Re: RHEL moving to issues.redhat.com only long term
On Sat, 2022-03-12 at 10:15 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Simo Sorce: > > > On Fri, 2022-03-11 at 13:52 +, Peter Robinson wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 9:45 AM Colin Walters > > > > wrote: > > > > > Long term if Bugzilla slowly morphs into only being used by > > > > > Fedora, > > > > > personally I'd prefer to have bugs/issues in gitlab instead. > > > > > > > > Yes, I personally think gitlab.com would be a good replacement for > > > > src.fedoraproject.org and bugzilla.redhat.com. > > > > > > I disagree as the interface for agile development like sprints, > > > kanban > > > and other team tools is rudimentary at best and really not suitable > > > for anything more than the basics and is not a patch on the > > > functionality and plugin ecosystem that is available in Jira. The > > > gitlab functionality there is a toy in comparison. > > > Bugzilla has no support for any sprints or kanban at all, so I do not > > see how this is relevant. > > These features are disabled for the Fedora product in > bugzilla.redhat.com, but the code is there. Perhaps you have different > views what tool support for these processes should look like? This was exactly my point, Fedora does not use sprints/kanban with bugzilla now, so it does not seem like a fair comment to complain that another bug tracker proposed as replacement does not have them either, unless suddenly there is a need for them (I personally see no need to have a fedora specific sprint/kanban system). Simo. -- Simo Sorce RHEL Crypto Team Red Hat, Inc ___ 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: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F35 to F36
I just tried it myself, the only dependency errors I got was from VS Code (Dotnet package dependency errors, I use MS's repos so I'd prolly have to upgrade it or remove it temporarily) and OpenRGB (Which I don't really use). So pretty much good on my end! Le ven. 11 mars 2022, à 12 h 43, Miroslav Suchý a écrit : > Do you want to make Fedora 36 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time > and try to run: > > # Run this only if you use default Fedora modules > # next time you run any DNF command default modules will be enabled again > sudo dnf module reset '*' > > dnf --releasever=36 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f36 \ > --enablerepo=updates-testing \ > $(rpm -q fedora-repos-modular >/dev/null && echo > --enablerepo=updates-testing-modular) \ > --assumeno distro-sync > > > This command does not replace `dnf system-upgrade`, but it will reveal > potential problems. > > You may also run `dnf upgrade` before running this command. > > The `--assumeno` will just test the transaction, but does not make the > actual upgrade. > > > In case you hit dependency issues, please report it against the > appropriate package. > > Or against fedora-obsolete-packages if that package should be removed in > Fedora 36. Please check existing reports against > > fedora-obsolete-packages first: > > https://red.ht/2kuBDPu > > and also there is already bunch of "Fails to install" (F36FailsToInstall) > reports: > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_id=1992487_id_type=anddependson=tvp_id=12486533 > > Thank you > Miroslav > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure > ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F35 to F36
On 3/11/22 12:43, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > Do you want to make Fedora 36 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and > try to run: > > # Run this only if you use default Fedora modules > # next time you run any DNF command default modules will be enabled again > sudo dnf module reset '*' > > dnf --releasever=36 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f36 \ > --enablerepo=updates-testing \ > $(rpm -q fedora-repos-modular >/dev/null && echo > --enablerepo=updates-testing-modular) \ > --assumeno distro-sync > > > This command does not replace `dnf system-upgrade`, but it will reveal > potential problems. > > You may also run `dnf upgrade` before running this command. > > > The `--assumeno` will just test the transaction, but does not make the actual > upgrade. > > > In case you hit dependency issues, please report it against the appropriate > package. > > Or against fedora-obsolete-packages if that package should be removed in > Fedora 36. Please check existing reports against > > fedora-obsolete-packages first: > > https://red.ht/2kuBDPu > > and also there is already bunch of "Fails to install" (F36FailsToInstall) > reports: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_id=1992487_id_type=anddependson=tvp_id=12486533 > > Thank you > > Miroslav It tries to downgrade Thunderbird, which is a bad idea for obvious security reasons. -- 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: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F35 to F36
On Saturday, March 12, 2022 3:31:23 AM CST Tomasz Torcz wrote: > The other one with obs/x264 from RPMFusion. I came across this same issue. Has anyone reported this issue to them? For the record, here is the error message: ``` Error: Problem: package obs-studio-27.2.1-1.fc36.x86_64 requires x264, but none of the providers can be installed - problem with installed package obs-studio-27.2.1-1.fc35.x86_64 - package x264-0.163-5.20210613git5db6aa6.fc36.x86_64 requires libgpac.so.10()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed - x264-0.163-2.20210613git5db6aa6.fc35.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository - obs-studio-27.2.1-1.fc35.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository - gpac-libs-1.0.1-4.fc35.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository ``` -- Thanks, Maxwell G (@gotmax23) Pronouns: He/Him/Him signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ 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 change for F36 release notes?
On 3/12/22 04:32, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 08:55:35PM -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote: I just realized that the cobbler django web interface is not compatible with django 4.0 in Fedora 36. Upstream has dropped the web interface completely with cobbler 3.3 and so I've decided to update to that in Fedora 36. However, I do think this is worthy of a release note somewhere (not sure what section). Can this still be done? How? Do I file a PR here https://pagure.io/fedora-docs/release-notes ? Hi Orion, what's the status here, did this get some resolution? Zbyszek Do one ever replied, so I'm not sure how to proceed. -- Orion Poplawski he/him/his - surely the least important thing about me IT Systems Manager 720-772-5637 NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702 3380 Mitchell Lane or...@nwra.com Boulder, CO 80301 https://www.nwra.com/ smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic 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: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F35 to F36
On Saturday, 12 March 2022 15.35.02 WET Ian McInerney via devel wrote: > Why are you suggesting reporting it to fedora-obsolete-packages? The Julia > package is not obsolete, and the maintainers are acutely aware of the > install > problem and are tracking it in the appropriate FTBFS/FTI bugzilla entries > (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2045732, > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2044284), but they need upstream > input on the fixes in order to get it working. Considering this an obsolete > package just because it has this install error right now is in my opinion > very short-sighted. > > -Ian Ian, I think that it was my message that induced Miroslav into mistake. I can see how it can be read that way. What I should have said is that the version available in F35 is newer than that available in F36+. Mea culpa. :-) -- José Abílio___ 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: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F35 to F36
On Sat, Mar 12, 2022 at 3:20 PM Miroslav Suchý wrote: > Dne 12. 03. 22 v 15:15 José Abílio Matos napsal(a): > > On Saturday, 12 March 2022 11.23.11 WET José Abílio Matos wrote: > > > Error: > > > Problem: package julia-1.7.0.0-1.fc36.x86_64 requires > > > libmbedcrypto.so.3()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed - > > > package julia-1.7.0.0-1.fc36.x86_64 requires libmbedtls.so.12()(64bit), > but > > > none of the providers can be installed - package > julia-1.7.0.0-1.fc36.x86_64 > > > requires libmbedx509.so.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be > > > installed - problem with installed package julia-1.7.2-1.fc35.x86_64 > > > - mbedtls-2.16.12-1.fc35.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade > repository > > > - julia-1.7.2-1.fc35.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository > > Replying to myself julia 1.7.2 is not available in Fedora 36+ only in > Fedora 35. > > This is an excelent example of package and issue which should be reported > to > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fedora-obsolete-packages/ > > Can you please report it there? > Why are you suggesting reporting it to fedora-obsolete-packages? The Julia package is not obsolete, and the maintainers are acutely aware of the install problem and are tracking it in the appropriate FTBFS/FTI bugzilla entries (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2045732, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2044284), but they need upstream input on the fixes in order to get it working. Considering this an obsolete package just because it has this install error right now is in my opinion very short-sighted. -Ian > Miroslav > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure > ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Fedora-36-20220312.n.0 compose check report
No missing expected images. Failed openQA tests: 9/161 (aarch64), 9/229 (x86_64) New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-36-20220311.n.0): ID: 1171116 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso install_repository_hd_variation@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1171116 ID: 1171229 Test: x86_64 universal install_software_raid@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1171229 ID: 1171272 Test: x86_64 universal install_repository_http_variation URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1171272 ID: 1171274 Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_minimal_uefi@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1171274 ID: 1171325 Test: aarch64 universal install_btrfs@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1171325 Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-36-20220311.n.0): ID: 1171039 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso eog URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1171039 ID: 1171062 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso apps_startstop URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1171062 ID: 1171127 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso server_cockpit_basic@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1171127 ID: 1171163 Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz eog@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1171163 ID: 1171169 Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz gnome_text_editor@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1171169 ID: 1171192 Test: x86_64 Workstation-upgrade gnome_text_editor URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1171192 ID: 1171193 Test: x86_64 Workstation-upgrade apps_startstop URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1171193 ID: 1171206 Test: aarch64 Workstation-upgrade eog@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1171206 ID: 1171212 Test: aarch64 Workstation-upgrade gnome_text_editor@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1171212 ID: 1171246 Test: x86_64 universal install_arabic_language URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1171246 ID: 1171247 Test: x86_64 universal install_asian_language URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1171247 ID: 1171312 Test: aarch64 universal install_arabic_language@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1171312 ID: 1171320 Test: aarch64 universal install_asian_language@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1171320 Soft failed openQA tests: 3/161 (aarch64), 7/229 (x86_64) (Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug) New soft failures (same test not soft failed in Fedora-36-20220311.n.0): ID: 1171178 Test: aarch64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1171178 Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-36-20220311.n.0): ID: 1171024 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso apps_startstop URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1171024 ID: 1171027 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_browser URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1171027 ID: 1171058 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_browser URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1171058 ID: 1171069 Test: x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso eog URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1171069 ID: 1171077 Test: x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso desktop_browser URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1171077 ID: 1171087 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1171087 ID: 1171167 Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz desktop_browser@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1171167 ID: 1171185 Test: x86_64 Workstation-upgrade desktop_browser URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1171185 ID: 1171211 Test: aarch64 Workstation-upgrade desktop_browser@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1171211 Passed openQA tests: 149/161 (aarch64), 213/229 (x86_64) New passes (same test not passed in Fedora-36-20220311.n.0): ID: 1171136 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso install_vncconnect_client@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1171136 ID: 1171137 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso install_vncconnect_server@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1171137 ID: 1171171 Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz desktop_update_graphical@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1171171 ID: 1171215 Test: aarch64 Workstation-upgrade desktop_update_graphical@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1171215 ID: 1171338 Test: aarch64 universal install_simple_free_space@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1171338 Installed system changes in test x86_64 Server-boot-iso install_default@uefi: System load changed from 0.06 to 0.17 Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1169362#downloads Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1170958#downloads Installed system changes in test x86_64 Everything-boot-iso install_default@uefi: System load changed from 0.28 to 0.13 Previous test data:
Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F35 to F36
Dne 12. 03. 22 v 15:15 José Abílio Matos napsal(a): On Saturday, 12 March 2022 11.23.11 WET José Abílio Matos wrote: > Error: > Problem: package julia-1.7.0.0-1.fc36.x86_64 requires > libmbedcrypto.so.3()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed - > package julia-1.7.0.0-1.fc36.x86_64 requires libmbedtls.so.12()(64bit), but > none of the providers can be installed - package julia-1.7.0.0-1.fc36.x86_64 > requires libmbedx509.so.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be > installed - problem with installed package julia-1.7.2-1.fc35.x86_64 > - mbedtls-2.16.12-1.fc35.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository > - julia-1.7.2-1.fc35.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository Replying to myself julia 1.7.2 is not available in Fedora 36+ only in Fedora 35. This is an excelent example of package and issue which should be reported to https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fedora-obsolete-packages/ Can you please report it there? Miroslav ___ 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: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F35 to F36
On Saturday, 12 March 2022 11.23.11 WET José Abílio Matos wrote: > Error: > Problem: package julia-1.7.0.0-1.fc36.x86_64 requires > libmbedcrypto.so.3()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed - > package julia-1.7.0.0-1.fc36.x86_64 requires libmbedtls.so.12()(64bit), but > none of the providers can be installed - package julia-1.7.0.0-1.fc36.x86_64 > requires libmbedx509.so.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be > installed - problem with installed package julia-1.7.2-1.fc35.x86_64 > - mbedtls-2.16.12-1.fc35.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository > - julia-1.7.2-1.fc35.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository Replying to myself julia 1.7.2 is not available in Fedora 36+ only in Fedora 35. Downgrading julia (that does back to 1.7.0beta4-1 the update still fails with: Error: Problem: package julia-1.7.0.0-1.fc36.x86_64 requires libmbedcrypto.so.3() (64bit), but none of the providers can be installed - package julia-1.7.0.0-1.fc36.x86_64 requires libmbedtls.so.12()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed - package julia-1.7.0.0-1.fc36.x86_64 requires libmbedx509.so.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed - problem with installed package julia-1.7.0beta4-1.fc35.x86_64 - mbedtls-2.16.12-1.fc35.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository - julia-1.7.0beta4-1.fc35.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository Finally removing julia it works: ... Transaction Summary == Install 74 Packages Upgrade8143 Packages Remove4 Packages Downgrade 9 Packages Total download size: 7.5 G Operation aborted. Interestingly one of the packages that will be downgraded is tellico, that I have built, and where only F36 has the previous package while F34, F35 and F37 (rawhide) have the same version. So I failed to notice the branching of F36. :-( Fortunately the solution, in this case, is simple. :-) -- José Abílio___ 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: 20220312.n.0 changes
OLD: Fedora-36-20220311.n.0 NEW: Fedora-36-20220312.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
Fedora-Rawhide-20220312.n.0 compose check report
Missing expected images: Minimal raw-xz armhfp Compose PASSES proposed Rawhide gating check! All required tests passed Failed openQA tests: 16/231 (x86_64), 23/161 (aarch64) New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20220309.n.0): ID: 1170638 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_login URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1170638 ID: 1170668 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_login URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1170668 ID: 1170721 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso server_cockpit_default@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1170721 ID: 1170742 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso mediakit_repoclosure@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1170742 ID: 1170748 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso server_realmd_join_kickstart@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1170748 ID: 1170750 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso realmd_join_sssd@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1170750 ID: 1170776 Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz desktop_browser@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1170776 ID: 1170796 Test: x86_64 Workstation-upgrade desktop_login URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1170796 ID: 1170819 Test: aarch64 Workstation-upgrade evince@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1170819 ID: 1170832 Test: x86_64 universal install_european_language URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1170832 ID: 1170884 Test: x86_64 universal install_cyrillic_language URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1170884 ID: 1170910 Test: aarch64 universal upgrade_minimal_64bit@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1170910 ID: 1170933 Test: aarch64 universal install_blivet_xfs@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1170933 ID: 1170941 Test: aarch64 universal upgrade_2_server_domain_controller@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1170941 ID: 1170943 Test: aarch64 universal upgrade_2_realmd_client@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1170943 ID: 1170944 Test: aarch64 universal install_cyrillic_language@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1170944 ID: 1170948 Test: aarch64 universal install_european_language@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1170948 Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20220309.n.0): ID: 1170627 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_notifications_live URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1170627 ID: 1170631 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso apps_startstop URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1170631 ID: 1170649 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_printing URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1170649 ID: 1170669 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso apps_startstop URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1170669 ID: 1170674 Test: x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso install_default_upload URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1170674 ID: 1170677 Test: x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso install_default@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1170677 ID: 1170725 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso install_repository_hd_variation@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1170725 ID: 1170765 Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz desktop_printing@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1170765 ID: 1170778 Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz gnome_text_editor@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1170778 ID: 1170780 Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz desktop_update_graphical@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1170780 ID: 1170795 Test: x86_64 Workstation-upgrade desktop_printing URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1170795 ID: 1170802 Test: x86_64 Workstation-upgrade apps_startstop URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1170802 ID: 1170806 Test: x86_64 Workstation-upgrade desktop_fprint URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1170806 ID: 1170814 Test: aarch64 Workstation-upgrade desktop_printing@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1170814 ID: 1170820 Test: aarch64 Workstation-upgrade desktop_browser@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1170820 ID: 1170821 Test: aarch64 Workstation-upgrade gnome_text_editor@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1170821 ID: 1170855 Test: x86_64 universal install_arabic_language URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1170855 ID: 1170856 Test: x86_64 universal install_asian_language URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1170856 ID: 1170921 Test: aarch64 universal install_arabic_language@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1170921 ID: 1170928 Test: aarch64 universal upgrade_server_domain_controller@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1170928 ID: 1170929 Test: aarch64 universal install_asian_language@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1170929 ID: 1170931 Test: aarch64 universal
Re: Very late change for F36 release notes?
On Wed, Mar 02, 2022 at 08:55:35PM -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote: > I just realized that the cobbler django web interface is not compatible with > django 4.0 in Fedora 36. Upstream has dropped the web interface completely > with cobbler 3.3 and so I've decided to update to that in Fedora 36. > However, I do think this is worthy of a release note somewhere (not sure > what section). Can this still be done? How? Do I file a PR here > https://pagure.io/fedora-docs/release-notes ? Hi Orion, what's the status here, did this get some resolution? Zbyszek ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F35 to F36
On Friday, 11 March 2022 17.43.01 WET Miroslav Suchý wrote: > Do you want to make Fedora 36 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and > try to run: > > # Run this only if you use default Fedora modules > # next time you run any DNF command default modules will be enabled again > sudo dnf module reset '*' > > dnf --releasever=36 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f36 \ > --enablerepo=updates-testing \ > $(rpm -q fedora-repos-modular >/dev/null && echo > --enablerepo=updates-testing-modular) \ --assumeno distro-sync > > > This command does not replace `dnf system-upgrade`, but it will reveal > potential problems. > > You may also run `dnf upgrade` before running this command. > > > The `--assumeno` will just test the transaction, but does not make the actual > upgrade. > > > In case you hit dependency issues, please report it against the appropriate > package. > > Or against fedora-obsolete-packages if that package should be removed in > Fedora 36. Please check existing reports against > > fedora-obsolete-packages first: > > https://red.ht/2kuBDPu > > and also there is already bunch of "Fails to install" (F36FailsToInstall) > reports: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi? bug_id=1992487_id_type=anddependso > n=tvp_id=12486533 > > Thank you > > Miroslav This is what I get: Error: Problem: package julia-1.7.0.0-1.fc36.x86_64 requires libmbedcrypto.so.3() (64bit), but none of the providers can be installed - package julia-1.7.0.0-1.fc36.x86_64 requires libmbedtls.so.12()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed - package julia-1.7.0.0-1.fc36.x86_64 requires libmbedx509.so.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed - problem with installed package julia-1.7.2-1.fc35.x86_64 - mbedtls-2.16.12-1.fc35.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository - julia-1.7.2-1.fc35.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository -- José Abílio___ 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: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F35 to F36
There are some issues with Open Babel's dependencies: Error: Problem 1: package expo-1.18.11-1.fc28.x86_64 requires libopenbabel.so.5()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed - openbabel-libs-2.4.1-37.fc35.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository - problem with installed package expo-1.18.11-1.fc28.x86_64 Problem 2: problem with installed package IQmol-2.15.0-5.fc35.x86_64 - package IQmol-2.15.0-5.fc35.x86_64 requires libopenbabel.so.5()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed - cannot install both openbabel-libs-3.1.1-6.fc36.x86_64 and openbabel-libs-2.4.1-37.fc35.x86_64 - package ghemical-3.0.0-19.fc36.x86_64 requires libopenbabel.so.7()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed - problem with installed package ghemical-3.0.0-17.fc35.x86_64 - ghemical-3.0.0-17.fc35.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Fedora-Cloud-34-20220312.0 compose check report
No missing expected images. Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64), 1/8 (aarch64) (Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug) Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-34-20220311.0): ID: 1170555 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1170555 ID: 1170561 Test: aarch64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1170561 Passed openQA tests: 7/8 (x86_64), 7/8 (aarch64) -- Mail generated by check-compose: https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F35 to F36
Do you want to make Fedora 36 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and try to run: # Run this only if you use default Fedora modules # next time you run any DNF command default modules will be enabled again sudo dnf module reset '*' dnf --releasever=36 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f36 \ --enablerepo=updates-testing \ $(rpm -q fedora-repos-modular >/dev/null && echo --enablerepo=updates-testing-modular) \ --assumeno distro-sync Didn't get any issues on my F35 installations. as always good work. Thanks, Regards -- Héctor Louzao "hhlp" (He / Him / His) | https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:hhlp Time zone: Europe/Madrid___ 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: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F35 to F36
On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 06:43:01PM +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > Do you want to make Fedora 36 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and > try to run: > > > In case you hit dependency issues, please report it against the appropriate > package. > Two problems, one with lilv: Error: Problem 1: lilv-0.24.10-4.fc35.i686 has inferior architecture - lilv-0.24.10-4.fc35.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository - problem with installed package lilv-0.24.10-4.fc35.i686 Already reported at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2052588 The other one with obs/x264 from RPMFusion. In general, great work! -- Tomasz Torcz “God, root, what's the difference?” to...@pipebreaker.pl “God is more forgiving.” ___ 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: RHEL moving to issues.redhat.com only long term
* Simo Sorce: > On Fri, 2022-03-11 at 13:52 +, Peter Robinson wrote: >> > On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 9:45 AM Colin Walters >> > wrote: >> > > Long term if Bugzilla slowly morphs into only being used by >> > > Fedora, >> > > personally I'd prefer to have bugs/issues in gitlab instead. >> > >> > Yes, I personally think gitlab.com would be a good replacement for >> > src.fedoraproject.org and bugzilla.redhat.com. >> >> I disagree as the interface for agile development like sprints, >> kanban >> and other team tools is rudimentary at best and really not suitable >> for anything more than the basics and is not a patch on the >> functionality and plugin ecosystem that is available in Jira. The >> gitlab functionality there is a toy in comparison. > Bugzilla has no support for any sprints or kanban at all, so I do not > see how this is relevant. These features are disabled for the Fedora product in bugzilla.redhat.com, but the code is there. Perhaps you have different views what tool support for these processes should look like? 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-Cloud-35-20220312.0 compose check report
No missing expected images. Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64), 1/8 (aarch64) (Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug) Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-35-20220311.0): ID: 1170539 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1170539 ID: 1170545 Test: aarch64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1170545 Passed openQA tests: 7/8 (x86_64), 7/8 (aarch64) -- Mail generated by check-compose: https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Problem with cmake 3.23.0
Fabio Valentini wrote: > Also related, as far as I know, Neal put great effort into making the > macros work almost exactly the same on both Fedora and EPEL. > So I think that statement is incorrect. (An ancient version of) CMake is part of RHEL proper though. And, while a lot of work has been put into those macros, the changes for automagic out-of-source builds have caused a lot of completely unnecessary breakage, considering that it had always been possible to do out-of-source builds using very straightforward boilerplate (that was widely used and was actually broken by the change), which could be simplified even more when relying on a CMake recent enough to support -S and -B (as the new macros actually do). (But CMake itself still supports the legacy cd build && cmake .. && make -j… just fine, only the macro changes make that idiom no longer work as is if you use the %cmake macro.) So I do not see at all what we have gained by the addition of default -S and -B flags to the %cmake macro. 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: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F35 to F36
> Am 11.03.2022 um 18:43 schrieb Miroslav Suchý : > > Do you want to make Fedora 36 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and > try to run: > > # Run this only if you use default Fedora modules > # next time you run any DNF command default modules will be enabled again > sudo dnf module reset '*' > > > dnf --releasever=36 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f36 \ > --enablerepo=updates-testing \ > $(rpm -q fedora-repos-modular >/dev/null && echo > --enablerepo=updates-testing-modular) \ > --assumeno distro-sync > Just for the records: no issue found with Fedora 35 Server Edition in its default configuration including virtualisation ___ 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
libcgroup SONAME bump in rawhide
I'm going to rebase libcgroup in rawhide to version 2.0.1, which comes with a SONAME bump. condor appears to be the only affected package, and it will need to be rebuilt. I've done a successful test build in Copr [1]. Thanks, Nikola [1] https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/nforro/libcgroup-2/build/3699724/ ___ 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
