mode.
> CVE-2022-0454: Heap buffer overflow in ANGLE.
> CVE-2022-0455: Inappropriate implementation in Full Screen Mode.
> CVE-2022-0456: Use after free in Web Search.
> CVE-2022-0457: Type Confusion in V8.
> CVE-2022-0458: Use after free in Thumbnail Tab Strip.
> CVE-2022-0459 Use after free in Screen Capture.
> CVE-2022-0603: Use after free in File Manager.
> CVE-2022-0604: Heap buffer overflow in Tab Groups.
> CVE-2022-0605: Use after free in Webstore API.
> CVE-2022-0606: Use after free in ANGLE.
> CVE-2022-0607: Use after free in GPU.
> CVE-2022-0608: Integer overflow in Mojo.
> CVE-2022-0609: Use after free in Animation.
> 
> Google reports these as being actively exploited in the wild, which means:
> 
> ** If you use Chromium on Fedora, stop using it NOW **
> 
> Can we fix this situation somehow? Browsers are the most critical thing 
> to get security updates as fast as possible. Having bugs unfixed for a 
> month that are exploited in the wild is *bad* and puts our users at 
> serious risk.
> 
> RPMFusion seems to push timely updates - can we reuse that? Should users 
> be pointed towards RPMFusion instead in the meantime?

What are the differences between the RPMFusion SRPM and the
Fedora SRPM?

> Thoughts?

I wound up using proprietary Google Chrome on Debian for this reason.
I use Qubes OS so using different OSs for different tasks is trivial.

The only distribution I know of that seems to promptly ship updates to
Chromium is Arch, which does not insist on only shipping free software.
Could the difference be that Arch and RPMFusion can directly use the
tarball provided by upstream, whereas Fedora and Debian cannot?

Tom Callaway, what is the hardest part for you?

-- 
Sincerely,
Demi Marie Obenour (she/her/hers)

OpenPGP_0xB288B55FFF9C22C1.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

Documentation for F15's "Remove SETUID" Change?

[Michel Alexandre Salim]

Hi all,

The subject of setuid came up in a private conversation recently, and to my
surprise we don't seem to have it documented in the packaging guidelines:

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/

Per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/RemoveSETUID#Documentation

"We should change documentation on packaging guidelines to talk about
using file capabilities."

but the only mention of capabilities seem to be that, if you use it or
suid, PIE must be enabled:

https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_pie

Should this be documented somewhere, or if it's there but it's lost in
the wiki->docs migration, does anyone know where the documentation is?

Thanks,

-- 
Michel Alexandre Salim
identities: https://keyoxide.org/5dce2e7e9c3b1cffd335c1d78b229d2f7ccc04f2


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

[Bug 2058963] perl-App-cpm-0.997009 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2058963

Upstream Release Monitoring  
changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|perl-App-cpm-0.997008 is|perl-App-cpm-0.997009 is
   |available   |available



--- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
Latest upstream release: 0.997009
Current version/release in rawhide: 0.997.007-2.fc36
URL: https://metacpan.org/release/App-cpm

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/8399/


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2058963
___
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: "rescue" boot entry files are not updated on OS upgrades

[Chris Murphy]

On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 3:24 PM Justin Forbes  wrote:

> I am surprised that the rescue kernel would give an indefinite hang or
> even just a dracut prompt within a release.

The latter case is trivially reproducible on UEFI, with the failure
being that mounting /boot/efi comes *after* switchroot. After
switchroot the vfat module in the initramfs is not available, and the
rootfs lacks matching /usr/lib/modules, therefore it's also not
available. And thus mount fails and thus dracut shell.

A possible simple work around is having the installer add "nofail"
mount option to /boot/efi which raises the potential problem that it
fails to mount for $REASON, and thus silently isn't getting bootloader
updates. I guess that's better than always getting a dracut prompt?

Also more reliable would be if the rescue boot entry uses
systemd.whateverisolate=multiuser.target to make sure (a) consistency
no matter the existence of /usr/lib/modules (b) we don't get hung up
somehow loading the graphical environment possibly needing things in
/usr/lib/modules that aren't available.

-- 
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

Re: "rescue" boot entry files are not updated on OS upgrades

[Justin Forbes]

On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 3:38 PM Chris Murphy  wrote:
>
> Summary--
> Most all Fedora variants (except Cloud) have a GRUB menu entry
> containing the word "rescue". This kernel+initramfs pair are never
> updated for the life of a Fedora installation. And they quickly become
> stale as a Fedora installation ages. This kernel's modules are
> eventually deleted, and if selected at boot time, the typical user
> experience is a dracut shell.
>
> Basic background-
> (skip this section if you know how it works)
> During a new installation, a single kernel version is installed. e.g.
>
> vmlinuz-5.17.0-0.rc4.96.fc36.x86_64 which is then duplicated as e.g.
> vmlinuz-0-rescue-3a86878de5d649a983916543ece7bb7e.
>
> Each of those (identical) kernels has an initramfs file:
>
> initramfs-5.17.0-0.rc4.96.fc36.x86_64.img
> initramfs-0-rescue-3a86878de5d649a983916543ece7bb7e.img
>
> The sole difference is the first one is a smaller host-only initramfs,
> the second one is a larger no host-only initramfs created with `dracut
> -N`. The bigger one just contains a bunch of extra kernel modules and
> dracut scripts, ostensibly to make it more likely to boot a system
> with some change in hardware that the host-only initramfs doesn't
> contain. The size of this rescue initramfs is around 100 MiB, with the
> common day to day "host only" initramfs being around 33 MiB. [1]
>
> As the system is updated, additional kernel versions are installed.
> dnf.conf contains installonly_limit=3, which results in a maximum of
> three kernel versions being installed at a time. Once a fourth kernel
> is installed, the first kernel and its modules are removed from
> /usr/lib/modules. The rescue kernel+initramfs pair are never updated
> or upgraded, even during system upgrades.
>
> Observations
> This has been discussed by the Workstation working group [2] but since
> this functionality is present in all of Fedora, we're moving the
> discussion for greater visibility.
>
> There's two separate complaints, if you will: (a) that the
> kernel+initramfs pair are never update or upgraded for the life of the
> installation; and (b) that even during one release cycle, the user
> experience when booting the rescue entry, changes, i.e. when the
> matching /usr/lib/modules for the rescue entry are present early on,
> you do get a full runtime behavior, you will get to a graphical
> environment. But then once the version matched /usr/lib/modules are
> removed, you get a completely different behavior when booting the
> rescue entry.
>
> An important note from that ticket from Justin Forbes, the Fedora
> kernel maintainer: " Remember, the only real purpose of the rescue
> kernel is to get your system out of something completely unusable. It
> isn't meant to be a full runtime."
>
>
> Questions
>
> * Considering the very narrow purpose of the entry, maybe the current
> behavior is adequate?
>
> * Does the rescue entry reliably get users to a dracut prompt, rather
> than indefinite hang? I don't know whether it does.

I am surprised that the rescue kernel would give an indefinite hang or
even just a dracut prompt within a release. I understand that people
who constantly upgrade may have a very old rescue kernel, which
doesn't natively support the things that current installs do and could
have issues, but you should be able to reliably boot to terminal with
network support from the rescue.  That starts to fall apart if you did
things like install a system on a very old release, and after a few
years of upgrades still have the same rescue kernel, and in the
meantime added new hardware, or converted a filesystem to btrfs, which
wasn't built in before it was a default for some editions.  It is my
opinion that the purpose of the rescue kernel is to get you into
console access with the network so that you can fix whatever issue
made you boot the rescue to begin with, no more, no less.

> * Is there any way to improve the situation without increasing the
> risk that the rescue entry becomes totally non-functional?
>* The chosen kernel version needs to be based on one that is known
> to boot. Currently we know the kernel+initramfs pair work because it's
> the same version used to boot the installation media when doing the
> initial provisioning. We don't actually know an updated replacement
> "no host-only" initramfs will work until it's tried. Is it possible to
> automate this? And is it worth the risk, or even figuring out how to
> assess the risk?

This gets a bit tricky. Doing an install rescue is safe because either
it works, or the system you just installed doesn't work either.  When
you do have a working rescue though, replacing it with a new kernel,
even one that you have successfully booted, is not guaranteed to be
safer.  What if networking doesn't work in certain circumstances, or
any number of issues that create problems but still "boot".  I tend to
hand create a new rescue when I add new hardware which might 

Re: "rescue" boot entry files are not updated on OS upgrades

[stan via devel]

On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 14:37:38 -0700
Chris Murphy  wrote:

> Summary--
> Most all Fedora variants (except Cloud) have a GRUB menu entry
> containing the word "rescue". This kernel+initramfs pair are never
> updated for the life of a Fedora installation. And they quickly become
> stale as a Fedora installation ages. This kernel's modules are
> eventually deleted, and if selected at boot time, the typical user
> experience is a dracut shell.
 

There is a way to do this manually.

In order to create a new rescue kernel and initramfs, go into boot and delete 
the current
rescue kernel and initramfs.  Then run the command below substituting the 
kernel you want
to use as the rescue kernel.  The command below defaults to the currently 
running kernel.

/boot  10:03 AM  root  tty4
/usr/lib/kernel/install.d/51-dracut-rescue.install add $(uname -r) "" 
/lib/modules/$(uname -r)/vmlinuz

Maybe it can be added to a script.
___
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

"rescue" boot entry files are not updated on OS upgrades

[Chris Murphy]

Summary--
Most all Fedora variants (except Cloud) have a GRUB menu entry
containing the word "rescue". This kernel+initramfs pair are never
updated for the life of a Fedora installation. And they quickly become
stale as a Fedora installation ages. This kernel's modules are
eventually deleted, and if selected at boot time, the typical user
experience is a dracut shell.

Basic background-
(skip this section if you know how it works)
During a new installation, a single kernel version is installed. e.g.

vmlinuz-5.17.0-0.rc4.96.fc36.x86_64 which is then duplicated as e.g.
vmlinuz-0-rescue-3a86878de5d649a983916543ece7bb7e.

Each of those (identical) kernels has an initramfs file:

initramfs-5.17.0-0.rc4.96.fc36.x86_64.img
initramfs-0-rescue-3a86878de5d649a983916543ece7bb7e.img

The sole difference is the first one is a smaller host-only initramfs,
the second one is a larger no host-only initramfs created with `dracut
-N`. The bigger one just contains a bunch of extra kernel modules and
dracut scripts, ostensibly to make it more likely to boot a system
with some change in hardware that the host-only initramfs doesn't
contain. The size of this rescue initramfs is around 100 MiB, with the
common day to day "host only" initramfs being around 33 MiB. [1]

As the system is updated, additional kernel versions are installed.
dnf.conf contains installonly_limit=3, which results in a maximum of
three kernel versions being installed at a time. Once a fourth kernel
is installed, the first kernel and its modules are removed from
/usr/lib/modules. The rescue kernel+initramfs pair are never updated
or upgraded, even during system upgrades.

Observations
This has been discussed by the Workstation working group [2] but since
this functionality is present in all of Fedora, we're moving the
discussion for greater visibility.

There's two separate complaints, if you will: (a) that the
kernel+initramfs pair are never update or upgraded for the life of the
installation; and (b) that even during one release cycle, the user
experience when booting the rescue entry, changes, i.e. when the
matching /usr/lib/modules for the rescue entry are present early on,
you do get a full runtime behavior, you will get to a graphical
environment. But then once the version matched /usr/lib/modules are
removed, you get a completely different behavior when booting the
rescue entry.

An important note from that ticket from Justin Forbes, the Fedora
kernel maintainer: " Remember, the only real purpose of the rescue
kernel is to get your system out of something completely unusable. It
isn't meant to be a full runtime."


Questions

* Considering the very narrow purpose of the entry, maybe the current
behavior is adequate?

* Does the rescue entry reliably get users to a dracut prompt, rather
than indefinite hang? I don't know whether it does.

* Is there any way to improve the situation without increasing the
risk that the rescue entry becomes totally non-functional?
   * The chosen kernel version needs to be based on one that is known
to boot. Currently we know the kernel+initramfs pair work because it's
the same version used to boot the installation media when doing the
initial provisioning. We don't actually know an updated replacement
"no host-only" initramfs will work until it's tried. Is it possible to
automate this? And is it worth the risk, or even figuring out how to
assess the risk?
   * At Flock 2021, Zbyszek proposed "Building Initrd Images from
RPMs" to reduce the complexity of building initramfs, maybe there's a
role for it here? More: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GATg_bqmASc

* What happens if we accept some scope creep, and go for many
improvements that make the extra work worth it?
* What about the unsigned nature of the initramfs? Should we be
creating initramfs's in Fedora infra and signing them?
* Stuff a graphical rescue environment into the initramfs? (This
might be ten leaps too far, but it's intended to encourage thinking
with a vivid imagination.)


[1] both values from a recent Fedora 36 Workstation installation

[2] https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/259

-- 
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 2059740] New: perl-Sys-Virt-8.1.0 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2059740

Bug ID: 2059740
   Summary: perl-Sys-Virt-8.1.0 is available
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
 Component: perl-Sys-Virt
  Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
  Assignee: jples...@redhat.com
  Reporter: upstream-release-monitor...@fedoraproject.org
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: berra...@redhat.com, crobi...@redhat.com,
jples...@redhat.com,
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org, st...@silug.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



Latest upstream release: 8.1.0
Current version/release in rawhide: 8.0.0-2.fc36
URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Sys-Virt/

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/3355/


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2059740
___
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

Chromium security bugs remain unfixed for > 1 month

[Jonathan Schleifer]

Hi!

It looks like Chromium on Fedora is not receiving timely updates. It 
hasn't been updated in over a month and there were many bugs fixed 
upstream. At the very least, Chromium on Fedora is vulnerable to the 
following:


CVE-2022-0452: Use after free in Safe Browsing.
CVE-2022-0453: Use after free in Reader Mode.
CVE-2022-0454: Heap buffer overflow in ANGLE.
CVE-2022-0455: Inappropriate implementation in Full Screen Mode.
CVE-2022-0456: Use after free in Web Search.
CVE-2022-0457: Type Confusion in V8.
CVE-2022-0458: Use after free in Thumbnail Tab Strip.
CVE-2022-0459 Use after free in Screen Capture.
CVE-2022-0603: Use after free in File Manager.
CVE-2022-0604: Heap buffer overflow in Tab Groups.
CVE-2022-0605: Use after free in Webstore API.
CVE-2022-0606: Use after free in ANGLE.
CVE-2022-0607: Use after free in GPU.
CVE-2022-0608: Integer overflow in Mojo.
CVE-2022-0609: Use after free in Animation.

Google reports these as being actively exploited in the wild, which means:

** If you use Chromium on Fedora, stop using it NOW **

Can we fix this situation somehow? Browsers are the most critical thing 
to get security updates as fast as possible. Having bugs unfixed for a 
month that are exploited in the wild is *bad* and puts our users at 
serious risk.


RPMFusion seems to push timely updates - can we reuse that? Should users 
be pointed towards RPMFusion instead in the meantime?


Thoughts?
___
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

Looking for a sponsor. Suggestions?

[rapier]

Hello all,

I'm looking for a sponsor for package I created based on hpnssh. That's 
a set of patches against openssh to improve throughput performance and 
add some features (see https://psc.edu/hpn-ssh-home). It's been around 
for about 15 years now and it's in moderately wide usage. I've submitted 
a review request bug at 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2047943. I 
addressed an initial concern regarding the install location and 
nomenclature but I'm still looking for a sponsor. Any suggestions on how 
to get someone interested?


Thanks!

Chris
___
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: VERY late notification emails

[Peter Oliver]

> I almost wrote this a week ago but decided not to as it's been recently
> discussed but this is really annoying. 6 days later is more than useless.
> ...
> Is there really nothing we can do about this?

I think getting https://github.com/fedora-infra/fmn/pull/294 merged would help 
a little, because it moves the timestamp out of the message body and into the 
email Date header.  The notifications will still be just as late, but at least 
you'll be able to see that from your email index without opening each message.
___
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

Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2022-03-01)

[Neal Gompa]

===
#fedora-meeting: FESCO (2022-03-01)
===


Meeting started by Eighth_Doctor at 18:03:35 UTC. The full logs are
available at
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2022-03-01/fesco.2022-03-01-18.03.log.html
.



Meeting summary
---
* init process  (Eighth_Doctor, 18:05:24)

* #2764 F36 incomplete changes: 100% complete deadline  (Eighth_Doctor,
  18:06:26)
  * LINK: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2024265#c9
indicates it indeed was  (mhroncok, 18:16:41)
  * AGREED: (+5,0,-0) DNS over TLS - set ON_QA; LLVM 14 - is on track;
java-17-openjdk as system JDK in F36 - set ON_QA; glibc32 build
adjustments - defer to f37; No ifcfg by default - OK if it makes the
beta release, defer to f37 otherwise  (mhroncok, 18:28:38)

* #2766 Change proposal: Make pkexec and pkla-compat optional
  (Eighth_Doctor, 18:31:09)
  * LINK: https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2766#comment-783367
(Eighth_Doctor, 18:53:52)
  * AGREED: This is punted until next week (+5, 0, -0)  (Eighth_Doctor,
19:11:16)

* Next week's chair  (Eighth_Doctor, 19:11:29)
  * ACTION: zbyszek will chair next meeting  (Eighth_Doctor, 19:12:42)

* Open Floor  (Eighth_Doctor, 19:12:51)

Meeting ended at 19:16:05 UTC.




Action Items

* zbyszek will chair next meeting




Action Items, by person
---
* zbyszek
  * zbyszek will chair next meeting
* **UNASSIGNED**
  * (none)




People Present (lines said)
---
* Eighth_Doctor (94)
* zbyszek (41)
* mhroncok (32)
* nirik (20)
* zodbot (15)
* sgallagh (15)
* tstellar (8)
* bcotton (5)
* salimma (3)
* decathorpe (0)
* dcantrell (0)
* mboddu (0)
* Conan_Kudo (0)
* Pharaoh_Atem (0)
* Son_Goku (0)
* King_InuYasha (0)
* Sir_Gallantmon (0)




Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.4

.. _`MeetBot`: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Zodbot#Meeting_Functions
___
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] Fedora EPEL 8 updates-testing report

[updates]

The following Fedora EPEL 8 Security updates need testing:
 Age  URL
   6  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-333b5cbf08   
barrier-2.4.0-1.el8
   4  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-b2015c9ac8   
seamonkey-2.53.11-1.el8
   4  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-17ae719cb2   
syncthing-1.18.6-3.el8


The following builds have been pushed to Fedora EPEL 8 updates-testing

libwbxml-0.11.8-1.el8
perl-CryptX-0.076-1.el8
synergy-1.14.3.5-1.el8

Details about builds:



 libwbxml-0.11.8-1.el8 (FEDORA-EPEL-2022-c7301c1295)
 Library and tools to parse, encode and handle WBXML documents

Update Information:

This release adapts to changes in expat >= 2.4.6. It also fixes a crash when
parsing an invalid input.

ChangeLog:

* Tue Mar  1 2022 Petr Pisar  - 0.11.8-1
- 0.11.8 bump

References:

  [ 1 ] Bug #2059444 - libwbxml-0.11.8 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2059444




 perl-CryptX-0.076-1.el8 (FEDORA-EPEL-2022-323b1cd067)
 Cryptographic toolkit

Update Information:

First EPEL 8 build.

ChangeLog:

* Mon Feb 14 2022 Xavier Bachelot  - 0.076-1
- Update to 0.076 (RHBZ#1549877)
- Use bundled libtomcrypt and libtommath to enable ECC support (RHBZ#1654710)
* Fri Jan 21 2022 Fedora Release Engineering  - 
0.053-25
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_36_Mass_Rebuild
* Mon Jan 10 2022 Petr Pisar  - 0.053-24
- Hide internal functions (upstream bug #68)
* Wed Oct  6 2021 Petr Pisar  - 0.053-23
- Adapt to changes in Math-BigInt-1.999825 (bug #2011184)
* Thu Jul 22 2021 Fedora Release Engineering  - 
0.053-22
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_35_Mass_Rebuild
* Mon Jul 19 2021 Petr Pisar  - 0.053-21
- Do not disable LTO (upstream bug #70)
* Fri May 21 2021 Jitka Plesnikova  - 0.053-20
- Perl 5.34 rebuild
* Tue Mar 30 2021 Petr Pisar  - 0.053-19
- Fix handling PEM decoding failures (upstream bug #67)
- Package tests
* Wed Jan 27 2021 Fedora Release Engineering  - 
0.053-18
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_34_Mass_Rebuild
* Tue Jul 28 2020 Fedora Release Engineering  - 
0.053-17
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_33_Mass_Rebuild
* Fri Jun 26 2020 Jitka Plesnikova  - 0.053-16
- Perl 5.32 rebuild
* Wed Jun 24 2020 Petr Pisar  - 0.053-15
- Remove t/wycheproof.t test (bug #1850379)
* Tue Jun 23 2020 Jitka Plesnikova  - 0.053-14
- Perl 5.32 rebuild
* Wed Jan 29 2020 Fedora Release Engineering  - 
0.053-13
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_32_Mass_Rebuild
* Thu Nov  7 2019 Petr Pisar  - 0.053-12
- Adapt to changes in Math-BigInt 1.999817 (bug #1769850)
* Fri Jul 26 2019 Fedora Release Engineering  - 
0.053-11
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_31_Mass_Rebuild
* Mon Jul  1 2019 Petr Pisar  - 0.053-10
- Require Math::Complex for running tests
* Fri May 31 2019 Jitka Plesnikova  - 0.053-9
- Perl 5.30 rebuild
* Fri Feb  1 2019 Fedora Release Engineering  - 
0.053-8
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_30_Mass_Rebuild
* Thu Nov 29 2018 Petr Pisar  - 0.053-7
- Adapt to changes in libtomcrypt-1.18.2 (bug #1605403)
- Adapt to changes in Math-BigInt-1.999815
* Fri Jul 13 2018 Fedora Release Engineering  - 
0.053-6
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_29_Mass_Rebuild
* Thu Jun 28 2018 Jitka Plesnikova  - 0.053-5
- Perl 5.28 rebuild
* Thu May  3 2018 Petr Pisar  - 0.053-4
- Adapt tests to changes in Math::BigInt 1.999813
* Thu Mar  1 2018 Florian Weimer  - 0.053-3
- Rebuild with new redhat-rpm-config/perl build flags
* Wed Feb 28 2018 Petr Pisar  - 0.053-2
- Validate decode_b58b input properly
* Thu Feb 15 2018 Petr Pisar  0.053-1
- Specfile autogenerated by cpanspec 1.78.




 synergy-1.14.3.5-1.el8 (FEDORA-EPEL-2022-bfcaa872dd)
 Share mouse and keyboard between multiple computers over the network

Update Information:

- Upstream update 1.14.3.5

ChangeLog:

* Fri Feb 25 2022 Ding-Yi Chen  - 1:1.14.3.5-1
- Upstream update to v1.14.3.5-stable
- Add 

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

[updates]

The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing:
 Age  URL
   6  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-18ac3af1c8   
varnish-4.0.5-3.el7
   4  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-af77a11507   
seamonkey-2.53.11-1.el7


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

nodejs-less-4.1.2-1.el7
perl-CryptX-0.076-1.el7

Details about builds:



 nodejs-less-4.1.2-1.el7 (FEDORA-EPEL-2022-650bd8199d)
 Less.js The dynamic stylesheet language

Update Information:

Update to the latest release (4.1.2), adding compatibility with recent Node.js
versions.

ChangeLog:

* Mon Feb 28 2022 Stephen Gallagher  - 4.1.2-1
- Upgrade to 4.1.2 for support of recent Node.js versions




 perl-CryptX-0.076-1.el7 (FEDORA-EPEL-2022-35a4e24bd0)
 Cryptographic toolkit

Update Information:

First EPEL 7 build

ChangeLog:

* Mon Feb 14 2022 Xavier Bachelot  - 0.076-1
- Update to 0.076 (RHBZ#1549877)
- Use bundled libtomcrypt and libtommath to enable ECC support (RHBZ#1654710)
* Fri Jan 21 2022 Fedora Release Engineering  - 
0.053-25
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_36_Mass_Rebuild
* Mon Jan 10 2022 Petr Pisar  - 0.053-24
- Hide internal functions (upstream bug #68)
* Wed Oct  6 2021 Petr Pisar  - 0.053-23
- Adapt to changes in Math-BigInt-1.999825 (bug #2011184)
* Thu Jul 22 2021 Fedora Release Engineering  - 
0.053-22
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_35_Mass_Rebuild
* Mon Jul 19 2021 Petr Pisar  - 0.053-21
- Do not disable LTO (upstream bug #70)
* Fri May 21 2021 Jitka Plesnikova  - 0.053-20
- Perl 5.34 rebuild
* Tue Mar 30 2021 Petr Pisar  - 0.053-19
- Fix handling PEM decoding failures (upstream bug #67)
- Package tests
* Wed Jan 27 2021 Fedora Release Engineering  - 
0.053-18
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_34_Mass_Rebuild
* Tue Jul 28 2020 Fedora Release Engineering  - 
0.053-17
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_33_Mass_Rebuild
* Fri Jun 26 2020 Jitka Plesnikova  - 0.053-16
- Perl 5.32 rebuild
* Wed Jun 24 2020 Petr Pisar  - 0.053-15
- Remove t/wycheproof.t test (bug #1850379)
* Tue Jun 23 2020 Jitka Plesnikova  - 0.053-14
- Perl 5.32 rebuild
* Wed Jan 29 2020 Fedora Release Engineering  - 
0.053-13
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_32_Mass_Rebuild
* Thu Nov  7 2019 Petr Pisar  - 0.053-12
- Adapt to changes in Math-BigInt 1.999817 (bug #1769850)
* Fri Jul 26 2019 Fedora Release Engineering  - 
0.053-11
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_31_Mass_Rebuild
* Mon Jul  1 2019 Petr Pisar  - 0.053-10
- Require Math::Complex for running tests
* Fri May 31 2019 Jitka Plesnikova  - 0.053-9
- Perl 5.30 rebuild
* Fri Feb  1 2019 Fedora Release Engineering  - 
0.053-8
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_30_Mass_Rebuild
* Thu Nov 29 2018 Petr Pisar  - 0.053-7
- Adapt to changes in libtomcrypt-1.18.2 (bug #1605403)
- Adapt to changes in Math-BigInt-1.999815
* Fri Jul 13 2018 Fedora Release Engineering  - 
0.053-6
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_29_Mass_Rebuild
* Thu Jun 28 2018 Jitka Plesnikova  - 0.053-5
- Perl 5.28 rebuild
* Thu May  3 2018 Petr Pisar  - 0.053-4
- Adapt tests to changes in Math::BigInt 1.999813
* Thu Mar  1 2018 Florian Weimer  - 0.053-3
- Rebuild with new redhat-rpm-config/perl build flags
* Wed Feb 28 2018 Petr Pisar  - 0.053-2
- Validate decode_b58b input properly
* Thu Feb 15 2018 Petr Pisar  0.053-1
- Specfile autogenerated by cpanspec 1.78.


___
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

[Bug 2055942] perl-Test-PostgreSQL-1.29 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2055942

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Fixed In Version|perl-Test-PostgreSQL-1.29-1 |perl-Test-PostgreSQL-1.29-1
   |.fc36   |.fc36
   |perl-Test-PostgreSQL-1.29-1 |perl-Test-PostgreSQL-1.29-1
   |.fc35   |.fc35
   |perl-Test-PostgreSQL-1.29-1 |perl-Test-PostgreSQL-1.29-1
   |.fc34   |.fc34
   ||perl-Test-PostgreSQL-1.29-1
   ||.el8



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-1250db3bf0 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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2055942
___
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: List of long term FTBFS packages to be retired tomorrow

[Miro Hrončok]

On 01. 03. 22 19:37, Miro Hrončok wrote:

On 28. 02. 22 20:33, Miro Hrončok wrote:

Dear maintainers.

Based on the current fail to build from source policy, the following packages
should be retired from Fedora 36 approximately one week before branching.

However, 5 weekly reminders are required and I forgot to start this sooner,
hence the retirement will happen tomorrow, i.e. March 1st 2022.
Since this is after the Beta Freeze,
I will skip retiring components with depending packages.
Such components (if any) will be retired during the next release cycle,
and are included in this report for completeness.

Policy: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Fails_to_build_from_source_Fails_to_install/ 



The packages in rawhide were not successfully built at least since Fedora 33.

This report is based on dist tags.

Packages collected via:
https://github.com/hroncok/fedora-report-ftbfs-retirements/blob/master/ftbfs-retirements.ipynb 



If you see a package that was built, please let me know.
If you see a package that should be exempted from the process, please let me 
know and we can work together to get a FESCo approval for that.


If you see a package that can be rebuilt, please do so.

    Package   (co)maintainers
==
libicu65 pwalter
rubygem-cucumber-rails   orphan
rubygem-sup  dcallagh, jaruga, ruby-packagers-sig, shreyankg
tmux-top ttomecek

All listed packages are leaf packages, nothing depends on them.

Affected (co)maintainers
dcallagh: rubygem-sup
jaruga: rubygem-sup
pwalter: libicu65
ruby-packagers-sig: rubygem-sup
shreyankg: rubygem-sup
ttomecek: tmux-top


libicu65 was already retired by the maintainer.
I've orphaned and retired the remaining 3 packages on f36 and f37:

rubygem-cucumber-rails
rubygem-sup
tmux-top


And just for the record, this is the current list of packages that FTBFS at 
least since Fedora 35:


forbidden-apis
golang-github-apparentlymart-textseg-12
golang-github-playground-validator-10
golang-grpc-go4
klamav
koffice-kivio
ktechlab
lancer
libeXosip2
libgnomecanvasmm26
libosip2
libowfat
mingw-jsoncpp
opari2
openjpeg
perl-Crypt-PWSafe3
pesign-test-app
php-aws-sdk3
php-pimple
recorder
rubygem-bundler_ext
rubygem-coffee-rails
rubygem-database_cleaner
rubygem-image_processing
rubygem-minitest-reporters
rubygem-sprockets-rails
tinygo
uom-parent
xs
yecht

If they continue to fail, they will be included in my report in ~5 months.

--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
___
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 2056253] perl-Module-CoreList-5.20220220 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2056253

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Fixed In Version|perl-Module-CoreList-5.2022 |perl-Module-CoreList-5.2022
   |0220-1.fc37 |0220-1.fc37
   |perl-Module-CoreList-5.2022 |perl-Module-CoreList-5.2022
   |0220-1.fc36 |0220-1.fc36
   |perl-Module-CoreList-5.2022 |perl-Module-CoreList-5.2022
   |0220-1.fc35 |0220-1.fc35
   ||perl-Module-CoreList-5.2022
   ||0220-1.fc34



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2022-2632f36aeb has been pushed to the Fedora 34 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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2056253
___
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 2053474] perl-User-Identity-1.01 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2053474

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
   Fixed In Version||perl-User-Identity-1.01-1.f
   ||c35
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2022-03-01 18:19:19



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2022-fd80a64dc7 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2053474
___
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 2055942] perl-Test-PostgreSQL-1.29 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2055942

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Fixed In Version|perl-Test-PostgreSQL-1.29-1 |perl-Test-PostgreSQL-1.29-1
   |.fc36   |.fc36
   |perl-Test-PostgreSQL-1.29-1 |perl-Test-PostgreSQL-1.29-1
   |.fc35   |.fc35
   ||perl-Test-PostgreSQL-1.29-1
   ||.fc34



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2022-c2a14c4347 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2055942
___
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 2053474] perl-User-Identity-1.01 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2053474

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Fixed In Version|perl-User-Identity-1.01-1.f |perl-User-Identity-1.01-1.f
   |c35 |c35
   ||perl-User-Identity-1.01-1.e
   ||l9



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-52cd305c2e has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2053474
___
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: List of long term FTBFS packages to be retired tomorrow

[Miro Hrončok]

On 28. 02. 22 20:33, Miro Hrončok wrote:

Dear maintainers.

Based on the current fail to build from source policy, the following packages
should be retired from Fedora 36 approximately one week before branching.

However, 5 weekly reminders are required and I forgot to start this sooner,
hence the retirement will happen tomorrow, i.e. March 1st 2022.
Since this is after the Beta Freeze,
I will skip retiring components with depending packages.
Such components (if any) will be retired during the next release cycle,
and are included in this report for completeness.

Policy: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Fails_to_build_from_source_Fails_to_install/ 



The packages in rawhide were not successfully built at least since Fedora 33.

This report is based on dist tags.

Packages collected via:
https://github.com/hroncok/fedora-report-ftbfs-retirements/blob/master/ftbfs-retirements.ipynb 



If you see a package that was built, please let me know.
If you see a package that should be exempted from the process, please let me 
know and we can work together to get a FESCo approval for that.


If you see a package that can be rebuilt, please do so.

    Package   (co)maintainers
==
libicu65 pwalter
rubygem-cucumber-rails   orphan
rubygem-sup  dcallagh, jaruga, ruby-packagers-sig, shreyankg
tmux-top ttomecek

All listed packages are leaf packages, nothing depends on them.

Affected (co)maintainers
dcallagh: rubygem-sup
jaruga: rubygem-sup
pwalter: libicu65
ruby-packagers-sig: rubygem-sup
shreyankg: rubygem-sup
ttomecek: tmux-top


libicu65 was already retired by the maintainer.
I've orphaned and retired the remaining 3 packages on f36 and f37:

rubygem-cucumber-rails
rubygem-sup
tmux-top

--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
___
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 2056250] perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20220220 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2056250

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Fixed In Version|perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.2 |perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.2
   |0220220-1.fc37  |0220220-1.fc37
   |perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.2 |perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.2
   |0220220-1.fc36  |0220220-1.fc36
   |perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.2 |perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.2
   |0220220-1.fc35  |0220220-1.fc35
   ||perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.2
   ||0220220-1.fc34



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2022-75d9ca78f3 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2056250
___
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 2056250] perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20220220 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2056250

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Fixed In Version|perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.2 |perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.2
   |0220220-1.fc37  |0220220-1.fc37
   |perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.2 |perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.2
   |0220220-1.fc36  |0220220-1.fc36
   ||perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.2
   ||0220220-1.fc35
 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2022-03-01 18:18:01



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2022-41f918f7db has been pushed to the Fedora 35 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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2056250
___
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 2059504] perl-Test-DistManifest-1.014-22.fc37 FTBFS: Failed test 'All files are listed in MANIFEST or skipped'

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2059504

Paul Howarth  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|mspa...@redhat.com  |p...@city-fan.org
 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED



--- Comment #1 from Paul Howarth  ---
Broken by https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/package-notes/c/b7381d as part of
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Package_information_on_ELF_objects

Workaround for this noarch package is very similar to similar workaround needed
for debuginfo temp files:
%undefine _package_note_file


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2059504
___
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 2055942] perl-Test-PostgreSQL-1.29 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2055942

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Fixed In Version|perl-Test-PostgreSQL-1.29-1 |perl-Test-PostgreSQL-1.29-1
   |.fc36   |.fc36
   ||perl-Test-PostgreSQL-1.29-1
   ||.fc35
 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2022-03-01 18:19:03



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2022-0e5115d99f has been pushed to the Fedora 35 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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2055942
___
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 2056253] perl-Module-CoreList-5.20220220 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2056253

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
   Fixed In Version|perl-Module-CoreList-5.2022 |perl-Module-CoreList-5.2022
   |0220-1.fc37 |0220-1.fc37
   |perl-Module-CoreList-5.2022 |perl-Module-CoreList-5.2022
   |0220-1.fc36 |0220-1.fc36
   ||perl-Module-CoreList-5.2022
   ||0220-1.fc35
Last Closed||2022-03-01 18:17:54



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2022-91572abd3d has been pushed to the Fedora 35 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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2056253
___
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 2058507] perl-PDL-2.076 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2058507

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2022-765a03856a has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing
--advisory=FEDORA-2022-765a03856a`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-765a03856a

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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2058507
___
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 2042867] Please branch and build perl-Data-Compare for EPEL 9

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2042867

Paul Howarth  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|spo...@gmail.com|p...@city-fan.org
 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED



--- Comment #2 from Paul Howarth  ---
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/42618


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2042867
___
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

libsemigroups soname bump

[Jerry James]

I plan to update the libsemigroups package from version 1.3.7 to
version 2.1.3, which entails an soname bump.  The only consumer of
this package (anywhere, not just in Fedora) is gap-pkg-semigroups,
which I will update to version 4.0.0 at the same time.  This will be
done in about a week.  If all goes well, the same updates will be done
for F36.
-- 
Jerry James
http://www.jamezone.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

[Bug 2059502] perl-Crypt-SMIME-0.28-2.fc37 FTBFS: Failed test 'No extra files that aren't in MANIFEST'

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2059502

Paul Howarth  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||p...@city-fan.org



--- Comment #3 from Paul Howarth  ---
Alternative fix, using similar approach to the one already used to ignore cruft
from debuginfo generation:

diff --git a/perl-Crypt-SMIME.spec b/perl-Crypt-SMIME.spec
index dfffa89..3d9cb56 100644
--- a/perl-Crypt-SMIME.spec
+++ b/perl-Crypt-SMIME.spec
@@ -46,6 +46,8 @@ verify, encrypt and decrypt messages. It requires libcrypto
 # As part of the rpm process we generate some .list files which
 # then cause t/manifest.t to fail.
 echo '\.list$' >> MANIFEST.SKIP
+# Similarly for .package_note files
+echo '^\.package_note-' >> MANIFEST.SKIP

 %build
 %{__perl} Makefile.PL INSTALLDIRS=vendor OPTIMIZE="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS"

This issue was caused by this commit:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/package-notes/c/b7381d


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2059502
___
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 1858048] rt-5.0.2 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1858048

Ralf Corsepius  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2022-03-01 11:00:09



--- Comment #14 from Ralf Corsepius  ---
After more the 1,5 years of struggling with Fedora, this BZ finally has made it
into rawhide.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1858048
___
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

Upcoming abseil-cpp update with .so version bump

[Ben Beasley]

In one week (2022-03-08), or slightly later, we plan to update 
abseil-cpp[1] to version 20211102.0 in Rawhide by merging this PR[2] and 
coordinating rebuilds of dependent packages into a side tag. This 
includes a new .so version, “2111.0.0”.


The following packages will therefore need to be rebuilt into the side 
tag. Rebuilds have already been tested in COPR[3]. Affected maintainers 
should have received this email directly and will be notified when the 
side tag is available.


    bear

    bloaty

    fcitx5-mozc

    frr

    grpc

    mozc

This version of abseil-cpp will also be branched and built for EPEL9.


[1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/abseil-cpp

[2] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/abseil-cpp/pull-request/1

[3] 
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/music/abseil-cpp-20211102.0/packages/

___
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 2058812] perl-DB_File-1.857 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2058812



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2022-fe28746755 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing
--advisory=FEDORA-2022-fe28746755`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-fe28746755

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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2058812
___
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 2059502] perl-Crypt-SMIME-0.28-2.fc37 FTBFS: Failed test 'No extra files that aren't in MANIFEST'

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2059502



--- Comment #2 from Xavier Bachelot  ---
This fixes the build. Is that what you had in mind ?
'''
diff --git a/perl-Crypt-SMIME.spec b/perl-Crypt-SMIME.spec
index dfffa89..d1daf08 100644
--- a/perl-Crypt-SMIME.spec
+++ b/perl-Crypt-SMIME.spec
@@ -61,6 +61,7 @@ find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -depth -type d -exec rmdir {}
2>/dev/null \;
 %{_fixperms} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/*

 %check
+rm -f .package_note-%{name}-%{version}-%{release}.%{_arch}.ld
 make test

 %files
'''


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2059502
___
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: Making PyPy 3.9 the "main" pypy3 for Fedora 36?

[Miro Hrončok]

On 01. 03. 22 17:49, Major Hayden wrote:

On 3/1/22 10:44, Miro Hrončok wrote:
Do you think we should make /usr/bin/pypy3 PyPy 3.9 in Fedora 36? It is 
rather late in the release cycle, but considering this is essentially a leaf 
package I think this might be a good idea.


That sounds like a good plan to me. Thanks for doing the work on that. 


I've opened https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2059670 to request a 
freeze exception.


--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
___
python-devel mailing list -- python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-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/python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Bug 2053493] perl-Mail-Message-3.012 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2053493

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2022-73b6ea1ba3 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing
--advisory=FEDORA-2022-73b6ea1ba3`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-73b6ea1ba3

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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2053493
___
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 2059504] perl-Test-DistManifest-1.014-22.fc37 FTBFS: Failed test 'All files are listed in MANIFEST or skipped'

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2059504



--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2022-45495fdb32 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-45495fdb32


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2059504
___
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 2058962] perl-Parallel-Pipes-0.100 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2058962

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2022-e0415da99b has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing
--advisory=FEDORA-2022-e0415da99b`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-e0415da99b

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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2058962
___
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: Making PyPy 3.9 the "main" pypy3 for Fedora 36?

[Major Hayden]

On 3/1/22 10:44, Miro Hrončok wrote:
Do you think we should make /usr/bin/pypy3 PyPy 3.9 in Fedora 36? It is 
rather late in the release cycle, but considering this is essentially a 
leaf package I think this might be a good idea.


That sounds like a good plan to me. Thanks for doing the work on that. 

--
Major Hayden


OpenPGP_0x737051E0C1011FB1.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key


OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
python-devel mailing list -- python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-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/python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Schedule for Tuesday's FESCo Meeting (2022-03-01)

[Neal Gompa]

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the
FESCo meeting Tuesday at 18:00UTC in #fedora-meeting on
irc.libera.chat.

To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UTCHowto

or run:
  date -d '2022-03-01 18:00 UTC'


Links to all issues to be discussed can be found at: 
https://pagure.io/fesco/report/meeting_agenda

= Discussed and Voted in the Ticket =

KiCad release policy request
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2762
APPROVED (+6, 0, -0)

= Followups =

None at this time.

= New business =

#2764 F36 incomplete changes: 100% complete deadline
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2764

#2766 Change proposal: Make pkexec and pkla-compat optional
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2766

= Open Floor = 

For more complete details, please visit each individual
issue.  The report of the agenda items can be found at
https://pagure.io/fesco/report/meeting_agenda

If you would like to add something to this agenda, you can
reply to this e-mail, file a new issue at
https://pagure.io/fesco, e-mail me directly, or 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

Re: Making PyPy 3.9 the "main" pypy3 for Fedora 36?

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 05:44:56PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> Hello Pythonistas.
> 
> Do you think we should make /usr/bin/pypy3 PyPy 3.9 in Fedora 36? It is
> rather late in the release cycle, but considering this is essentially a leaf
> package I think this might be a good idea.

+1

Zbyszek
___
python-devel mailing list -- python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-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/python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Making PyPy 3.9 the "main" pypy3 for Fedora 36?

[Miro Hrončok]

Hello Pythonistas.

Do you think we should make /usr/bin/pypy3 PyPy 3.9 in Fedora 36? It is rather 
late in the release cycle, but considering this is essentially a leaf package I 
think this might be a good idea.


--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
___
python-devel mailing list -- python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-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/python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Bug 2053493] perl-Mail-Message-3.012 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2053493

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2022-73b6ea1ba3 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-73b6ea1ba3


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2053493
___
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 2059504] perl-Test-DistManifest-1.014-22.fc37 FTBFS: Failed test 'All files are listed in MANIFEST or skipped'

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2059504

Paul Howarth  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Fixed In Version||perl-Test-DistManifest-1.01
   ||4-23.fc37
 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED




-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2059504
___
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 1858048] rt-5.0.2 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1858048
Bug 1858048 depends on bug 2039193, which changed state.

Bug 2039193 Summary: Review Request:  perl-HTML-Gumbo - HTML5 parser based on 
gumbo C library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2039193

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE




-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1858048
___
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 2058812] perl-DB_File-1.857 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2058812



--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2022-6ba3f4c2ba has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-6ba3f4c2ba


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2058812
___
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 2053493] perl-Mail-Message-3.012 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2053493

Paul Howarth  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Fixed In Version||perl-Mail-Message-3.012-1.f
   ||c37



--- Comment #3 from Paul Howarth  ---
f36 build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=83510226
rawhide build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=83509910


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2053493
___
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 CoreOS moving to podman v4

[Jonathan Lebon]

In the coming months, the Podman container runtime will be upgraded
from v3 to v4. This is a major release [1] that introduces backward
incompatible changes to configuration files and APIs.

The full release notes for Podman v4 are available at [2]. Here is a
brief summary of how this will impact Fedora CoreOS nodes:

- Existing containers will be preserved without any change required.
- Compatibility for the Docker API is fully preserved.
- Users of the Podman remote API will need matching server/client versions.
- Rollbacks to a version with Podman v3.x will require manual action.
- Only new installations will use the new network stack by default.

For more details, see the Major Changes page in the Fedora CoreOS
documentation [3].

This change will be rolled out together with the rebase to Fedora 36:
  - the `next` rebase is targeted for 2022-03-15
  - the `testing` rebase is targeted for 2022-04-19
  - the `stable` stream will follow `testing` as usual

Thanks,

Jonathan Lebon, for the Fedora CoreOS team

[1] https://podman.io/releases/2022/02/22/podman-release-v4.0.0.html
[2] https://github.com/containers/podman/releases/tag/v4.0.0
[3] 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fedora-coreos/major-changes/#_podman_v4_0
___
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: Missing RHEL 9 buildroot packages in EPEL 9 buildroot

[Josh Boyer]

On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 8:45 AM Stephen John Smoogen  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 at 08:19, Richard W.M. Jones  wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 04:21:56AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
>> > On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 3:07 AM Richard W.M. Jones  
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >   https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2058274
>> > >
>> > > fails to build with:
>> > >
>> > >   DEBUG util.py:444:  No matching package to install: 'ocaml-dune >= 1.0'
>> > >
>> > > This package is in RHEL 9 buildroot (ocaml-dune-2.8.5-5.el9.x86_64).
>> > >
>> > > I read an earlier thread ("Subject: [EPEL-devel] Re: Packages
>> > > disappearing from the EPEL 9 buildroot") and it seems to indicate that
>> > > RHEL 9 buildroot packages aren't going to be available in EPEL 9.
>> > > This seems crazy, is it really correct?
>> > >
>> >
>> > It's not crazy. EPEL is intended to build on RHEL content, which means
>> > we can't depend on something RHEL doesn't publish. If Red Hat wants to
>> > publish their buildroot repo, then sure, we could use it.
>>
>> I wasn't very clear, but I was addressing my remark at Red Hat.
>> There's really no reason why we (Red Hat) don't publish buildroot, in
>> fact my personal view is we ought to for open source reasons.
>>
>
> I do not think you will find much disagreement here.. but after 3+ years of 
> saying it and nothing changing, many of us have made our peace.

To be a bit more fair, we have not blindly added all buildroot content
to RHEL.  However, we have made progress on coming up with a way to
request these packages be added and worked to help teams internally
understand the implications of this.  We continue to add content to
every RHEL minor release.

That's not nothing.  It's just not everything.

josh
___
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

[Bug 2059504] New: perl-Test-DistManifest-1.014-22.fc37 FTBFS

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2059504

Bug ID: 2059504
   Summary: perl-Test-DistManifest-1.014-22.fc37 FTBFS
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
 Component: perl-Test-DistManifest
  Assignee: mspa...@redhat.com
  Reporter: ppi...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: mspa...@redhat.com, p...@city-fan.org,
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



perl-Test-DistManifest-1.014-22.fc37 fails to build locally in F37 because a
test fails:

t/00-report-prereqs.t .. ok
# Unable to parse MANIFEST.SKIP file:
# No such file or directory
# Using default skip data from ExtUtils::Manifest 1.73
# Distribution files are missing in MANIFEST:
# .package_note-perl-Test-DistManifest-1.014-22.fc37.x86_64.ld

#   Failed test 'All files are listed in MANIFEST or skipped'
#   at t/02manifest.t line 24.
# Looks like you failed 1 test of 4.
t/02manifest.t . 
Dubious, test returned 1 (wstat 256, 0x100)
Failed 1/4 subtests 

I have package-notes-srpm-macros-0.4-14.fc36.noarch and
perl-libs-5.34.0-485.fc36.x86_64. See bug #2059502 for a similar report.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2059504
___
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-36-20220301.n.0 compose check report

[Fedora compose checker]

No missing expected images.

Failed openQA tests: 14/229 (x86_64), 15/161 (aarch64)

New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-36-20220228.n.0):

ID: 1153935 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_notifications_live
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1153935
ID: 1153947 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso 
desktop_notifications_postinstall
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1153947
ID: 1153954 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso eog
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1153954
ID: 1153961 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_notifications_live
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1153961
ID: 1153992 Test: x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso base_service_manipulation
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1153992
ID: 1153996 Test: x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso base_system_logging
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1153996
ID: 1153997 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 base_reboot_unmount
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1153997
ID: 1154023 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso support_server@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1154023
ID: 1154048 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso 
install_repository_nfs_graphical@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1154048
ID: 1154076 Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz 
desktop_printing_builtin@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1154076
ID: 1154121 Test: aarch64 Workstation-upgrade base_service_manipulation@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1154121
ID: 1154171 Test: x86_64 universal install_btrfs
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1154171
ID: 1154180 Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_minimal_uefi@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1154180
ID: 1154262 Test: aarch64 universal install_pxeboot@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1154262
ID: 1154322 Test: aarch64 Minimal-raw_xz-raw.xz 
install_arm_image_deployment_upload@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1154322
ID: 1154331 Test: aarch64 Server-raw_xz-raw.xz 
install_arm_image_deployment_upload@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1154331

Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-36-20220228.n.0):

ID: 1153966 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_login
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1153966
ID: 1153970 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso apps_startstop
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1153970
ID: 1153993 Test: x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso gnome_text_editor
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1153993
ID: 1154057 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso server_cockpit_basic@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1154057
ID: 1154058 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso realmd_join_cockpit@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1154058
ID: 1154084 Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz gnome_text_editor@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1154084
ID: 1154087 Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz desktop_browser@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1154087
ID: 1154135 Test: aarch64 Workstation-upgrade gnome_text_editor@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1154135
ID: 1154136 Test: aarch64 Workstation-upgrade desktop_update_graphical@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1154136
ID: 1154149 Test: x86_64 universal install_arabic_language
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1154149
ID: 1154168 Test: x86_64 universal install_asian_language
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1154168
ID: 1154224 Test: aarch64 universal install_arabic_language@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1154224
ID: 1154236 Test: aarch64 universal install_asian_language@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1154236

Soft failed openQA tests: 14/161 (aarch64), 14/229 (x86_64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)

New soft failures (same test not soft failed in Fedora-36-20220228.n.0):

ID: 1154022 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso 
install_blivet_standard_partition_ext4@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1154022
ID: 1154097 Test: aarch64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1154097

Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-36-20220228.n.0):

ID: 1153991 Test: x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso eog
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1153991
ID: 1153999 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1153999
ID: 1154086 Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz eog@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1154086
ID: 1154098 Test: x86_64 Workstation-upgrade upgrade_desktop_64bit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1154098
ID: 1154120 Test: aarch64 Workstation-upgrade upgrade_desktop_64bit@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1154120
ID: 1154123 Test: aarch64 Workstation-upgrade 

[Fedocal] Reminder meeting : Fedora Source-git SIG

[csomh]

Dear all,

You are kindly invited to the meeting:
   Fedora Source-git SIG on 2022-03-02 from 14:30:00 to 15:30:00 GMT
   At meet.google.com/mic-otnv-kse

The meeting will be about:
Meeting of the Fedora source-git SIG

Agenda:
https://pagure.io/fedora-source-git/sig/issues?tags=meeting=Open

SIG Info:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Source-git


Source: https://calendar.fedoraproject.org//meeting/10164/

___
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: GNOME only: KeepassXC quirks

[Germano Massullo]

Il 24/02/22 00:25, Germano Massullo ha scritto:

This problem should have been fixed with commit
https://code.qt.io/cgit/qt/qtbase.git/commit/?id=dda7dab8274991e4a61a97c352d4367f8f815bb9 

after checking which Qt version includes such commit, I will remove 
xcb.patch [1] and release a new keepassxc release to test its behaviour


[1]: 
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/keepassxc/blob/rawhide/f/xcb.patch


In the previously mentioned Qt code URL, there is a "Pick-to: 6.2" 
attribute that means that it has been included only in Qt >= 6.2.
Therefore the bug is very likely to be still present in all applications 
that use Qt 5

___
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: Missing RHEL 9 buildroot packages in EPEL 9 buildroot

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 at 08:19, Richard W.M. Jones  wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 04:21:56AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 3:07 AM Richard W.M. Jones 
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >   https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2058274
> > >
> > > fails to build with:
> > >
> > >   DEBUG util.py:444:  No matching package to install: 'ocaml-dune >=
> 1.0'
> > >
> > > This package is in RHEL 9 buildroot (ocaml-dune-2.8.5-5.el9.x86_64).
> > >
> > > I read an earlier thread ("Subject: [EPEL-devel] Re: Packages
> > > disappearing from the EPEL 9 buildroot") and it seems to indicate that
> > > RHEL 9 buildroot packages aren't going to be available in EPEL 9.
> > > This seems crazy, is it really correct?
> > >
> >
> > It's not crazy. EPEL is intended to build on RHEL content, which means
> > we can't depend on something RHEL doesn't publish. If Red Hat wants to
> > publish their buildroot repo, then sure, we could use it.
>
> I wasn't very clear, but I was addressing my remark at Red Hat.
> There's really no reason why we (Red Hat) don't publish buildroot, in
> fact my personal view is we ought to for open source reasons.
>
>
I do not think you will find much disagreement here.. but after 3+ years of
saying it and nothing changing, many of us have made our peace.



> > Just because it happens to exist in the CentOS Stream 9 buildroot
> > content does not mean we would be able to rely on it once we replace
> > CentOS Stream with RHEL for EPEL 9. Thus, we don't use the CentOS
> > Stream 9 buildroot either.
>
> So this was going to be my next question - is it that difficult to use
> C9S buildroot packages to replace the "missing" ones?  AFAIK they
> ought to be almost identical.  Obviously they are rebuilds and they
> might be a little out of sync, but saves EPEL doing a literal third
> rebuild of the same content!
>
>
The issue in the past has been that it takes manual matching at times to
make it work. Koji, mock and rpmbuild will all complain in different ways
when package content varies in minute ways. Someone then has to rebuild
that package when that happens, which usually only is found at 2am by some
very cranky engineer who posts a lot of less than polite messages about how
EPEL people are complete crap. Or you find that the internal package is
good enough to have built the RHEL content but still is lacking something
that you expected to be there for anything NOT a RHEL content. Again that
takes inspection and someone to care enough to do it. If we need that, then
we might as well rebuild the content and make sure it is what we wanted in
the first place.



> > If we did, we'd wind up in a situation where packages were built once
> > and then not buildable ever again. That already kind of happened when
> > we initially had that buildroot repo in the EPEL build environment and
> > it made it way harder for us to figure out what gaps we had for things
> > to build against RHEL later. We've fortunately dealt with the small
> > number of cases that occurred from then.
>
> I'm not sure I totally understand this bit.  Is it right to say that
> packages wouldn't be "buildable ever again" only in the case where we
> used C9S buildroot and then dropped it?  If we just use C9S buildroot
> packages + RHEL 9 packages - forever - we'd be OK?
>
>
The way Fedora build system deals with RHEL packages is a bit of 'hack'
compared to how it builds Fedora packages. It sees them as external
packages and (mis)-uses a method which was originally only for
bootstrapping a distro to see packages it did not build itself. This then
requires additional hacks on top of that to keep the facade working.. those
hacks break regularly and have to be manually dealt with. Usually the
breakage then requires some 'we can break the koji database again so do a
full backup and possibly a restore' actions by Fedora release engineering
to delete some entry koji 'thinks' should be there but isn't (or vice
versa). [I believe this happened at least twice when we tried mixing stream
and non-stream.]




> 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
> ___
> 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
>


-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.
Let us be kind to one another, for most of us 

Re: Release criteria proposal: networking requirements

[Ben Cotton]

On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 12:37 PM Adam Williamson
 wrote:
>
> So, uh, we sorta forgot about this. Kamil approved this draft, but
> nobody else gave any feedback on it. This topic is still relevant and
> we have a proposed VPN blocker today, so...any more feedback on this
> draft?

I think it's sound enough to start using. I'm sure we'll find all
sorts of edge cases to argue over and eventually fix. That's the
Fedora Way™.


-- 
Ben Cotton
He / Him / His
Fedora Program Manager
Red Hat
TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis
___
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: `BuildRequires: /usr/lib/libc.a` fails on epel8 x86_64

[Neal Gompa]

On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 7:44 AM Florian Weimer  wrote:
>
> * Christoph Erhardt:
>
> > Hi Florian,
> >
> >> Yes, I understood that.  x86_64 buildroots only have x86_64 packages in
> >> Koji.  You cannot build and run 32-bit binaries (unless you put them
> >> together completely from scratch, without help from i686 RPM packages).
> > alright, thank you for clarifying!
> >
> > Curiously though, the Koji build for epel9 does find and install a
> > `glibc-static.i686` package from the `build` repo:
> > https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/9858/81959858/root.log
> > I presume this is a CentOS package and has nothing to do with Fedora's 
> > glibc32
> > hack, but I still find it interesting that it is found on epel9 but not on
> > epel8.
>
> That's very interesting.  I've been told repeatedly that Koji cannot do
> that.  Oh well.
>

Koji can do this with "bare mode" external repo handling. That means
that all arch filtering of content is handled by DNF instad.

> > Is there an overview of - or a simple way to find out - how many and which
> > Fedora packages currently rely on the glibc32 hack?
>
> It should be very, very few packages.  It's supposed to be gcc only at
> this point.
>
> >> Do we have CI for EPEL?  You could run the tests there.
>
> > Given that I'm a freshman Fedora developer, I'm not familiar with that part 
> > of
> > the Fedora infrastructure yet. Could someone with pertinent knowledge weigh 
> > in
> > on this topic?
>
> Sorry, I don't know much about the EPEL infrastructure offerings,
> either.

We have nothing for EPEL. I believe we're trying to get basic FTI
tests in place now, but we have nothing currently.


-- 
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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: Missing RHEL 9 buildroot packages in EPEL 9 buildroot

[Neal Gompa]

On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 8:20 AM Richard W.M. Jones  wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 04:21:56AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 3:07 AM Richard W.M. Jones  wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >   https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2058274
> > >
> > > fails to build with:
> > >
> > >   DEBUG util.py:444:  No matching package to install: 'ocaml-dune >= 1.0'
> > >
> > > This package is in RHEL 9 buildroot (ocaml-dune-2.8.5-5.el9.x86_64).
> > >
> > > I read an earlier thread ("Subject: [EPEL-devel] Re: Packages
> > > disappearing from the EPEL 9 buildroot") and it seems to indicate that
> > > RHEL 9 buildroot packages aren't going to be available in EPEL 9.
> > > This seems crazy, is it really correct?
> > >
> >
> > It's not crazy. EPEL is intended to build on RHEL content, which means
> > we can't depend on something RHEL doesn't publish. If Red Hat wants to
> > publish their buildroot repo, then sure, we could use it.
>
> I wasn't very clear, but I was addressing my remark at Red Hat.
> There's really no reason why we (Red Hat) don't publish buildroot, in
> fact my personal view is we ought to for open source reasons.
>
> > Just because it happens to exist in the CentOS Stream 9 buildroot
> > content does not mean we would be able to rely on it once we replace
> > CentOS Stream with RHEL for EPEL 9. Thus, we don't use the CentOS
> > Stream 9 buildroot either.
>
> So this was going to be my next question - is it that difficult to use
> C9S buildroot packages to replace the "missing" ones?  AFAIK they
> ought to be almost identical.  Obviously they are rebuilds and they
> might be a little out of sync, but saves EPEL doing a literal third
> rebuild of the same content!
>

Theoretically, yes. And for some stuff, that would work. It depends on
how sensitive things are and where they lie in the dependency chain.

> > If we did, we'd wind up in a situation where packages were built once
> > and then not buildable ever again. That already kind of happened when
> > we initially had that buildroot repo in the EPEL build environment and
> > it made it way harder for us to figure out what gaps we had for things
> > to build against RHEL later. We've fortunately dealt with the small
> > number of cases that occurred from then.
>
> I'm not sure I totally understand this bit.  Is it right to say that
> packages wouldn't be "buildable ever again" only in the case where we
> used C9S buildroot and then dropped it?  If we just use C9S buildroot
> packages + RHEL 9 packages - forever - we'd be OK?
>

Those packages are not necessarily guaranteed to be installable
forever because they're effectively only there as a side-effect. But
it's *possible* we'd be fine.

There is another issue with using buildroot packages: they're not
signed and mirrored at all. There's no reasonable way to expect
downstreams to be able to figure out how to build our packages with
any reasonable trust. People already don't like the fact that RHEL
doesn't do it, I think they'd be extremely upset if it led to EPEL
packages that people couldn't easily locally (re)build and update.
It's also more common for EPEL packagers to be in environments where
unsigned content is simply flat out blocked by policy, so RPM would
trip up over installing those packages.

And yay supply chain attacks! :(




--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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: Missing RHEL 9 buildroot packages in EPEL 9 buildroot

[Richard W.M. Jones]

On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 04:21:56AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 3:07 AM Richard W.M. Jones  wrote:
> >
> >
> >   https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2058274
> >
> > fails to build with:
> >
> >   DEBUG util.py:444:  No matching package to install: 'ocaml-dune >= 1.0'
> >
> > This package is in RHEL 9 buildroot (ocaml-dune-2.8.5-5.el9.x86_64).
> >
> > I read an earlier thread ("Subject: [EPEL-devel] Re: Packages
> > disappearing from the EPEL 9 buildroot") and it seems to indicate that
> > RHEL 9 buildroot packages aren't going to be available in EPEL 9.
> > This seems crazy, is it really correct?
> >
> 
> It's not crazy. EPEL is intended to build on RHEL content, which means
> we can't depend on something RHEL doesn't publish. If Red Hat wants to
> publish their buildroot repo, then sure, we could use it.

I wasn't very clear, but I was addressing my remark at Red Hat.
There's really no reason why we (Red Hat) don't publish buildroot, in
fact my personal view is we ought to for open source reasons.

> Just because it happens to exist in the CentOS Stream 9 buildroot
> content does not mean we would be able to rely on it once we replace
> CentOS Stream with RHEL for EPEL 9. Thus, we don't use the CentOS
> Stream 9 buildroot either.

So this was going to be my next question - is it that difficult to use
C9S buildroot packages to replace the "missing" ones?  AFAIK they
ought to be almost identical.  Obviously they are rebuilds and they
might be a little out of sync, but saves EPEL doing a literal third
rebuild of the same content!

> If we did, we'd wind up in a situation where packages were built once
> and then not buildable ever again. That already kind of happened when
> we initially had that buildroot repo in the EPEL build environment and
> it made it way harder for us to figure out what gaps we had for things
> to build against RHEL later. We've fortunately dealt with the small
> number of cases that occurred from then.

I'm not sure I totally understand this bit.  Is it right to say that
packages wouldn't be "buildable ever again" only in the case where we
used C9S buildroot and then dropped it?  If we just use C9S buildroot
packages + RHEL 9 packages - forever - we'd be OK?

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
___
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

Re: Looking for some review swaps

[Major Hayden]

On 3/1/22 07:06, Ben Beasley wrote:
I’d like to find some reviewers to clear out my backlog of mostly-Python 
packages. These vary from near-trivial to moderately complicated.


I’m happy to review packages in exchange. I’m particularly comfortable 
with C, C++, and Python, but reviewing other kinds of packages is a 
possibility. It might be a few days before I have a chance to reciprocate.


I'll be happy to look at some of these today for you! I have several 
Google Cloud Python SDK components up for review but some might need to 
be updated to the latest version since they've been hanging out there 
for a while. Most of them are nearly identical.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2012989
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2012990
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2012991
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2012992
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2012994
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2012996

--
Major Hayden


OpenPGP_0x737051E0C1011FB1.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key


OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
python-devel mailing list -- python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-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/python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Looking for some review swaps

[Ben Beasley]

I’d like to find some reviewers to clear out my backlog of mostly-Python 
packages. These vary from near-trivial to moderately complicated.


I’m happy to review packages in exchange. I’m particularly comfortable 
with C, C++, and Python, but reviewing other kinds of packages is a 
possibility. It might be a few days before I have a chance to reciprocate.


Thanks!

– Ben


Pure Python:

python-opentype-sanitizer: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2049273 (for renaming 
python-ots to satisfy the PyPI parity policy)


python-autoprop: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2038330

python-signature-dispatch: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2038330


python-autoclasstoc: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2038159


Python with Cython:

python-asyncmy: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2041221

python-ezdxf: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2040816


C++:

c4log: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2040461 (for 
packaging rapidyaml)


casc: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2027121
___
python-devel mailing list -- python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-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/python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Re: `BuildRequires: /usr/lib/libc.a` fails on epel8 x86_64

[Florian Weimer]

* Christoph Erhardt:

> Hi Florian,
>
>> Yes, I understood that.  x86_64 buildroots only have x86_64 packages in
>> Koji.  You cannot build and run 32-bit binaries (unless you put them
>> together completely from scratch, without help from i686 RPM packages).
> alright, thank you for clarifying!
>
> Curiously though, the Koji build for epel9 does find and install a
> `glibc-static.i686` package from the `build` repo:
> https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/9858/81959858/root.log
> I presume this is a CentOS package and has nothing to do with Fedora's 
> glibc32 
> hack, but I still find it interesting that it is found on epel9 but not on 
> epel8.

That's very interesting.  I've been told repeatedly that Koji cannot do
that.  Oh well.

> Is there an overview of - or a simple way to find out - how many and which 
> Fedora packages currently rely on the glibc32 hack?

It should be very, very few packages.  It's supposed to be gcc only at
this point.

>> Do we have CI for EPEL?  You could run the tests there.

> Given that I'm a freshman Fedora developer, I'm not familiar with that part 
> of 
> the Fedora infrastructure yet. Could someone with pertinent knowledge weigh 
> in 
> on this topic?

Sorry, I don't know much about the EPEL infrastructure offerings,
either.

Thanks,
Florian
___
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 36 compose report: 20220301.n.0 changes

[Fedora Rawhide Report]

OLD: Fedora-36-20220228.n.0
NEW: Fedora-36-20220301.n.0

= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images:  0
Added packages:  0
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages:   0
Downgraded packages: 0

Size of added packages:  0 B
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size of upgraded packages:   0 B
Size of downgraded packages: 0 B

Size change of upgraded packages:   0 B
Size change of downgraded packages: 0 B

= ADDED IMAGES =

= DROPPED IMAGES =

= ADDED PACKAGES =

= DROPPED PACKAGES =

= UPGRADED PACKAGES =

= DOWNGRADED PACKAGES =
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora 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 2059502] New: perl-Crypt-SMIME-0.28-2.fc37 FTBFS: Failed test 'No extra files that aren't in MANIFEST'

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2059502

Bug ID: 2059502
   Summary: perl-Crypt-SMIME-0.28-2.fc37 FTBFS: Failed test 'No
extra files that aren't in MANIFEST'
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
 Component: perl-Crypt-SMIME
  Assignee: steve.tray...@cern.ch
  Reporter: ppi...@redhat.com
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org,
steve.tray...@cern.ch, xav...@bachelot.org
  Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora



perl-Crypt-SMIME-0.28-2.fc37 fails to build for me locally in F37 because a
test fails:

t/boilerplate.t ... ok

#   Failed test 'No extra files that aren't in MANIFEST'
#   at t/manifest.t line 29.
# Not in MANIFEST: .package_note-perl-Crypt-SMIME-0.28-2.fc37.x86_64.ld
# Looks like you failed 1 test of 1.

#   Failed test 'extra files'
#   at t/manifest.t line 32.
# Looks like you failed 1 test of 2.
t/manifest.t .. 
Dubious, test returned 1 (wstat 256, 0x100)
Failed 1/2 subtests 

I have package-notes-srpm-macros-0.4-14.fc36.noarch and
perl-libs-5.34.0-485.fc36.x86_64. We will probably need to clean up the file in
%check section.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2059502
___
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 2053493] perl-Mail-Message-3.012 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2053493

Paul Howarth  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Assignee|spo...@gmail.com|p...@city-fan.org
   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value




-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2053493
___
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 2059502] perl-Crypt-SMIME-0.28-2.fc37 FTBFS: Failed test 'No extra files that aren't in MANIFEST'

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2059502

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||2045102
   ||(F37FTBFS,RAWHIDEFTBFS)



--- Comment #1 from Petr Pisar  ---
It fails in Koschei too since
. Upgrade of
package-notes-srpm-macros from 0.4-3.fc36 to 0.4-11.fc36 looks suspicious.



Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2045102
[Bug 2045102] Fedora 37 FTBFS Tracker
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2059502
___
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 2058507] perl-PDL-2.076 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2058507

Jitka Plesnikova  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |MODIFIED
   Fixed In Version||perl-PDL-2.76.0-1.fc37
   Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
 CC|caillon+fedoraproject@gmail |
   |.com,   |
   |jakub.jedel...@gmail.com,   |
   |jples...@redhat.com,|
   |ka...@ucw.cz,   |
   |lkund...@v3.sk, |
   |rhug...@redhat.com, |
   |rstr...@redhat.com, |
   |sandm...@redhat.com,|
   |tjczep...@gmail.com |




-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2058507
___
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-Rawhide-20220301.n.0 compose check report

[Fedora compose checker]

Missing expected images:

Minimal raw-xz armhfp

Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check!
1 of 43 required tests failed, 4 results missing
openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING** 
below

Failed openQA tests: 23/231 (x86_64), 20/161 (aarch64)

New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20220228.n.0):

ID: 1153241 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_standard_partition_ext4@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1153241
ID: 115 Test: x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso install_default_upload
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/115
ID: 1153340 Test: x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1153340
ID: 1153351 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 
base_service_manipulation@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1153351
ID: 1153375 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso support_server@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1153375
ID: 1153386 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso 
install_repository_nfsiso_variation@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1153386
ID: 1153404 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso install_updates_nfs@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1153404
ID: 1153433 Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz desktop_printing@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1153433
ID: 1153480 Test: aarch64 Workstation-upgrade desktop_printing@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1153480
ID: 1153538 Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_minimal_64bit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1153538
ID: 1153552 Test: x86_64 universal install_with_swap@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1153552

Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20220228.n.0):

ID: 1153269 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso modularity_tests
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1153269
ID: 1153291 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso gnome_text_editor
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1153291
ID: 1153301 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_update_graphical
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1153301
ID: 1153304 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso eog
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1153304
ID: 1153307 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso apps_startstop
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1153307
ID: 1153308 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_fprint
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1153308
ID: 1153310 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso anaconda_help
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1153310
ID: 1153311 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_notifications_live
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1153311
ID: 1153313 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso install_default_upload **GATING**
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1153313
ID: 1153389 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso modularity_tests@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1153389
ID: 1153409 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso server_cockpit_basic@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1153409
ID: 1153410 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso realmd_join_cockpit@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1153410
ID: 1153428 Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz 
desktop_printing_builtin@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1153428
ID: 1153429 Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz 
desktop_update_graphical@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1153429
ID: 1153436 Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz gnome_text_editor@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1153436
ID: 1153438 Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz eog@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1153438
ID: 1153455 Test: x86_64 Workstation-upgrade gnome_text_editor
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1153455
ID: 1153464 Test: x86_64 Workstation-upgrade desktop_fprint
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1153464
ID: 1153467 Test: x86_64 Workstation-upgrade apps_startstop
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1153467
ID: 1153475 Test: aarch64 Workstation-upgrade eog@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1153475
ID: 1153478 Test: aarch64 Workstation-upgrade desktop_browser@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1153478
ID: 1153487 Test: aarch64 Workstation-upgrade gnome_text_editor@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1153487
ID: 1153491 Test: x86_64 universal install_european_language
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1153491
ID: 1153501 Test: x86_64 universal install_arabic_language
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1153501
ID: 1153507 Test: x86_64 universal install_package_set_kde
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1153507
ID: 1153520 Test: x86_64 universal install_asian_language
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1153520
ID: 1153550 Test: x86_64 universal install_cyrillic_language
URL: 

[EPEL-devel] Re: Missing RHEL 9 buildroot packages in EPEL 9 buildroot

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 at 03:06, Richard W.M. Jones  wrote:

>
>   https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2058274
>
> fails to build with:
>
>   DEBUG util.py:444:  No matching package to install: 'ocaml-dune >= 1.0'
>
> This package is in RHEL 9 buildroot (ocaml-dune-2.8.5-5.el9.x86_64).
>
> I read an earlier thread ("Subject: [EPEL-devel] Re: Packages
> disappearing from the EPEL 9 buildroot") and it seems to indicate that
> RHEL 9 buildroot packages aren't going to be available in EPEL 9.
> This seems crazy, is it really correct?
>
>
This is the same as what was done for RHEL-8 and going back a bit to RHEL-5
also since it was not fully published. Buildroot-only packages will need
extra care and work to make 'epel-only' versions on them. [Experiments of
trying to mix and match CentOS Stream build root and RHEL packages have not
gone well in enough cases to keep that up.] EPEL-only packages will be also
needed as modules are added to RHEL-9 in various future dot releases.


-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.
Let us be kind to one another, for most of us are fighting a hard battle.
-- Ian MacClaren
___
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

Fedora-Cloud-34-20220301.0 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-34-20220228.0):

ID: 1153628 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1153628
ID: 1153641 Test: aarch64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1153641

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 rawhide compose report: 20220301.n.0 changes

[Fedora Rawhide Report]

OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20220228.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20220301.n.0

= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images:  0
Added packages:  3
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages:   114
Downgraded packages: 0

Size of added packages:  2.91 MiB
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size of upgraded packages:   3.99 GiB
Size of downgraded packages: 0 B

Size change of upgraded packages:   131.77 MiB
Size change of downgraded packages: 0 B

= ADDED IMAGES =

= DROPPED IMAGES =

= ADDED PACKAGES =
Package: jello-1.5.2-1.fc37
Summary: Query JSON at the command line with Python syntax
RPMs:jello
Size:40.95 KiB

Package: perl-DBI-1.643-7.module_f37+13909+fd58ed5f
Summary: A database access API for perl
RPMs:perl-DBI
Size:2.74 MiB

Package: perl-HTML-Gumbo-0.18-4.fc37
Summary: HTML5 parser based on gumbo C library
RPMs:perl-HTML-Gumbo
Size:136.15 KiB


= DROPPED PACKAGES =

= UPGRADED PACKAGES =
Package:  GraphicsMagick-1.3.37-1.fc37
Old package:  GraphicsMagick-1.3.36-8.fc37
Summary:  An ImageMagick fork, offering faster image generation and better 
quality
RPMs: GraphicsMagick GraphicsMagick-c++ GraphicsMagick-c++-devel 
GraphicsMagick-devel GraphicsMagick-doc GraphicsMagick-perl
Size: 10.44 MiB
Size change:  3.19 KiB
Changelog:
  * Mon Feb 28 2022 Neal Gompa  - 1.3.37-1
  - 1.3.37 (#2031567)


Package:  alt-ergo-2.3.0-4.fc37
Old package:  alt-ergo-2.3.0-3.fc36
Summary:  Automated theorem prover including linear arithmetic
RPMs: alt-ergo alt-ergo-gui ocaml-alt-ergo-lib ocaml-alt-ergo-lib-devel 
ocaml-alt-ergo-parsers ocaml-alt-ergo-parsers-devel
Size: 91.50 MiB
Size change:  8.50 MiB
Changelog:
  * Mon Feb 28 2022 Jerry James  - 2.3.0-4
  - Switch to the correct tarball
  - Drop unneeded ocaml-findlib BR
  - Add dependency on ocaml-alt-ergo-parsers from ocaml-alt-ergo-parsers-devel


Package:  annobin-10.55-1.fc37
Old package:  annobin-10.54-4.fc37
Summary:  Annotate and examine compiled binary files
RPMs: annobin-annocheck annobin-docs annobin-plugin-clang 
annobin-plugin-gcc annobin-plugin-llvm
Size: 4.44 MiB
Size change:  9.80 KiB
Changelog:
  * Mon Feb 28 2022 Nick Clifton   - 10.55-1
  - Always identify Rust binaries, even if built on a host that does not know 
about Rust.  (#2057737)


Package:  bandit-1.7.3-1.fc37
Old package:  bandit-1.7.2-1.fc36
Summary:  A framework for performing security analysis of Python source code
RPMs: bandit
Size: 207.21 KiB
Size change:  7.49 KiB
Changelog:
  * Mon Feb 28 2022 Mikel Olasagasti Uranga  1.7.3-1
  - Update to 1.7.3 - Closes rhbz#2059030


Package:  bodhi-5.7.5-1.fc37
Old package:  bodhi-5.7.4-2.fc37
Summary:  A modular framework that facilitates publishing software updates
RPMs: bodhi-client bodhi-composer bodhi-docs bodhi-server python3-bodhi 
python3-bodhi-client python3-bodhi-messages
Size: 4.96 MiB
Size change:  734 B
Changelog:
  * Mon Feb 28 2022 Ryan Lerch  - 5.7.5-1
  - Update to 5.7.5


Package:  btrfs-fuse-0-8.20220301gitca53ed5.fc37
Old package:  btrfs-fuse-0-7.20220202git2dfabc1.fc36
Summary:  Read-only, license friendly, FUSE based btrfs implementation
RPMs: btrfs-fuse
Size: 403.05 KiB
Size change:  53 B
Changelog:
  * Tue Mar 01 2022 Davide Cavalca  0-8
  - Update to git snapshot ca53ed5


Package:  cobbler-3.2.2-9.fc37
Old package:  cobbler-3.2.2-8.fc36
Summary:  Boot server configurator
RPMs: cobbler cobbler-tests cobbler-web
Size: 759.04 KiB
Size change:  -128 B
Changelog:
  * Tue Mar 01 2022 Orion Poplawski  - 3.2.2-9
  - Apply fixes for CVE-2021-45082/3
  - Remove BR on python3-coverage


Package:  coq-8.15.0-1.fc37
Old package:  coq-8.14.1-4.fc36
Summary:  Proof management system
RPMs: coq coq-coqide coq-coqide-server coq-core coq-doc
Size: 814.73 MiB
Size change:  4.06 MiB
Changelog:
  * Mon Feb 28 2022 Jerry James  - 8.15.0-1
  - Version 8.15.0


Package:  cross-binutils-2.38-1.fc37
Old package:  cross-binutils-2.37-2.fc36
Summary:  A GNU collection of cross-compilation binary utilities
RPMs: binutils-aarch64-linux-gnu binutils-alpha-linux-gnu 
binutils-arc-linux-gnu binutils-arm-linux-gnu binutils-avr32-linux-gnu 
binutils-bfin-linux-gnu binutils-c6x-linux-gnu binutils-cris-linux-gnu 
binutils-frv-linux-gnu binutils-h8300-linux-gnu binutils-hppa-linux-gnu 
binutils-hppa64-linux-gnu binutils-ia64-linux-gnu binutils-m32r-linux-gnu 
binutils-m68k-linux-gnu binutils-metag-linux-gnu binutils-microblaze-linux-gnu 
binutils-mips64-linux-gnu binutils-mn10300-linux-gnu binutils-nios2-linux-gnu 
binutils-openrisc-linux-gnu binutils-powerpc64-linux-gnu 
binutils-powerpc64le-linux-gnu binutils-ppc64-linux-gnu 
binutils-ppc64le-linux-gnu binutils-riscv64-linux-gnu binutils-s390x-linux-gnu 
binutils-score-linux-gnu binutils-sh-linux-gnu binutils-sparc64-linux-gnu

Re: VERY late notification emails

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 28. 02. 22 v 18:24 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a):

On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 07:45:27AM -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:

I almost wrote this a week ago but decided not to as it's been recently
discussed but this is really annoying. 6 days later is more than useless.

Previously it was blamed, at least partially, on the mass rebuild, but
clearly that should no longer be an issue by now?

Well, I noted a number of reasons for it... one of them was that it
sometimes crashes, but appears to be processing. This happened a few
days ago and it was just restarted this morning. ;(



Is it down again? Or does it trying to catch up? If the status of the 
queue was visible somewhere at least. I am asking, because the latest 
notification I have ATM is from 22nd.





I know I can turn them off, but I actually LIKE the messages if they were
delivered promptly.

Is there really nothing we can do about this?

No, there's things we can do and are trying to do. ;)

But of course more help welcome!

We have a python3 port of it nearly ready to go, but I think it's
CI/tests are not working, and we want to make sure those all work before
we deploy it. I'll see if I can get more exact status...



But what happened that from reliable service is completely unreliable 
one? Up until here:


https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/10370

It was working mostly OK (although I have reported once incident earlier 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/9932). But since that time 
it is useless:


https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/10414


Vít




There's also been a lot of talk about re-writing it. Ryan just posted
recently asking for folks use cases and pain points for that.

I'll see about making it restart every day perhaps to make sure it's
actually processing.

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


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

Re: Why I get some random notifications from discourse?

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 28. 02. 22 v 22:43 Otto Urpelainen napsal(a):

Vít Ondruch kirjoitti 25.2.2022 klo 21.08:
Is that intentional that i get some random notifications from 
Discourse or what is going on? In past month, I was notified about 
following topics:



* Join us for the EPEL office hours every month [Fedora] epel

* It's #FedoraShareYourScreen week [Fedora] events


These two could explained by this from "From Navigating Fedora 
Discussion — Tags, Categories, and Concepts" [1]: " As a new site 
user, you’ll be set to Watching First Post for :category_news: News & 
Announcements, and to Tracking for the Podcast and Community Blog 
subcategories."


> * Self-intro glaringgibbon [Fedora] introductions
>
> * Tempted to switch full-time to Fedora, but I got some noob questions
> [Fedora] introductions



Because of #introductions tag is watched. But why? I have have not set 
anything like this by myself. And I am apparently not the only one who 
noticed:


https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/tempted-to-switch-full-time-to-fedora-but-i-got-some-noob-questions/36433/20?u=vondruch


Vít



No idea why you got these two.

[1]: 
https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/navigating-fedora-discussion-tags-categories-and-concepts/3

___
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


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

[EPEL-devel] Re: Missing RHEL 9 buildroot packages in EPEL 9 buildroot

[Neal Gompa]

On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 3:07 AM Richard W.M. Jones  wrote:
>
>
>   https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2058274
>
> fails to build with:
>
>   DEBUG util.py:444:  No matching package to install: 'ocaml-dune >= 1.0'
>
> This package is in RHEL 9 buildroot (ocaml-dune-2.8.5-5.el9.x86_64).
>
> I read an earlier thread ("Subject: [EPEL-devel] Re: Packages
> disappearing from the EPEL 9 buildroot") and it seems to indicate that
> RHEL 9 buildroot packages aren't going to be available in EPEL 9.
> This seems crazy, is it really correct?
>

It's not crazy. EPEL is intended to build on RHEL content, which means
we can't depend on something RHEL doesn't publish. If Red Hat wants to
publish their buildroot repo, then sure, we could use it. Just because
it happens to exist in the CentOS Stream 9 buildroot content does not
mean we would be able to rely on it once we replace CentOS Stream with
RHEL for EPEL 9. Thus, we don't use the CentOS Stream 9 buildroot
either.

If we did, we'd wind up in a situation where packages were built once
and then not buildable ever again. That already kind of happened when
we initially had that buildroot repo in the EPEL build environment and
it made it way harder for us to figure out what gaps we had for things
to build against RHEL later. We've fortunately dealt with the small
number of cases that occurred from then.



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

Re: Blender failed to build with ffmpeg enabled

[Neal Gompa]

On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 4:10 AM Luya Tshimbalanga  wrote:
>
>
> On 2022-02-28 22:23, Mamoru TASAKA wrote:
>
> Luya Tshimbalanga wrote on 2022/03/01 15:11:
>
> Hello team,
>
> Blender failed to build with enabled FFMPEG support using ffmpeg-free-devel 
> at the following line:
>
> '''
>
> /builddir/build/BUILD/blender-3.0.1/extern/audaspace/plugins/ffmpeg/FFMPEGReader.cpp:
>  In member function 'void aud::FFMPEGReader::init(int)':
> /builddir/build/BUILD/blender-3.0.1/extern/audaspace/plugins/ffmpeg/FFMPEGReader.cpp:180:47:
>  error: invalid conversion from 'const AVCodec*' to 'AVCodec*' [-fpermissive]
>180 | AVCodec* aCodec = 
> avcodec_find_decoder(m_formatCtx->streams[m_stream]->codecpar->codec_id);
>|   
> ^~~~
>|   |
>|   const AVCodec*
> gmake[2]: *** [extern/audaspace/CMakeFiles/audaspace.dir/build.make:1549: 
> extern/audaspace/CMakeFiles/audaspace.dir/plugins/ffmpeg/FFMPEGReader.cpp.o] 
> Error 1
>
> '''
>
> Could someone handle the AVCodec issue please?
> Available scratch-build result:
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=83496011
>
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
>
> Change to const AVCodec* aCodec = avcodec_find_decoder(
> ref:
> https://github.com/blender/blender/commit/af6a1b08e3f0d0070ac9423868d2d3f81057717a
>
>
> Thanks! Next step is to remove libavdevice.h from Blender as ffmpeg-free 
> excluded it.
>
> Scratch result with applied patch so far: 
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=83502291
>
> Scratch result with removed libavdecice.h: 
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=83503990
>

We didn't exclude it. FFmpeg 5.0 removed it entirely. They replaced
the header with libavdevice/avdevice.h.



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

[Luya Tshimbalanga]

On 2022-02-28 22:23, Mamoru TASAKA wrote:

Luya Tshimbalanga wrote on 2022/03/01 15:11:

Hello team,

Blender failed to build with enabled FFMPEG support using 
ffmpeg-free-devel at the following line:


'''

/builddir/build/BUILD/blender-3.0.1/extern/audaspace/plugins/ffmpeg/FFMPEGReader.cpp: 
In member function 'void aud::FFMPEGReader::init(int)':
/builddir/build/BUILD/blender-3.0.1/extern/audaspace/plugins/ffmpeg/FFMPEGReader.cpp:180:47: 
error: invalid conversion from 'const AVCodec*' to 'AVCodec*' 
[-fpermissive]
   180 | AVCodec* aCodec = 
avcodec_find_decoder(m_formatCtx->streams[m_stream]->codecpar->codec_id);
   | 
^~~~

   |   |
   |   const AVCodec*
gmake[2]: *** 
[extern/audaspace/CMakeFiles/audaspace.dir/build.make:1549: 
extern/audaspace/CMakeFiles/audaspace.dir/plugins/ffmpeg/FFMPEGReader.cpp.o] 
Error 1


'''

Could someone handle the AVCodec issue please?
Available scratch-build result:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=83496011


Thanks in advance.



Change to const AVCodec* aCodec = avcodec_find_decoder(
ref:
https://github.com/blender/blender/commit/af6a1b08e3f0d0070ac9423868d2d3f81057717a 




Thanks! Next step is to remove libavdevice.h from Blender as ffmpeg-free 
excluded it.


Scratch result with applied patch so far: 
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=83502291


Scratch result with removed libavdecice.h: 
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=83503990


--
Luya Tshimbalanga
Fedora Design Team
Fedora Design Suite maintainer
___
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] Missing RHEL 9 buildroot packages in EPEL 9 buildroot

[Richard W.M. Jones]

  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2058274

fails to build with:

  DEBUG util.py:444:  No matching package to install: 'ocaml-dune >= 1.0'

This package is in RHEL 9 buildroot (ocaml-dune-2.8.5-5.el9.x86_64).

I read an earlier thread ("Subject: [EPEL-devel] Re: Packages
disappearing from the EPEL 9 buildroot") and it seems to indicate that
RHEL 9 buildroot packages aren't going to be available in EPEL 9.
This seems crazy, is it really correct?

Rich.

-- 
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com
virt-top is 'top' for virtual machines.  Tiny program with many
powerful monitoring features, net stats, disk stats, logging, etc.
http://people.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-top
___
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