Hi
As my work usually is around fixing packages which failed to build on
AArch64 I spend lot of time with Koji.
Today I started writing script which has to list all current FTBFS
entries from selected Koji instance - kind like [1] does but with few
extras:
- no packages which got built later
-
(Logistical note: please keep all replies to this thread on
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org)
tl;dr Shall we consider requiring a lesser package review for packages
that are not present on Product or Spin install media?
== Premise ==
So, some time ago, we started talking about dividing up the
On Qui, 2015-02-12 at 14:41 -0500, Corey Sheldon wrote:
Aka patience and to be totally honest and blunt, if you have a
alpha/beta tester group and or a solid forum/mailing list with updates
to status this should seriously not be a setback 3 weeks on the other
hand might qualify.Appreciate
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015, at 01:32 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
tl;dr Shall we consider requiring a lesser package review for packages
that are not present on Product or Spin install media?
It's worth noting here that having two levels is not really going
to be new to the ecosystem; e.g. Ubuntu
On 02/10/2015 09:16 AM, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
On Tue, 2015-02-10 at 14:38 +0100, Marek Skalický wrote:
Matthew Miller píše v Út 10. 02. 2015 v 06:19 -0500:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:12:15PM +0100, Marek Skalický wrote:
does someone know what are Fedora Guidelines (or something similar)
saying
Aka patience and to be totally honest and blunt, if you have a alpha/beta
tester group and or a solid forum/mailing list with updates to status this
should seriously not be a setback 3 weeks on the other hand might
qualify.Appreciate the eagerness to partake in development /packaging
but
On 12 February 2015 at 12:53, Sérgio Basto ser...@serjux.com wrote:
On Qui, 2015-02-12 at 14:41 -0500, Corey Sheldon wrote:
Aka patience and to be totally honest and blunt, if you have a
alpha/beta tester group and or a solid forum/mailing list with updates
to status this should seriously
Hi, .
2015-02-09 20:13:21
This update has been submitted for stable by sergiomb .
Today is 12 and still not pushed, how we can devel when have to wait 3
days to a push ? , pushes should be regular and not random .
What happened last 3 days ? Seems that I'm not lucky when I push
things ,
On Thu, 2015-02-12 at 14:01 -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015, at 01:32 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
tl;dr Shall we consider requiring a lesser package review for packages
that are not present on Product or Spin install media?
It's worth noting here that having two
On 12/02/15 19:32, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
(Logistical note: please keep all replies to this thread on
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org)
tl;dr Shall we consider requiring a lesser package review for packages
that are not present on Product or Spin install media?
Thanks for bringing this up. We
On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 14:01:43 -0500
Colin Walters walt...@verbum.org wrote:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015, at 01:32 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
tl;dr Shall we consider requiring a lesser package review for
packages that are not present on Product or Spin install media?
It's worth noting here
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 07:53:05PM +, Sérgio Basto wrote:
yeah, but we should have some regularity, I don't like waiting without
knowing the delay, in this case is pushing to stable, is just for my
Nobody is delaying pushes on purpose and everyone involved into it would
like it to happen
commit 039e0987bda366244807a972944ebe9c2fc8b8dd
Author: Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com
Date: Thu Feb 12 13:07:31 2015 +0100
Run X11 tests using xvfb-run
perl-Wx-Perl-DataWalker.spec |8 +---
1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
---
diff --git
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189459
--- Comment #1 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com ---
This is caused by upgrading perl-Term-ReadLine-Gnu from 1.25 to 1.26. The
dead-lock is here:
$ prove -b -v t/07-initialize.t
t/07-initialize.t ..
1..4
ok 1 - initialize with prams
LOCK
ok 2
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 6:30 AM, Michael Cronenworth m...@cchtml.com
wrote:
I'm sure those that need to know, know, but for those that haven't
heard[1]
Mozilla's official Firefox build will enforce addons to contain a
Mozilla signature
without any runtime option to disable the check.
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-IO-AIO:
9577f5be9d2ecf3980607462106df149 IO-AIO-4.32.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
The following packages are orphaned and will be retired when they
are orphaned for six weeks, unless someone adopts them. If you know for sure
that the package should be retired, please do so now with a proper reason:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_remove_a_package_at_end_of_life
Note: If
The following packages are orphaned and will be retired when they
are orphaned for six weeks, unless someone adopts them. If you know for sure
that the package should be retired, please do so now with a proper reason:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_remove_a_package_at_end_of_life
Note: If
The following packages are orphaned and will be retired when they
are orphaned for six weeks, unless someone adopts them. If you know for sure
that the package should be retired, please do so now with a proper reason:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_remove_a_package_at_end_of_life
Note: If
The following packages are orphaned and will be retired when they
are orphaned for six weeks, unless someone adopts them. If you know for sure
that the package should be retired, please do so now with a proper reason:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_remove_a_package_at_end_of_life
Note: If
commit a723cf7b31b1b70239d0f67f1e9f18b8b00b1f9a
Author: Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org
Date: Thu Feb 12 11:12:06 2015 +
Update to 4.32
- New upstream release 4.32
- Replace off_t by STRLEN where appropriate; should not result in
user-visible changes
- Update
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Nikos Roussos
comzer...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 6:30 AM, Michael Cronenworth m...@cchtml.com
wrote:
I'm sure those that need to know, know, but for those that haven't heard[1]
Mozilla's official Firefox build will enforce addons to
The lightweight tag 'perl-IO-AIO-4.32-1.fc23' was created pointing to:
a723cf7... Update to 4.32
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
Summary of changes:
a723cf7... Update to 4.32 (*)
(*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
The lightweight tag 'perl-IO-AIO-4.32-1.fc22' was created pointing to:
a723cf7... Update to 4.32
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
commit b11122d3686c8c28ba21a46bd9c9baa3ba25acd6
Author: Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com
Date: Thu Feb 12 13:07:31 2015 +0100
Run X11 tests using xvfb-run
(cherry picked from commit 039e0987bda366244807a972944ebe9c2fc8b8dd)
perl-Wx-Perl-DataWalker.spec |8 +---
1
Summary of changes:
f8d3bc3... Update to 0.17023 (*)
(*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
I did a test build of SDL without the audiofile + arts + esound
dependencies (arts + esound also seem to need audiofile), and it
builds fine, so that is one route out of this.
Audiofile is bound to stay, and SDL should remain built against it, as
removing it would
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 6:43 PM, Vladimir Stackov amigo.el...@gmail.com wrote:
Say we have two packages:
Name: a
Requires: b
drop this one and build A, then build b, and rebuild A adding the
dependencie back
--- BuildRequires: b
and
Name: b
Requires: a
BuildRequires: a
--
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Error:
98524ffbd268013e00697a5826a83d37 Error-0.17023.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
commit f8d3bc3500590dce9c9493582ef08082a14497d9
Author: Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org
Date: Thu Feb 12 20:35:41 2015 +
Update to 0.17023
- New upstream release 0.17023
- Minimal version of Module-Build reduced to 0.280801 (CPAN RT#102062)
- Use %license where
Nikos Roussos wrote:
If the only way is to completely disable this feature, I'd prefer we
don't.
I wouldn't like for us to ship a less secure build of Firefox.
After Restricted Boot, now Restricted Browser? No thanks! This feature
needs to be disabled no matter whether it affects our packaged
The lightweight tag 'perl-Error-0.17023-1.fc23' was created pointing to:
f8d3bc3... Update to 0.17023
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
The lightweight tag 'perl-Error-0.17023-1.fc22' was created pointing to:
f8d3bc3... Update to 0.17023
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Say we have two packages:
Name: a
Requires: b
BuildRequires: b
and
Name: b
Requires: a
BuildRequires: a
I can bootstrap them by building and installing manually before
rpmbuild but how should I do that with koji?
Thanks for any advices!
--
Kind regards,
Vladimir.
--
devel mailing list
Stephen Gallagher wrote:
* The package *MAY* contain bundled libraries or other projects, but if
it does so, it *MUST* contain a Provides: bundled(pkg) = version for
each such bundling. This is done so that we can use the meta-data to
identify which packages may be vulnerable in the event of a
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 01:32:04PM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
(Logistical note: please keep all replies to this thread on
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org)
tl;dr Shall we consider requiring a lesser package review for packages
that are not present on Product or Spin install media?
Despite
commit 59e25a21638574fd097336f46de7a6b88696d2b7
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Thu Feb 12 09:37:39 2015 +0100
Fix regressions with GCC 5.0
Upstream proposed different fix for the Errno by modifying global CPP
flags. I think this an overkill preventing people from
Hi,
I've already tried to ask on #fedora-qa, but I think the mailing list is
the better medium to discuss this. Thanks to jskladen for answering.
We've been looking into Taskotron and Resultsdb for a while and would
like to deploy an instance running RPMGrill[1] and become contributors.
On Mon, 9 Feb 2015 15:48:45 +1000
Róman Joost rjo...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi,
I've already tried to ask on #fedora-qa, but I think the mailing list
is the better medium to discuss this. Thanks to jskladen for
answering.
We've been looking into Taskotron and Resultsdb for a while and would
h Hi All,
Fedora 22 has been branched, please be sure to do a git pull --rebase to
pick up the new branch, as an additional reminder rawhide/f23 has had
inheritance cut off from previous releases, so this means that
anything you do for f22 you also have to do in the master branch and do
a
Summary of changes:
59e25a2... Fix regressions with GCC 5.0 (*)
(*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 02/12/2015 07:54 AM, Fedora Rawhide Report wrote:
Compose started at Thu Feb 12 10:59:03 UTC 2015
xorg-x11-server-1.17.1-1.fc22
Shouldn't we be seeing fc23 builds now in rawhide?
--
Orion Poplawski
Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222
NWRA/CoRA Division
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com wrote:
On 02/12/2015 07:54 AM, Fedora Rawhide Report wrote:
Compose started at Thu Feb 12 10:59:03 UTC 2015
xorg-x11-server-1.17.1-1.fc22
Shouldn't we be seeing fc23 builds now in rawhide?
I too can't see my fc23 builds
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183576
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|perl-Filter-1.54-1.fc21
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183576
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
On 02/12/2015 01:43 PM, Vladimir Stackov wrote:
Say we have two packages:
Name: a
Requires: b
BuildRequires: b
and
Name: b
Requires: a
BuildRequires: a
I can bootstrap them by building and installing manually before
rpmbuild but how should I do that with koji?
Thanks for any advices!
See
On 02/12/2015 02:40 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
h Hi All,
Fedora 22 has been branched, please be sure to do a git pull --rebase to
pick up the new branch, as an additional reminder rawhide/f23 has had
inheritance cut off from previous releases, so this means that
anything you do for f22 you
How feasible would it be to keep the listings in primary.xml and
filelists.xml sorted by package name and arch? Doing so could open the door
to simple and efficient diffs of repository metadata.
I recently ran some quick tests using python and elementtree. While the F21
primary.xml files from 2/7
commit 16d5c9bdbd6c43f14d1883db2d5c64d0e0ff1e75
Author: Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com
Date: Thu Feb 12 14:51:25 2015 +0100
Specify all dependencies; Modernize spec file
perl-File-ShareDir-PAR.spec | 50 +-
1 files changed, 30 insertions(+),
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1190828
Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
Fixed
commit f6eea2f719126ae1451b62223dda4d9ee5bb3762
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Thu Feb 12 15:08:07 2015 +0100
Rebuild for new GCC 5.0 C++ ABI signature (bug #1190971)
perl-Wx.spec |5 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-Wx.spec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189459
--- Comment #4 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com ---
There still something fishy with the perl debuger: It does not emit DB1
prompt if the debugger is run from the t/07-initialize.t test. If the debugger
is run from another session, it emits
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189459
--- Comment #5 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com ---
Please note upstream moved from Padre track to
https://github.com/PadreIDE/Debug-Client.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1190828
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
perl-File-ShareDir-PAR-0.06-14.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora
21.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-File-ShareDir-PAR-0.06-14.fc21
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189459
Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|http://koji.fedoraproject.o
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:47:27PM +0100, drago01 wrote:
A better way would be to add a Fedora Signature in addition to
mozilla's and use that for packaged extensions.
But that would require work on the build system (koji) side.
The RPMs deploying the packaged extension are already
commit df3f921891ead1994733ae89522e2ddfe4d8f0c7
Author: Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com
Date: Thu Feb 12 14:51:25 2015 +0100
Specify all dependencies; Modernize spec file
perl-File-ShareDir-PAR.spec | 50 +-
1 files changed, 30 insertions(+),
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:47:27PM +0100, drago01 wrote:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Nikos Roussos
comzer...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 6:30 AM, Michael Cronenworth m...@cchtml.com
wrote:
I'm sure those that need to know, know, but for those that haven't
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 1:53 PM, Daniel P. Berrange berra...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:47:27PM +0100, drago01 wrote:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Nikos Roussos
comzer...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 6:30 AM, Michael Cronenworth m...@cchtml.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189459
--- Comment #3 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com ---
Actualy the c command is flushed, but it's emitted before perl debugger is
ready to process input. Either the debugger should buffer the input, or the
Debug::Client should wait for debugger
On 02/12/2015 11:15 AM, Nikos Roussos wrote:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 6:30 AM, Michael Cronenworth m...@cchtml.com
wrote:
Is Fedora going to get authorization to build Firefox with a runtime
disable option?
If the only way is to completely disable this feature, I'd prefer we don't.
I
commit af1832198804fd4daf36c075433291d52f6eca4e
Author: Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com
Date: Thu Feb 12 14:51:25 2015 +0100
Specify all dependencies; Modernize spec file
perl-File-ShareDir-PAR.spec | 50 +-
1 files changed, 30 insertions(+),
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1179570
Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Fixed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189459
--- Comment #2 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com ---
It halts in the $debug-run on reading response from perl debugger.
The Debug::Client::run() sends c command to the debugger and waits for a
response. But no response comes because the c
commit 9fd4f4354b8ee291c459bae1ef609c8a1f64b325
Author: Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com
Date: Thu Feb 12 16:43:36 2015 +0100
Add a2p.y and regenerate a2p.c (BZ#1177672)
App-a2p-1.007-a2p-y.patch | 436 +
perl-App-a2p.spec | 17
Il 12/02/2015 16:50, Jerry James ha scritto:
Eek, sorry, got busy and forgot about this...
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote:
I'm really not sure, but a scratch build here works fine:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8784062
Is there any
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189463
Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
External Bug ID||CPAN 101894
--
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1179572
Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
External Bug ID||CPAN 99098
--- Comment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1179572
Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
External Bug ID||CPAN 101041
--
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189459
Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
External Bug ID||CPAN 101078
--
You
or simply exempt signature checking if
the extension is on disk. They should check on download only.
That would defeat the entire purpose; malware is very commonly sideloading
extensions.
Mirek
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1179572
Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Fixed In
Hi
try to build leveldbjni but is mistakenly seen as a package noarch
any ideas?
Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8909564
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct:
On 02/12/2015 04:53 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Thu, 2015-02-12 at 09:54 -0500, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
or simply exempt signature checking if
the extension is on disk. They should check on download only.
That would defeat the entire purpose; malware is very commonly sideloading
extensions.
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Simo Sorce s...@redhat.com wrote:
Malware can easily binary patch firefox to ignore verification, I do
not
think trying to defeat sideloading with this kind of verification
makes
much sense.
And if you've already installed malware with on your computer, don't
commit 2262696171da82fb6a3898d1758ceb384b7645db
Author: Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com
Date: Thu Feb 12 16:43:36 2015 +0100
Add a2p.y and regenerate a2p.c (BZ#1177672)
App-a2p-1.007-a2p-y.patch | 436 +
perl-App-a2p.spec | 17
Eek, sorry, got busy and forgot about this...
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote:
I'm really not sure, but a scratch build here works fine:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8784062
Is there any changes to your local koji client config?
As
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 8:29 AM, gil punto...@libero.it wrote:
Hi
try to build leveldbjni but is mistakenly seen as a package noarch
any ideas?
Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8909564
Possibly related to this thread:
On Thu, 2015-02-12 at 09:54 -0500, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
or simply exempt signature checking if
the extension is on disk. They should check on download only.
That would defeat the entire purpose; malware is very commonly sideloading
extensions.
Malware can easily binary patch firefox to
On 12/02/15 16:53, Simo Sorce wrote:
Malware can easily binary patch firefox to ignore verification, I do not
think trying to defeat sideloading with this kind of verification makes
much sense.
Of course you may decide to exempt only extensions in non-user-writable
locations, if you are on
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 09:54:16AM -0500, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
or simply exempt signature checking if
the extension is on disk. They should check on download only.
That would defeat the entire purpose; malware is very commonly
sideloading extensions.
If we only exempt extensions
commit 9583ef9e0c5aa15a635d8972b7ff67a15f816cf0
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Thu Jan 8 09:30:16 2015 +0100
Skip test on bootstrap because of non-core Devel::FindPerl
Conflicts:
perl-App-a2p.spec
perl-App-a2p.spec | 18 +-
1 files changed,
commit b3d15115b5f69ab387fa22e78da66b18bd0e4852
Author: Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com
Date: Thu Feb 12 16:43:36 2015 +0100
Add a2p.y and regenerate a2p.c (BZ#1177672)
Conflicts:
perl-App-a2p.spec
App-a2p-1.007-a2p-y.patch | 436
84 matches
Mail list logo
