Naively cloning f30 branch and performing a local build:
ant is available as module
No match for apache-commons, avalon-framework, batik, fontbox,
javapackages-local, junit, qdox, servlet, xmlgraphics-commons, xmlunit
I guess there's some work to do...
I'd like to package fop for epel-8, but not sure how to do that (haven't
done epel in the new era). There are epel8 and epel8-playground branches
but they look like incomplete modularity support.
Is normal rpm packaging for fop a fool's errand for epel8?
Can one of the admins add me as a
On 3/31/20 7:16 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 9:05 PM Globe Trotter via devel
mailto:devel@lists.fedoraproject.org>>
wrote:
I am the maintainer of slim. As per BZ and here:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=41322154
slim was unable to build
https://fedorapeople.org/groups/389ds/ci/nightly/2020/04/01/report-389-ds-base-1.4.3.4-20200331git7a6bbc1.fc31.x86_64.html
___
389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
The following Fedora EPEL 8 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
24 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-02f03affd4
ansible-2.9.6-1.el8
12 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-79bd0a6b28
chromium-80.0.3987.149-1.el8
12
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811577
Bug 1811577 depends on bug 1811621, which changed state.
Bug 1811621 Summary: [RFE] EPEL8 branch of perl-JSON-Parse
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811621
What|Removed |Added
For some reason the cmake setup is not linking with libXft causing
undefined references during linking. I did not explore this but just forced
it with LDFLAGS. I got a good build with both rawhide and Fedora 31.
I committed my updates to master so you can take it from there (do a fedpkg
pull).
Apparently %systemd_postun requires an argument now but did not before. I'm
dong a test build now and will commit my updates if successful but will not
perform a formal build.
Thanks,
Richard
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To
The root of the problem seems to be this but I can't find the bad macro or
the line number:
slim.spec: E: specfile-error error: This macro requires some arguments
Thanks,
Richard
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815667
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.2 |perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1813602
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.2 |perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1813720
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|perl-Pod-Usage-1.70-1.fc33 |perl-Pod-Usage-1.70-1.fc33
Thanks! Yes, I believe that I took it from someone (can't recall who). Crikes,
rewriting a spec file to make it up to date may not be that easy for me. Let us
see.
Thanks again!
On Tuesday, March 31, 2020, 9:17:01 PM CDT, Richard Shaw
wrote:
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 9:05 PM Globe
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 9:05 PM Globe Trotter via devel <
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am the maintainer of slim. As per BZ and here:
>
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=41322154
>
> slim was unable to build
>
> BuildError: error building package (arch
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1819006
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #4 from
On 3/31/20 7:04 PM, Globe Trotter via devel wrote:
I am the maintainer of slim. As per BZ and here:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=41322154
slim was unable to build
BuildError: error building package (arch armv7hl), mock exited with status 1;
see root.log for more
Thank you for explaining the root cause of the issue. Is the fix
available on the build system for Fedora 32 at this time of writing so I
can run YaraRay build?
Thanks again.
On 2020-03-30 1:49 p.m., Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 29/03/20 11:31 -0700, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote:
Hello team,
Can
Hi,
I am the maintainer of slim. As per BZ and here:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=41322154
slim was unable to build BuildError: error building package (arch armv7hl),
mock exited with status 1; see root.log for more information However, I can not
figure out where to see
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1813602
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.2 |perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815667
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.2 |perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1813720
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|perl-Pod-Usage-1.70-1.fc33 |perl-Pod-Usage-1.70-1.fc33
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1814532
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Fixed In
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815682
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Fixed In
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816303
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Fixed In
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1813720
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Fixed In
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1813602
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Fixed In
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815667
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Fixed In
> On 1 Apr 2020, at 01:04, Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I was away and am late in the discussion, maybe too late.
>
Not too late, it's not released in production yet ;). There are two PR's that
have been discussed here:
https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/pull-request/50988
On 31. 03. 20 23:00, Robert-André Mauchin wrote:
On Sunday, 29 March 2020 13:13:53 CEST you wrote:
golang-github-influxdata-flux eclipseo
golang-github-influxdata-influxdb eclipseo
golang-github-nats-io-streaming eclipseo
golang-github-opencontainers-runc eclipseo
golang-k8s-kubernetes eclipseo
On 01. 04. 20 0:06, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 31. 03. 20 23:40, Erinn Looney-Triggs wrote:
Interestingly... no it did not and the reason is I built against rhel-7-x86_64
in mock not epel-7-x86_64. I believe there is a macro override for
epel-7-x86_64 hence why I was getting a dependency against
On 31. 03. 20 23:40, Erinn Looney-Triggs wrote:
Interestingly... no it did not and the reason is I built against rhel-7-x86_64
in mock not epel-7-x86_64. I believe there is a macro override for epel-7-x86_64
hence why I was getting a dependency against python3-dbus.
Correct.
Ok so this
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 5:23 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2020-03-31 at 17:06 -0400, Paul Frields wrote:
> >
> > > Sure. I tend to think of these as 'upstream projects' that we (Fedora)
> > > consume as a downstream. Project hosting has always been a kinda
> > > optional bolt-on, I
On 3/31/20 3:23 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
%{python3} = python3
%{python3} = /usr/bin/python3
At least in Fedora. In EPEL, most likely as well.
See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1812665
There's a bug in the macros.
But that bug has nothing to do with either %python3 or
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20200329.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20200330.n.1
= SUMMARY =
Added images:5
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 12
Dropped packages:1
Upgraded packages: 244
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 592.23 MiB
Size of dropped packages:
%{python3} = python3
%{python3} = /usr/bin/python3
At least in Fedora. In EPEL, most likely as well.
See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1812665
There's a bug in the macros.
But that bug has nothing to do with either %python3 or %python3_pkgversion.
Requires: %{python3}
On Tue, 2020-03-31 at 17:06 -0400, Paul Frields wrote:
>
> > Sure. I tend to think of these as 'upstream projects' that we (Fedora)
> > consume as a downstream. Project hosting has always been a kinda
> > optional bolt-on, I think; going back to the days of fedorahosted.org I
> > don't think
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 3:25 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2020-03-31 at 21:18 +0200, Clement Verna wrote:
> > On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 at 20:04, Adam Williamson
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 2020-03-31 at 13:55 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 10:44:35AM -0700,
Dne út 31. bře 2020 21:00 uživatel Clement Verna
napsal:
>
>
> On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 at 14:57, Neal Gompa wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 7:10 AM Clement Verna
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > I just want to give a bit of insight from someone who is working day to
>> day on Fedora's infrastructure, since
On Sunday, 29 March 2020 13:13:53 CEST you wrote:
> golang-github-influxdata-flux eclipseo
> golang-github-influxdata-influxdb eclipseo
> golang-github-nats-io-streaming eclipseo
> golang-github-opencontainers-runc eclipseo
> golang-k8s-kubernetes eclipseo
> golang-k8s-legacy-cloud-providers
Clement Verna writes:
> Neal Gompa wrote:
>> Clement Verna wrote:
>>
>> As for Pagure itself, I think this is where we fundamentally
>> disagree. I think it behooves us to own and provide an experience
>> tailored for our community from beginning to end. That's why we have
>> Koji, Bodhi,
On 3/31/20 1:40 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 13:08:05 -0400,
Matthew Miller wrote:
We did communicate as the very top line of our gathered requirements
that
open source is essential to our community and central to our
feedback. I'm
not trying to be soft on that.
On Tue, 2020-03-31 at 21:18 +0200, Clement Verna wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 at 20:04, Adam Williamson
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2020-03-31 at 13:55 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 10:44:35AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > > I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Kevin
On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 at 20:04, Adam Williamson
wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-03-31 at 13:55 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 10:44:35AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Kevin and Michael here to a
> > > significant extent. Running our own
The correct way in EPEL7 is to use
python%{python3_pkgversion}
%{python3} = python3
python%{python3_pkgversion} = python36
python%{python3_other_pkgversion} = python34 ?? (I think, maybe python38)
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 11:47 AM Erinn Looney-Triggs
wrote:
>
> Thanks for the quick reply.
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 11:34:35AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-03-31 at 12:55 +0200, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> > >
> > > What really worries to me is that:
> > > * using GitLab as SaaS is being considered, and
> > > * for self-hosting, using the proprietary "enterprise" editions is
On Tue, 2020-03-31 at 20:59 +0200, Clement Verna wrote:
>
> > The Fedora community itself has indicated that they want to keep on
> > with Pagure, and many Fedorans are Pythonistas, which means that
> > everyone can easily contribute to help make it better for everyone.
> >
>
> Genuine
No missing expected images.
Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check!
3 of 43 required tests failed
openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING**
below
Failed openQA tests: 16/171 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm)
New failures (same test not failed in
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 2:37 AM Leigh Griffin wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 10:38 PM Chris Murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 5:56 AM Leigh Griffin wrote:
>> >
>> > We haven't ironed out the full details but what was incredibly clear to us
>> > was that Gitlab was the
On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 at 14:57, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 7:10 AM Clement Verna
> wrote:
> >
> > I just want to give a bit of insight from someone who is working day to
> day on Fedora's infrastructure, since I believe that might help give a bit
> more empathy towards the Why of
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 5/171 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-32-20200328.n.0):
ID: 562187 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_notifications_live
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/562187
ID: 562246 Test: x86_64
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 12:40:55PM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
...snip...
>
> Because of switching costs, this is likely to prevent us from going back to
> Pagure if it does develop a vibrant independent community. That would be
> unfortunate.
So, currently we are using pagure on
Il giorno dom, 22/03/2020 alle 20.55 +0100, Dario Lesca ha scritto:
> It's this behavior a new feature or it's a bug of Anaconda on Fedora
> 32 ?
It's a Bug.
I have fill this bugzilla:
"Anaconda create LV filesystem encrypted on a VG already encrypted"
Thanks for the quick reply. Disappointing, but it happens.
___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 11:45 AM Adam Williamson
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2020-03-31 at 13:08 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 10:48:55AM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> > > Some failure of process or communication must have occurred
> > > somewhere along the lines, because
On Tue, 2020-03-31 at 12:55 +0200, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 12:42:18PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Leigh Griffin wrote:
> > > Thank you for your patience while the CPE Team worked through an
> > > incredible number of requirements from multiple stakeholder sources. On
> > >
> But it might be my fault.
No, i have the same issue with different packages at this time as well. But now
it's fine.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora
OLD: Fedora-32-20200328.n.0
NEW: Fedora-32-20200330.n.1
= SUMMARY =
Added images:1
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 10
Dropped packages:2
Upgraded packages: 103
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 14.04 MiB
Size of dropped packages:494.73 KiB
> should be https://pagure.io/koji/issue/1974
>
> What's the size of the srpm?
Thanks for sharing the info.
It's 238 KB.
```
$ ls -hl rubygem-puma-4.3.3-1.fc32.src.rpm
-rw-rw-r-- 1 jaruga jaruga 238K Mar 31 19:52 rubygem-puma-4.3.3-1.fc32.src.rpm
```
But it might be my fault.
I was putting
Actually it worked now... Go figure.
Thanks,
Richard
>
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
On Tue, 2020-03-31 at 13:55 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 10:44:35AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Kevin and Michael here to a
> > significant extent. Running our own project on open source code has
> > always been a very big bright
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 13:08:05 -0400,
Matthew Miller wrote:
We did communicate as the very top line of our gathered requirements that
open source is essential to our community and central to our feedback. I'm
not trying to be soft on that. Let's just not do purity-test level
assessments and
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 10:44:35AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Kevin and Michael here to a
> significant extent. Running our own project on open source code has
> always been a very big bright line for Fedora.
You don't have to be sorry! I think it's very
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 10:31:21AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> I specifically mentioned at least the FSF angle on this mailing list,
> over a month ago:
>
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/EJAKU3MO4T5ZEWEBUWIRSGBWTFQU44QK/
>
> so at least
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 07:30:16PM +0200, Iñaki Ucar wrote:
> That's a false equivalence. Yes, many of us maintain projects on
> GitHub and/or GitLab due to a variety of reasons, but if any of them
> die tomorrow, I simply change the "upstream" in my clones and keep
> going. If Fedora starts using
On Tue, 2020-03-31 at 13:08 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 10:48:55AM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> > Some failure of process or communication must have occurred
> > somewhere along the lines, because open source should have been the
> > first and most important
On Tue, 2020-03-31 at 17:47 +0200, jkone...@redhat.com wrote:
> -- snip --
> > As for Pagure itself, I think this is where we fundamentally
> > disagree.
> > I think it behooves us to own and provide an experience tailored for
> > our community from beginning to end. That's why we have Koji,
On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 at 19:15, Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 10:48:55AM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> > Some failure of process or communication must have occurred
> > somewhere along the lines, because open source should have been the
> > first and most important
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 6:43 AM Panu Matilainen wrote:
> Based on rpm-specs-latest.tar.xz from this morning, there are thirtysome
> packages relying on this behavior, which will need fixing to be
> buildable with 4.16.
Is there a list of those thirty something packages
somewhere so that those
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 12:11 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 07:14:46AM -0500, Richard Shaw wrote:
> > However, I'm still not able to log into the test instances.
>
> Any of them? Odd. Can you file an infra ticket and we can look closer...
>
Let me try, I've only attempted
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 10:13:19AM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> strategy into RHEL world, people could only start using file
> triggers and rich dependencies in RHEL and EPEL 9 which I can only
> assume will be released some year in the future. Think about that
> for a while.
For what it's
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 02:46:01PM +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>
> The soname doesn't change and no dependencies on any rawhide
> latest-and-greatest otherwise, so from that side there shouldn't be any
> issues.
>
> The only real incompatibility should be on the spec parse side - the bare
>
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 07:14:46AM -0500, Richard Shaw wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 1:28 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 12:32:33PM -0500, Richard Shaw wrote:
> > > Long story short I lost my home directory where I do all of my packager
> > > activities (separate from my
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 10:48:55AM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> Some failure of process or communication must have occurred
> somewhere along the lines, because open source should have been the
> first and most important requirement. A proprietary software
> solution is incompatible with the
...snip...
Perhaps you all could take this to the rpmfusion mailing lists?
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 12:51 PM Erinn Looney-Triggs
wrote:
>
> I am trying to build a package for RHEL 7 and RHEL 8 that depends on an EPEL
> (for RHEL 7) package python36-dbus the requires section goes like so:
> Requires: %{python3}
> Requires: %{python3}-dbus
>
> This puts in a requirement
I am trying to build a package for RHEL 7 and RHEL 8 that depends on an EPEL
(for RHEL 7) package python36-dbus the requires section goes like so:
Requires: %{python3}
Requires: %{python3}-dbus
This puts in a requirement for python3-dbus for RHEL 7 which doesn't exist, the
package is actually
Panu Matilainen wrote:
> new expression features (in
> spec %if and macros) including but not limited to ternary operator (eg
> %[1==0?"yes":"no"])
For dependencies I'm told that the syntax is
if else . So the syntax for
conditional expressions is different in different contexts within the
On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 17:36:28 +0200
Jun Aruga wrote:
> Koji is failing to build before creating root.log and build.log on
> s390x right now.
> Is it a known issue?
>
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=42916760
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=42916889
>
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1799856
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version||perl-STD-2010-19.fc33
--
You are
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 3:57 PM Kevin Kofler wrote:
> But ideally
You seem to have a lot of thoughts about changes
and improvements to the process.
When should the RPMFusion community expect
you to complete those improvements?
___
devel mailing
Leigh Scott wrote:
> Your kmod idea is flawed, the new kernel builds will always be at
> least 7 days behind fedora kernel. This is due to 2 pushes being required
> to get the new akmods to stable repo, I haven't got enough time to do
> more pushes (sign, mash and sync repo's).
That also really
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 12:42 pm, Kevin Kofler
wrote:
What really worries to me is that:
* using GitLab as SaaS is being considered, and
* for self-hosting, using the proprietary "enterprise" editions is not
excluded.
I think that using anything other than Free Software as the hosting
-- snip --
>
> As for Pagure itself, I think this is where we fundamentally
> disagree.
> I think it behooves us to own and provide an experience tailored for
> our community from beginning to end. That's why we have Koji, Bodhi,
> Dist-Git, and many other tools in that part of the lifecycle. The
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1799856
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(jplesnik@redhat.c |
|om)
On Tue, 2020-03-31 at 12:47 +0200, Felix Schwarz wrote:
> Am 31.03.20 um 12:42 schrieb Kevin Kofler:
> > I think that using anything other than Free Software as the hosting
> > platform
> > for Fedora should be an absolute no go. In other words, self-hosted
> > GitLab
> > CE or Pagure, no other
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 7:55 AM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 06:49:45AM -, Mattia Verga wrote:
> > > On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 10:52 AM Kevin Fenzi
> To be clear, I didn't write this, Troy did. ;)
>
> > >
> > > Please file a bug in bugzilla, requesting both of these to be
Koji is failing to build before creating root.log and build.log on
s390x right now.
Is it a known issue?
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=42916760
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=42916889
Traceback (most recent call last):
File
I sent out the V2 version of the Change on Friday and then promptly
managed to injure myself and be away from email until today. I've read
through the email threads again this morning and I decided that,
rather than try to address them one by one, I'd try again with a V3
that hopefully answers
I sent out the V2 version of the Change on Friday and then promptly
managed to injure myself and be away from email until today. I've read
through the email threads again this morning and I decided that,
rather than try to address them one by one, I'd try again with a V3
that hopefully answers
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 09:30:57AM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> It's more than that. While the community edition of gitlab (assuming
> we don't get stuck with the proprietary version) is technically open
> source, the main fork is run by Gitlab who have a conflict of
> interest in adding
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 10:37 AM Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 12:55:39 +0200,
> Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> >
> > Being self-hosted is a nice goal, but not important enough.
> >There are parts of Fedora infrastructure which are not using Fedora,
> >but other distributions like
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1799856
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Hi,
I was away and am late in the discussion, maybe too late.
In my understanding what you mean by "generic" is that for a new
rewriter you do not need a plugin, but to provide some rewrite functions
and specify them in a rewriters config entry. But there is still the
need to write rewriter
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 06:49:45AM -, Mattia Verga wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 10:52 AM Kevin Fenzi >
> > Please file a bug in bugzilla, requesting both of these to be added to
> > EPEL8.
> > It's possible that we might need to use the older version from Fedora
> > 30
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 10:33:46 -0400,
Matthew Miller wrote:
I understand the attachment we have as a project to Pagure -- someone
in our community made it, after all, and lots of others have made
direct and indirect contributions. I feel that too! But, we all know
that it needs significant
On 30. 03. 20 18:52, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 30. 03. 20 17:47, Jiri Vanek wrote:
On 3/30/20 5:04 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 30. 03. 20 16:04, Ben Cotton wrote:
* Contingency mechanism: Return jdk8 as system jdk and mass rebuild
again. Note, that this may be very hard, because during build of
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 12:55:39 +0200,
Tomasz Torcz wrote:
Being self-hosted is a nice goal, but not important enough.
There are parts of Fedora infrastructure which are not using Fedora,
but other distributions like RHEL. We seem to have not problem in
using proprietary SAAS solutions for
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 10:20:00AM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> The original proposal promised Fedora Council involvement. I wonder
> where that happened, I could not found any Pagure ticket nor a
> Council mailing list thread about this.
We were asked to help collect the user stories and
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1799856
--- Comment #10 from Petr Pisar ---
This is triggered with updating perl-YAML-LibYAML from 1:0.80-1.fc32 to
1:0.81-1.fc32.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1799856
--- Comment #9 from Petr Pisar ---
The tests fail like this:
t/00-compile.t . ok
given is experimental at /usr/share/perl5/STD.pm line 28038.
[...]
Can't call method "nfa" on unblessed reference at
/usr/share/perl5/CursorBase.pm
1 - 100 of 164 matches
Mail list logo
