[389-devel] 389 DS nightly 2019-08-24 - 96% PASS

https://fedorapeople.org/groups/389ds/ci/nightly/2019/08/24/report-389-ds-base-1.4.1.6-20190823gitaf4631f.fc30.x86_64.html ___ 389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to

Request to add new groups to comps.xml

Hello devel, The NeuroFedora SIG is working to create a Comp-Neuro Fedora Labs live image/installer.  We would also like group our packages into an easier-to-install format for our target audience, which may include researchers who are new to Fedora. To

[Bug 1741078] Upgrade perl-BSON to 1.12.1

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1741078 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|perl-BSON-1.12.1-1.fc31 |perl-BSON-1.12.1-1.fc31

[Bug 1744710] [RFE] EPEL8 branch of perl-HTTP-Headers-Fast

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1744710 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from

[Bug 1744681] [RFE] EPEL8 branch of perl-Net-IP

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1744681 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #2 from

[EPEL-devel] Fedora EPEL 8 updates-testing report

The following builds have been pushed to Fedora EPEL 8 updates-testing clamav-0.101.4-1.el8 libunwind-1.3.1-3.el8 perl-CPAN-Changes-0.42-13.el8 perl-Expect-1.35-10.el8 perl-HTTP-Headers-Fast-0.22-3.el8 perl-Mixin-Linewise-0.108-15.el8 perl-Net-IP-1.26-20.el8

[Bug 1744512] Request to build perl-Expect for EPEL 8

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1744512 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #2 from

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

The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing: Age URL 374 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-3c9292b62d condor-8.6.11-1.el7 149 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-d2c1368294 cinnamon-3.6.7-5.el7 115

[Bug 1385002] Upgrade perl-Pod-PseudoPod-LaTeX to 1.20190729

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1385002 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version|

[Bug 1741078] Upgrade perl-BSON to 1.12.1

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1741078 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In

Re: "ERROR: Could not find useradd in chroot" in COPR rawhide builds

Thanks guys for your replies. It built successfully with "use_bootstrap_container experimental" disabled. Marcin ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of

Unretire qd

Per the "Claiming Ownership of a Retired Package" checklist, I am announcing that I wish to unretire the qd package: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8673 It appears to have been one of the packages that was retired recently due to FTBFS. I maintain the libfplll package, which depends on qd. --

[Bug 1744710] [RFE] EPEL8 branch of perl-HTTP-Headers-Fast

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1744710 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #4 from

[Bug 1744710] [RFE] EPEL8 branch of perl-HTTP-Headers-Fast

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1744710 --- Comment #3 from Orion Poplawski --- Thanks! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To

[EPEL-devel] Re: Modularity Policy Discussion for EPEL 8.1

On 8/23/19 10:56 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > As you know, we delayed support of Modularity in EPEL (called > Application Streams in RHEL) until 8.1 while we worked out some > remaining issues. Some of those issues were technical, but we have a > few others that will come down to policy. In

[Bug 1744676] [RFE] EPEL8 branch of perl-BSD-Resource

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1744676 --- Comment #6 from Pat Riehecky --- In my ideal world, I'd love to be able to say "this package builds for these modules" and have some back end tooling that builds the package for all the various streams. For example, this package

Re: Laptop powerdown when early boot incl. bootloader phase stuck (Was: Bug 1742953 - No Screensaver/Powerdown after Inactivity at LUKS Password Prompt)

On Friday, August 23, 2019 12:34:50 PM MST Chris Murphy wrote: > GRUB verifies the signature of the kernel before it is booted, in the > Secure Boot enabled case. Correct, but that's one architecture, but failing to load an image is a fatal error. > a. Press any key before the timeout and it

Schedule for Mondays's FESCo Meeting (2019-08-26)

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo meeting Monday at 15:00UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net. To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UTCHowto or run: date -d '2019-08-26 15:00 UTC' Links to all issues to be

Re: Laptop powerdown when early boot incl. bootloader phase stuck (Was: Bug 1742953 - No Screensaver/Powerdown after Inactivity at LUKS Password Prompt)

On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:59 PM John Harris wrote: > > GRUB does not have the ability to halt the system on all architectures, but it > does on most. That said, there are some things to consider: > > If GRUB was able to load the kernel and initrd/initramfs image, even if it's > corrupt, it will

Re: Error with fedpkg update

On 8/23/19 11:10 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > It won't appear in Bodhi at all, but it will get the koji tag 'f31' and > so appear in Fedora 31 composes. > > This is how Rawhide and Branched-pre-Bodhi-enablement *always* worked - > it just feels a bit odd now because we have the gating stuff

Re: Laptop powerdown when early boot incl. bootloader phase stuck (Was: Bug 1742953 - No Screensaver/Powerdown after Inactivity at LUKS Password Prompt)

On Friday, August 23, 2019 11:06:18 AM MST Chris Murphy wrote: > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 5:48 AM Jan Pokorný wrote: > > > > One such other situation is having the bootloader (grub2) failed and > > hence be stuck in 'press a key to continue' or just staying in the > > selection menu without any

[389-devel] please review: PR 50563 - Improve idl_new_fetch error messages

https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/pull-request/50563 -- 389 Directory Server Development Team ___ 389-devel mailing list -- 389-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to 389-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct:

Re: Error with fedpkg update

On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 7:58 PM Gerald B. Cox wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 1:49 PM Adam Williamson > wrote: >> >> >> > >> > bodhi is not yet enabled for fedora 31. >> > >> > According to the schedule, that's supposed to happen on 2019-08-29: >> >

Re: Error with fedpkg update

On Fri, 2019-08-23 at 14:54 -0300, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 1:49 PM Adam Williamson > wrote: > > > > bodhi is not yet enabled for fedora 31. > > > > > > According to the schedule, that's supposed to happen on 2019-08-29: > > >

Re: Laptop powerdown when early boot incl. bootloader phase stuck (Was: Bug 1742953 - No Screensaver/Powerdown after Inactivity at LUKS Password Prompt)

On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 5:48 AM Jan Pokorný wrote: > One such other situation is having the bootloader (grub2) failed and > hence be stuck in 'press a key to continue' or just staying in the > selection menu without any timeout ticking for whatever reason. There is signature verification of all

[EPEL-devel] Modularity Policy Discussion for EPEL 8.1

As you know, we delayed support of Modularity in EPEL (called Application Streams in RHEL) until 8.1 while we worked out some remaining issues. Some of those issues were technical, but we have a few others that will come down to policy. In particular, EPEL has to deal with something Fedora does

Re: Error with fedpkg update

On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 1:49 PM Adam Williamson wrote: > > > > > bodhi is not yet enabled for fedora 31. > > > > According to the schedule, that's supposed to happen on 2019-08-29: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/31/Schedule > > And just to be clear - that means you don't *need* to

[Bug 1744710] [RFE] EPEL8 branch of perl-HTTP-Headers-Fast

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1744710 Paul Howarth changed: What|Removed |Added CC||p...@city-fan.org --- Comment #2 from

Re: Error with fedpkg update

On Fri, 2019-08-23 at 16:20 +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 4:18 PM Gerald B. Cox wrote: > > I've been trying to submit an update to testing for several days now and it > > keeps failing > > with the following message: > > > > Could not execute update: Could not generate

Re: [HEADS UP] Fedora 32 Python 3.8 rebuilds have started in a side tag

On 23. 08. 19 17:15, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 23. 08. 19 v 17:05 Kaleb Keithley napsal(a): On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 1:23 PM Miro Hrončok > wrote: On 15. 08. 19 0:18, Miro Hrončok wrote: > Hello, in order to deliver Python 3.8, we are running a coordinated

Re: Laptop powerdown when early boot incl. bootloader phase stuck (Was: Bug 1742953 - No Screensaver/Powerdown after Inactivity at LUKS Password Prompt)

On Friday, August 23, 2019 4:46:53 AM MST Jan Pokorný wrote: > On 20/08/19 20:59 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > > There is no good reason for the current behavior, in particular on a > > laptop. And it's fail danger, not fail safe. The very simple work > > around for the computer shutting off in 3

Re: fedora-gpg-keys not updated yet again

On 8/23/19 4:12 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote: > > > On 8/22/19 12:58 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: >> On 8/21/19 9:27 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 8/19/19 6:59 AM, Pavel Raiskup wrote: On Monday, August 19, 2019 10:50:52 AM CEST Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > Can we *please* send

Re: f32/rawhide, nothing provides module(platform:f31)

On 8/23/19 8:07 AM, Kaleb Keithley wrote: > `dnf update` on my f32/rawhide machine is giving me: > > Problem 1: conflicting requests > - nothing provides module(platform:f31) needed by module > bat:latest:3120190714171319:22d7e2a5-0.x86_64 > Problem 2: conflicting requests > - nothing

Re: [HEADS UP] Fedora 32 Python 3.8 rebuilds have started in a side tag

On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 4:07 PM Kaleb Keithley wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 1:23 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: >> >> On 15. 08. 19 0:18, Miro Hrončok wrote: >> > Hello, in order to deliver Python 3.8, we are running a coordinated >> > rebuild in a >> > side tag. >> > >> >> The side tag was

[EPEL-devel] Re: Code Ready Builder

On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 at 11:03, Paul Howarth wrote: > > The EL-8 non-default repo Code Ready Builder is primarily targeted at > developers, but it looks to me like it's going to be a required repo > for a lot of EPEL-8 users, particularly those using interpreted > languages. > > As an example,

Re: [Help needed] Packaging sassc ruby gem for jekyll 4.0.0

Pavel Valena did some work on sassc: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/pvalena/rubygems/package/rubygem-sassc/ Vít Dne 23. 08. 19 v 16:53 Fabio Valentini napsal(a): > Hi everybody, > > With the recent, major new release of Jekyll (4.0.0) and its SASS > converter (2.0.0), it migrated

Re: [HEADS UP] Fedora 32 Python 3.8 rebuilds have started in a side tag

On Fri, Aug 23, 2019, 17:07 Kaleb Keithley wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 1:23 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > >> On 15. 08. 19 0:18, Miro Hrončok wrote: >> > Hello, in order to deliver Python 3.8, we are running a coordinated >> rebuild in a >> > side tag. >> > >> >> The side tag was merged.

Re: [HEADS UP] Fedora 32 Python 3.8 rebuilds have started in a side tag

Dne 23. 08. 19 v 17:05 Kaleb Keithley napsal(a): > > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 1:23 PM Miro Hrončok > wrote: > > On 15. 08. 19 0:18, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > Hello, in order to deliver Python 3.8, we are running a > coordinated rebuild in a > > side

f32/rawhide, nothing provides module(platform:f31)

`dnf update` on my f32/rawhide machine is giving me: Problem 1: conflicting requests - nothing provides module(platform:f31) needed by module bat:latest:3120190714171319:22d7e2a5-0.x86_64 Problem 2: conflicting requests - nothing provides module(platform:f31) needed by module

Re: [HEADS UP] Fedora 32 Python 3.8 rebuilds have started in a side tag

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 1:23 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 15. 08. 19 0:18, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > Hello, in order to deliver Python 3.8, we are running a coordinated > rebuild in a > > side tag. > > > > The side tag was merged. Build in regular rawhide now. Thanks. > /me wonders why my `dnf

[EPEL-devel] Code Ready Builder

The EL-8 non-default repo Code Ready Builder is primarily targeted at developers, but it looks to me like it's going to be a required repo for a lot of EPEL-8 users, particularly those using interpreted languages. As an example, today I built perl-Expect for EPEL-8

[Help needed] Packaging sassc ruby gem for jekyll 4.0.0

Hi everybody, With the recent, major new release of Jekyll (4.0.0) and its SASS converter (2.0.0), it migrated from the deprecated, plain ruby "sass" gem to "sassc", which is a wrapper around the libsass C++ library. I've never had to deal with this scenario for my other ruby packages, and I just

Re: "ERROR: Could not find useradd in chroot" in COPR rawhide builds

Dne 22. 08. 19 v 17:54 Miro Hrončok napsal(a): > On 22. 08. 19 17:37, Marcin Zajaczkowski wrote: >> Hi. Probably I missed some announcement, but my doublecmd builds have >> started to fail a few days ago in rawhide with: >>> Complete! >>> Finish(bootstrap): dnf install >>> ERROR:

[Bug 1744681] [RFE] EPEL8 branch of perl-Net-IP

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1744681 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED --- Comment #1 from

[EPEL-devel] Re: Rules for shadowing RHEL packages with EPEL modules

On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 9:43 AM Petr Pisar wrote: > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 08:26:32AM -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 at 06:52, Petr Pisar wrote: > > > Case: RHEL delivers a non-modular P package. There is no S stream of > > > a M module. Can I add a new M module

Re: Error with fedpkg update

On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 4:18 PM Gerald B. Cox wrote: > > I've been trying to submit an update to testing for several days now and it > keeps failing > with the following message: > > Could not execute update: Could not generate update request: Cannot find > release associated with build:

[EPEL-devel] Re: Rules for shadowing RHEL packages with EPEL modules

On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 6:52 AM Petr Pisar wrote: > If I read the EPEL 8 annoucement correctly, it's still not possible to > build > modules in EPEL. Nevertheless I'd like to know how the rules about "not > replacing RHEL content" will apply to modules. Here are my question: > > Case: RHEL

Error with fedpkg update

I've been trying to submit an update to testing for several days now and it keeps failing with the following message: Could not execute update: Could not generate update request: Cannot find release associated with build: copyq-3.9.1-1.fc31, tags: ['f31'] A copy of the filled in template is saved

Fedora-31-20190823.n.0 compose check report

No missing expected images. Failed openQA tests: 16/152 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm) New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-31-20190822.n.0): ID: 434660 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_update_graphical URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/434660 ID: 434663 Test: x86_64

[Bug 1744512] Request to build perl-Expect for EPEL 8

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1744512 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #1 from

[Bug 1744512] Request to build perl-Expect for EPEL 8

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1744512 Paul Howarth changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[EPEL-devel] Re: Rules for shadowing RHEL packages with EPEL modules

Once upon a time, Stephen John Smoogen said: > Honestly I don't understand the solution (and probably the problem) > enough to answer. My understanding of modules is about the same as a > layman's knowledge of quantum mechanics. I know it exists, I know it > does a lot of things, and I know it is

[EPEL-devel] Re: Rules for shadowing RHEL packages with EPEL modules

On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 at 09:43, Petr Pisar wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 08:26:32AM -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 at 06:52, Petr Pisar wrote: > > > Case: RHEL delivers a non-modular P package. There is no S stream of > > > a M module. Can I add a new M module with

[EPEL-devel] Re: Rules for shadowing RHEL packages with EPEL modules

On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 08:26:32AM -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 at 06:52, Petr Pisar wrote: > > Case: RHEL delivers a non-modular P package. There is no S stream of > > a M module. Can I add a new M module with a new S stream that will contain > > a modular P package?

Fedora 31 compose report: 20190823.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-31-20190822.n.0 NEW: Fedora-31-20190823.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:3 Dropped images: 0 Added packages: 3 Dropped packages:3 Upgraded packages: 75 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 158.44 MiB Size of dropped packages:1.89 MiB

Perl modules in EPEL 8

As promised in and on #fedora-perl FreeNode channel, here are some information about packaging Perl code in for EPEL 8. EPEL 8.0 release was announced

[EPEL-devel] Re: Rules for shadowing RHEL packages with EPEL modules

The following answers are just my opinions and not policy. On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 at 06:52, Petr Pisar wrote: > > If I read the EPEL 8 annoucement correctly, it's still not possible to build > modules in EPEL. Nevertheless I'd like to know how the rules about "not > replacing RHEL content" will

Re: 'showme' RPM dependency visualizer (was: Minimization Objective report)

Yeah, that's a good point. I might rename the repo as well. Thanks for the suggestion! On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 1:15 PM Dusty Mabe wrote: > > > On 8/23/19 6:35 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > > Hi, Adam. > > > > On Wednesday, 21 August 2019 at 15:41, Adam Samalik wrote: > > [...] >

Laptop powerdown when early boot incl. bootloader phase stuck (Was: Bug 1742953 - No Screensaver/Powerdown after Inactivity at LUKS Password Prompt)

On 20/08/19 20:59 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > There is no good reason for the current behavior, in particular on a > laptop. And it's fail danger, not fail safe. The very simple work > around for the computer shutting off in 3 minutes of inactivity and > you don't like that? Power it back on and

Re: i686 hw builders running out of ram in cpio?

On 7/19/19 8:29 AM, John Reiser wrote: Anyone else seeing this?  It seems to only happen on physical i686 machines, not vm's, but that's based on only three builds so far. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=36329825 BUILDSTDERR: create archive failed: cpio: write failed -

Re: Help update Hugo

On 8/22/19 12:46 AM, Robert-André Mauchin wrote: > Hello, > > Feel free to help review these packages needed to update Hugo: > Thanks for the effort here Robert-André. I might be able to help with a few of these since I use Hugo. Will let you know next week. Dusty

Re: 'showme' RPM dependency visualizer (was: Minimization Objective report)

On 8/23/19 6:35 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > Hi, Adam. > > On Wednesday, 21 August 2019 at 15:41, Adam Samalik wrote: > [...] >> == Toolbox == >> >> The 'showme' tool [3] for visualising and inspecting RPM dependencies >> now supports weak dependencies and a package list output.

Re: fedora-gpg-keys not updated yet again

On 8/22/19 12:58 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On 8/21/19 9:27 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote: >> >> >> On 8/19/19 6:59 AM, Pavel Raiskup wrote: >>> On Monday, August 19, 2019 10:50:52 AM CEST Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek >>> wrote: Can we *please* send out the FN+1 and FN+2 keys a month before branching,

Re: Lines disordered in mock's build.log

On 7/1/19 3:54 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote: Hello, I've noticed that last couple of weeks, I see disordered lines in mock's build.log. This happens constantly in local mock, copr and Koji. Example: [...] See the "error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.yUtVju (%check)" part in the middle

[EPEL-devel] Rules for shadowing RHEL packages with EPEL modules

If I read the EPEL 8 annoucement correctly, it's still not possible to build modules in EPEL. Nevertheless I'd like to know how the rules about "not replacing RHEL content" will apply to modules. Here are my question: Case: RHEL delivers an M module with a default S1 stream. There is no S2

'showme' RPM dependency visualizer (was: Minimization Objective report)

Hi, Adam. On Wednesday, 21 August 2019 at 15:41, Adam Samalik wrote: [...] > == Toolbox == > > The 'showme' tool [3] for visualising and inspecting RPM dependencies > now supports weak dependencies and a package list output. I didn't have a chance to tell you this at Flock, but could you rename

[Bug 1744676] [RFE] EPEL8 branch of perl-BSD-Resource

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1744676 --- Comment #5 from Petr Pisar --- (In reply to Jan Pazdziora from comment #4) > If I get EPEL 8 branch created today and just build the module, Here you mean a Perl module as non-modular RPM package. > will it build (correctly) against the

[Bug 1735227] fusioninventory-agent: FTBFS in Fedora rawhide/f31: File not found: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/fusioninventory-agent-2.5.1-3.fc31.arm/etc/fusioninventory/proxy-server-plugin.cfg

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1735227 --- Comment #8 from Petr Pisar --- (In reply to Petr Pisar from comment #7) > You also need to build it for Fedora 32. You don't. This an old build before branching F31. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for

[Bug 1735227] fusioninventory-agent: FTBFS in Fedora rawhide/f31: File not found: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/fusioninventory-agent-2.5.1-3.fc31.arm/etc/fusioninventory/proxy-server-plugin.cfg

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1735227 --- Comment #7 from Petr Pisar --- You also need to build it for Fedora 32. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ perl-devel mailing list --

[Bug 1744676] [RFE] EPEL8 branch of perl-BSD-Resource

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1744676 --- Comment #4 from Jan Pazdziora --- I'm not sure I understand the situation correctly. If I get EPEL 8 branch created today and just build the module, will it build (correctly) against the default module (5.26) and at least users of the

[Bug 1735227] fusioninventory-agent: FTBFS in Fedora rawhide/f31: File not found: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/fusioninventory-agent-2.5.1-3.fc31.arm/etc/fusioninventory/proxy-server-plugin.cfg

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1735227 maria...@tuxette.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|---

[Bug 1744686] [RFE] EPEL8 branch of perl-Role-Tiny

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1744686 Paul Howarth changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|---

[Bug 1744676] [RFE] EPEL8 branch of perl-BSD-Resource

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1744676 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(ppi...@redhat.com | |)

Re: fedora-gpg-keys not updated yet again

On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 10:39 AM Vít Ondruch wrote: > > Dne 22. 08. 19 v 18:57 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a): > > On 8/21/19 3:24 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > > That is not completely true. The only possible way is to update the > `fedora-gpg-keys` first without anything else and that was the reason > for

Re: fedora-gpg-keys not updated yet again

Dne 22. 08. 19 v 18:57 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a): > On 8/21/19 3:24 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: > >> That is not completely true. The only possible way is to update the >> `fedora-gpg-keys` first without anything else and that was the reason >> for [1]. But since [1] did not landed in Fedora prior the

[Bug 1744676] [RFE] EPEL8 branch of perl-BSD-Resource

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1744676 Jan Pazdziora changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(ppi...@redhat.com

[Bug 1744676] [RFE] EPEL8 branch of perl-BSD-Resource

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1744676 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ppi...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from