[Bug 1808799] perl-Dist-Zilla-6.014 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808799 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|

Fedora-Cloud-30-20200303.0 compose check report

No missing expected images. Passed openQA tests: 1/1 (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

Re: Ideas and proposal for removing changelog and release fields from spec file

On Tue, 3 Mar 2020 at 00:28, clime wrote: > > Ad. Zbyszek: > > > What about doing --.? > > This means that upgrade path not affected by the number of commits or > > builds in the older release. > > I was thinking how to properly implement this into rpkg-util and then > finally, it clicked for me.

[389-devel] 389 DS nightly 2020-03-03 - 96% PASS

https://fedorapeople.org/groups/389ds/ci/nightly/2020/03/03/report-389-ds-base-1.4.3.3-20200303gitc013a02.fc31.x86_64.html ___ 389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to

Re: Non-responsive maintainer: pocock

On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 1:23 PM Julian Sikorski wrote: > > Hi Daniel, > > I would like to add to Ankur's point: while I understand that many of us are > doing Fedora work voluntarily and the expectations should be set accordingly, > I believe we should be open to accept help when we realise

[389-devel] Re: Thoughts on swapping to rfc2307bis.ldif by default

> On 3 Mar 2020, at 11:18, William Brown wrote: > > > >> On 3 Mar 2020, at 04:32, thierry bordaz wrote: >> >> >> >> On 3/2/20 7:24 AM, William Brown wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> As you may know, I'm currently working on a migration utility to help move >>> from other ldap servers to

[389-devel] Re: Thoughts on swapping to rfc2307bis.ldif by default

> On 3 Mar 2020, at 04:32, thierry bordaz wrote: > > > > On 3/2/20 7:24 AM, William Brown wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> As you may know, I'm currently working on a migration utility to help move >> from other ldap servers to 389-ds. Something that I have noticed in this >> process is that other

Re: Ideas and proposal for removing changelog and release fields from spec file

Ad. Zbyszek: > What about doing --.? > This means that upgrade path not affected by the number of commits or > builds in the older release. I was thinking how to properly implement this into rpkg-util and then finally, it clicked for me. First, I added the prefix parameter for git_release macro

[rpms/perl-Test-mysqld] PR #1: Use the correct name of the required package

dfateyev merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-Test-mysqld` that you are following. Merged pull-request: `` Use the correct name of the required package `` https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Test-mysqld/pull-request/1 ___ perl-devel

Re: Strange covert module builds [sbergmann ?]

On Mon, Mar 2, 2020, at 9:14 AM, Kalev Lember wrote: > For extra libraries that app flatpaks need that are not part of the > runtime, those we rebuild for the /app prefix for each app, using the MBS. I think whenever discussing this, it needs to be stated clearly that the *reason* for using

Non-Responsive Maintainer: bsjones

Hello all, I have had zero success in contacting Brendan Jones per the non-responsive maintainer checks I filed in Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1806161 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1806162 Additionally, I attempted a pull request on

Spend 5 minutes on reviewing a quick-doc!

Hello! There are still a lot of quick-docs that were automatically converted from wiki pages that have not yet been reviewed for correctness. If you have a few minutes, please pick one and check it to see if the information is correct and up to date.

[Bug 1808774] perl-List-AllUtils-0.16 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808774 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- perl-List-AllUtils-0.16-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See

[Bug 1808956] perl-Encode-3.03 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808956 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Encode-3.03-441.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See

[Bug 1808816] perl-String-Print-0.94 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808816 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- perl-String-Print-0.94-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See

[Bug 1805545] perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20200220 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1805545 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20200229-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See

[Bug 1808744] perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20200229 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808744 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20200229-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See

[Bug 1809016] perl-Time-Out EPEL8

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809016 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #3 from

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

The following Fedora EPEL 8 Security updates need testing: Age URL 11 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-3483348dc1 proftpd-1.3.6c-1.el8 3 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-47a203cb95 openfortivpn-1.12.0-1.el8 The following builds have

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

The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing: Age URL 565 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-3c9292b62d condor-8.6.11-1.el7 307 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-c499781e80 python-gnupg-0.4.4-1.el7 305

[Bug 1805545] perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20200220 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1805545 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Module-CoreList-5.20200220-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail

[Bug 1805545] perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20200220 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1805545 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|---

[Bug 1805545] perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20200220 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1805545 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20200229-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See

[Bug 1808774] perl-List-AllUtils-0.16 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808774 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- perl-List-AllUtils-0.16-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See

[Bug 1808956] perl-Encode-3.03 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808956 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Encode-3.03-12.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See

[Bug 1808744] perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20200229 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808744 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20200229-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See

[Bug 1808816] perl-String-Print-0.94 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808816 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- perl-String-Print-0.94-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See

[389-devel] Re: Thoughts on swapping to rfc2307bis.ldif by default

On 3/2/20 7:24 AM, William Brown wrote: Hi all, As you may know, I'm currently working on a migration utility to help move from other ldap servers to 389-ds. Something that I have noticed in this process is that other servers default to rfc2307bis.ldif [0] by default. As part of the

Fedora-IoT-32-20200302.0 compose check report

Missing expected images: Iot dvd x86_64 Iot dvd aarch64 Soft failed openQA tests: 2/8 (x86_64) (Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug) Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-IoT-32-20200228.0): ID: 530758 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso install_default_upload

Fedora-32-20200302.n.0 compose check report

No missing expected images. Failed openQA tests: 23/171 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm) New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-32-20200301.n.0): ID: 530704 Test: x86_64 universal install_blivet_lvmthin@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/530704 Old failures (same test failed in

[EPEL-devel] Re: Ansible & Python 3 in EPEL7

On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 12:19 PM Carl George wrote: > > The EL7 python3 stack does not have all the same libraries available. > Ansible users have already complained about the lack of libselinux > bindings, but thankfully that should be resolved in 7.8. > >

[EPEL-devel] Re: Ansible & Python 3 in EPEL7

The EL7 python3 stack does not have all the same libraries available. Ansible users have already complained about the lack of libselinux bindings, but thankfully that should be resolved in 7.8. https://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=16389 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1719978

Reminder: Summer time changes in the next few weeks

As a reminder to the community, we've reached the point in the year where jurisdictions around the world begin or end summer time. Be sure to check your recurring meetings on Fedocal[1] to make sure you know when you're meeting. Some meetings are set to a fixed time UTC and others are set to a

Re: GNOME 3.35.92 megaupdate

On 3/2/20 14:55, Kalev Lember wrote: Hi all, I am putting together a megaupdate for GNOME 3.35.92. If you are helping with builds, please wait until we have the f32-gnome side tag (requested in https://pagure.io/releng/issue/9292) and then do the F32 builds with 'fedpkg build --target

[Bug 1808774] perl-List-AllUtils-0.16 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808774 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from

[Bug 1808730] perl-DateTime-1.52 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808730 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #3 from

[Bug 1808731] perl-DateTime-Format-Strptime-1.77 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808731 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #1 from

[Bug 1808816] perl-String-Print-0.94 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808816 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #3 from

[Bug 1808956] perl-Encode-3.03 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808956 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #5 from

[Bug 1808744] perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20200229 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808744 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #3 from

[Bug 1809214] perl-Test-Deep-1.130 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809214 --- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-e9c76f92ff has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-e9c76f92ff -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list

[Bug 1809214] perl-Test-Deep-1.130 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809214 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version|

[Bug 1809214] perl-Test-Deep-1.130 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809214 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Doc Type|---

Fedora 32 compose report: 20200302.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-32-20200301.n.0 NEW: Fedora-32-20200302.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:0 Dropped images: 0 Added packages: 0 Dropped packages:1 Upgraded packages: 0 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 0 B Size of dropped packages:359.47 KiB Size

[Bug 1804272] Upgrade perl-Convert-UUlib to 1.7

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1804272 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Upgrade perl-Convert-UUlib |Upgrade perl-Convert-UUlib

Re: GCC help needed for chromium

On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 8:57 am, Tom Callaway wrote: // This horrible const_cast pattern is necessary to work around a constexpr limitation. // See https://stackoverflow.com/q/34199774/ . Note that it should be fixed with C++17. const_cast(const_cast(

[Bug 1809016] perl-Time-Out EPEL8

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809016 --- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-EPEL-2020-f0f26b46b3 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-f0f26b46b3 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are

[Bug 1809016] perl-Time-Out EPEL8

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809016 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED Fixed In Version|

[Bug 1809214] New: perl-Test-Deep-1.130 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809214 Bug ID: 1809214 Summary: perl-Test-Deep-1.130 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-Test-Deep Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged

[EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL Steering Committee Meeting Time

On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 2:12 PM Troy Dawson wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 12:57 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 12:11:19PM -0800, Troy Dawson wrote: > > > It seems that it is a tradition that when we have a new chair for the > > > EPEL steering committee, we also have

Re: Fwd: How to update ? Was:[Red Hat Bugzilla] Your Outstanding Requests

On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 1:55 pm, Petr Pisar wrote: Then tick on "I am providing the requested information for this bug" item under the large comment text area. That was probably the key point. Bugzilla was reminding you that you had an unresolved needinfo in that bug.

[Bug 1809202] New: perl-Date-Manip-6.80 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809202 Bug ID: 1809202 Summary: perl-Date-Manip-6.80 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-Date-Manip Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged

Re: kernel install - very slow weak modules / depmod step

On Mon, Mar 02, 2020 at 02:22:54PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Mon, Mar 02, 2020 at 02:17:35PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > I've been installing kernel-core-5.6.0-0.rc3.git2.2.fc33.x86_64 on a > > very fast AMD server and it's taking many minutes (at least 5 minutes > > and I'm

Re: kernel install - very slow weak modules / depmod step

On Mon, Mar 02, 2020 at 02:17:35PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > I've been installing kernel-core-5.6.0-0.rc3.git2.2.fc33.x86_64 on a > very fast AMD server and it's taking many minutes (at least 5 minutes > and I'm still waiting). The slow step seems t be running some new > thing called

kernel install - very slow weak modules / depmod step

I've been installing kernel-core-5.6.0-0.rc3.git2.2.fc33.x86_64 on a very fast AMD server and it's taking many minutes (at least 5 minutes and I'm still waiting). The slow step seems t be running some new thing called "weak-modules", and many depmod invocations underneath. 2212 pts/0S+

Re: GCC help needed for chromium

On Mon, Mar 02, 2020 at 08:57:46AM -0500, Tom Callaway wrote: > Wait, I know that $TOPIC is scary, come back. > > Chromium has this chunk of code (in > third_party/angle/src/common/PackedEnums.h): > > // This horrible const_cast pattern is necessary to work > around a constexpr

Re: Strange covert module builds [sbergmann ?]

On 3/2/20 14:15, Michal Schorm wrote: That new thing then gets leveraged into the next new thing with multiple layers that would make MC Escher and Rube Goldberg proud. Awesome :D ... TL;DR: I don't need to investigate it further. I was afraid of rouge Fedora Module builds, which actually

Re: GNOME 3.35.92 megaupdate

On 3/2/20 15:04, Richard Shaw wrote: On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 7:57 AM Kalev Lember > wrote: Hi all, I am putting together a megaupdate for GNOME 3.35.92. If you are helping with builds, please wait until we have the f32-gnome side tag

Plan to retire mapserver

Hi all, I intend to retire the mapserver package (https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mapserver). I don't use it any more and it fails to build for F32. If you want to maintain it, please step up! Regards, -- Julien Enselme http://www.jujens.eu/ ___

Re: GNOME 3.35.92 megaupdate

On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 7:57 AM Kalev Lember wrote: > > Hi all, > > I am putting together a megaupdate for GNOME 3.35.92. If you are helping > with builds, please wait until we have the f32-gnome side tag (requested > in https://pagure.io/releng/issue/9292) and then do the F32 builds with >

GCC help needed for chromium

Wait, I know that $TOPIC is scary, come back. Chromium has this chunk of code (in third_party/angle/src/common/PackedEnums.h): // This horrible const_cast pattern is necessary to work around a constexpr limitation. // See https://stackoverflow.com/q/34199774/ . Note

GNOME 3.35.92 megaupdate

Hi all, I am putting together a megaupdate for GNOME 3.35.92. If you are helping with builds, please wait until we have the f32-gnome side tag (requested in https://pagure.io/releng/issue/9292) and then do the F32 builds with 'fedpkg build --target f32-gnome'. I'll collect all the builds

Re: Ideas and proposal for removing changelog and release fields from spec file

On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 8:46 AM clime wrote: > > On Mon, 2 Mar 2020 at 12:05, Nicolas Mailhot via devel > wrote: > > > > If you don’t keep things decentralized you’ll be in a word of pain when > > the scm or buildsys needs to be changed for another implementation (not > > to mention, that’s not a

[Bug 1808731] perl-DateTime-Format-Strptime-1.77 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808731 Paul Howarth changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED Fixed In Version|

Re: Ideas and proposal for removing changelog and release fields from spec file

On Mon, 2 Mar 2020 at 12:05, Nicolas Mailhot via devel wrote: > > Le 2020-03-01 02:31, clime a écrit : > > On Sat, 29 Feb 2020 at 21:50, Nicolas Mailhot via devel > > wrote: > >> > >> Le samedi 29 février 2020 à 20:30 +0100, clime a écrit : > > >> Putting %{dynrel} reconciliation in the rpmbuild

[Bug 1809016] perl-Time-Out EPEL8

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809016 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|

[Bug 1808730] perl-DateTime-1.52 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808730 Paul Howarth changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED Fixed In Version|

Re: Strange covert module builds [sbergmann ?]

> That new thing then gets leveraged into the next new thing with multiple > layers that would make MC Escher and Rube Goldberg proud. Awesome :D ... TL;DR: I don't need to investigate it further. I was afraid of rouge Fedora Module builds, which actually didn't happen. If flatpack needs to

[Bug 1808956] perl-Encode-3.03 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808956 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-c4f2c2c7ab has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-c4f2c2c7ab -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list

[Bug 1808956] perl-Encode-3.03 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808956 --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-92090d32ac has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-92090d32ac -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list

[Bug 1808956] perl-Encode-3.03 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808956 --- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-6f64955abd has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-6f64955abd -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list

Re: Strange covert module builds [sbergmann ?]

On Mon, 2 Mar 2020 at 07:32, Michal Schorm wrote: > Can you please brief me really quick on how does the flatpack work > from maintainer POV? (what does it need for build / creation; what > does it need for runtime ) > > If the flatpack uses the packages from base Fedora; >

[Bug 1808956] perl-Encode-3.03 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808956 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED Fixed In Version|

[Bug 1808956] perl-Encode-3.03 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808956 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers

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

Re: Fwd: How to update ? Was:[Red Hat Bugzilla] Your Outstanding Requests

On Mon, Mar 02, 2020 at 11:55:52AM +0100, J. Scheurich wrote: > Hi, > >> What is wrong ? > > Bugzilla + the build system are not magically linked. You need to close the > > bug manually after building the package in rawhide and F32. > > > > Just from a quick glance I think your rebuilds were

Re: Fwd: How to update ? Was:[Red Hat Bugzilla] Your Outstanding Requests

On Mon, 2020-03-02 at 11:55 +0100, J. Scheurich wrote: > Thanks. But how do i close the bugreport ? > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1800246 > > do not offer a "close bug" Change the status to CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE (and set the “Fixed In Version” field preferrably) if it is fixed

Re: Strange covert module builds [sbergmann ?]

On 02/03/2020 13:30, Michal Schorm wrote: Can you please brief me really quick on how does the flatpack work from maintainer POV? (what does it need for build / creation; what does it need for runtime ) If the flatpack uses the packages from base Fedora; 'rpms/mariadb-connector-c', which I'm

Re: Strange covert module builds [sbergmann ?]

Can you please brief me really quick on how does the flatpack work from maintainer POV? (what does it need for build / creation; what does it need for runtime ) If the flatpack uses the packages from base Fedora; 'rpms/mariadb-connector-c', which I'm the maintainer of probably sent me the email

Fedora-Cloud-31-20200302.0 compose check report

No missing expected images. Passed openQA tests: 1/1 (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

[Bug 1808816] perl-String-Print-0.94 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808816 --- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-06bc9ab50e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-06bc9ab50e -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list

Re: Strange covert module builds [sbergmann ?]

On 02/03/2020 12:48, Michal Schorm wrote: I'm the maintainer of 'mariadb' & 'mariadb-connector-c' packages (rpms) and also 'modules/mariadb'. Recently, I discovered a 'modules/mariadb-connector-c' exists. Created by my colleague years ago, discontinued in 2017. This is correct - as we don't want

[Bug 1808816] perl-String-Print-0.94 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808816 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED Fixed In Version|

Today's FESCo Meeting (2020-03-02) is cancelled

Due to an empty agenda today's FESCo Meeting (2020-03-02) is cancelled. The next meeting will be on next Monday (2020-03-09), I'll chair it (I was supposed to chair this one). I ask FESCo members to respond asynchronously to: F32 incomplete Changes: https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2349 --

[Bug 1808774] perl-List-AllUtils-0.16 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808774 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-25768a1a3a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-25768a1a3a -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list

[Bug 1808774] perl-List-AllUtils-0.16 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808774 --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-20d470827f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-20d470827f -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list

[Bug 1808816] perl-String-Print-0.94 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808816 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug 1808774] perl-List-AllUtils-0.16 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808774 --- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-a7791f2af4 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-a7791f2af4 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list

[Bug 1808774] perl-List-AllUtils-0.16 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808774 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED Fixed In Version|

[Bug 1808774] perl-List-AllUtils-0.16 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1808774 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

Strange covert module builds [sbergmann ?]

Hello, I'm the maintainer of 'mariadb' & 'mariadb-connector-c' packages (rpms) and also 'modules/mariadb'. Recently, I discovered a 'modules/mariadb-connector-c' exists. Created by my colleague years ago, discontinued in 2017. This is correct - as we don't want it to build (anymore, most likely

Re: Ideas and proposal for removing changelog and release fields from spec file

On Mon, 2 Mar 2020 at 11:44, Nils Philippsen wrote: > > On Fri, 2020-02-28 at 15:45 +0100, clime wrote: > > I thought the main reason not to combine update in the changelog file > > with > > code commits is to avoid conflicts when cherry picking as you > > described. > > > > I.e. i do minor

[EPEL-devel] Re: Ansible & Python 3 in EPEL7

On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 5:47 AM Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > Hey folks, > > We recently started to use Ansible more and we are using some ansible > collection which is not compatible with Python 2. > > Are there any plans to switch Ansible to Python 3 in EPEL7 or are > there any recommendations what

Re: Creation of pkgconfig file for libraries that do not ship one

On Mon, Mar 02, 2020 at 12:03:01PM +0100, Guido Aulisi wrote: > Hi, > can we create a pkgconfig file for libraries that do not ship one? > I did not find anything about that in our packaging policy. > > A bug was filed [0] about a missing pkgconfig file for zita-convolver > library and I'm

Re: Creation of pkgconfig file for libraries that do not ship one

On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 6:03 AM Guido Aulisi wrote: > > Hi, > can we create a pkgconfig file for libraries that do not ship one? > I did not find anything about that in our packaging policy. > > A bug was filed [0] about a missing pkgconfig file for zita-convolver > library and I'm thinking og

Re: Ideas and proposal for removing changelog and release fields from spec file

Le 2020-03-01 02:31, clime a écrit : On Sat, 29 Feb 2020 at 21:50, Nicolas Mailhot via devel wrote: Le samedi 29 février 2020 à 20:30 +0100, clime a écrit : Putting %{dynrel} reconciliation in the rpmbuild -bs stage using detached file state means that fedpkg local (or checking out git

Creation of pkgconfig file for libraries that do not ship one

Hi, can we create a pkgconfig file for libraries that do not ship one? I did not find anything about that in our packaging policy. A bug was filed [0] about a missing pkgconfig file for zita-convolver library and I'm thinking og creating the missing pkgconfig file myself. Thank you Guido FAS:

Re: Fwd: How to update ? Was:[Red Hat Bugzilla] Your Outstanding Requests

Hi, >> What is wrong ? > Bugzilla + the build system are not magically linked. You need to close the > bug manually after building the package in rawhide and F32. > > Just from a quick glance I think your rebuilds were successful so you can > close the bug report. :-) Thanks. But how do i close

[EPEL-devel] Ansible & Python 3 in EPEL7

Hey folks, We recently started to use Ansible more and we are using some ansible collection which is not compatible with Python 2. Are there any plans to switch Ansible to Python 3 in EPEL7 or are there any recommendations what to do in such cases as we have? -- -Igor Gnatenko

Re: Ideas and proposal for removing changelog and release fields from spec file

On Fri, 2020-02-28 at 15:45 +0100, clime wrote: > I thought the main reason not to combine update in the changelog file > with > code commits is to avoid conflicts when cherry picking as you > described. > > I.e. i do minor update specifically in f32 and generate changelog > file > in the same

  1   2   >