Fedora 32 compose report: 20200401.n.1 changes

OLD: Fedora-32-20200330.n.1 NEW: Fedora-32-20200401.n.1 = SUMMARY = Added images:0 Dropped images: 6 Added packages: 34 Dropped packages:3 Upgraded packages: 143 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 77.46 MiB Size of dropped packages:82.69 MiB

[389-devel] 389 DS nightly 2020-04-02 - 94% PASS

https://fedorapeople.org/groups/389ds/ci/nightly/2020/04/02/report-389-ds-base-1.4.3.5-20200401gitfc95cf3.fc31.x86_64.html ___ 389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On 4/1/20 1:16 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: Has it been demonstrated that either Pagure or Gitlab CE are "not viable" for the purposes Fedora needs? Hey Adam! I agree with you that Pagure and Gitlab CE are both viable for Fedora's needs in terms of feature matrices and requirements. We have

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

The following Fedora EPEL 8 Security updates need testing: Age URL 25 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-02f03affd4 ansible-2.9.6-1.el8 13 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-79bd0a6b28 chromium-80.0.3987.149-1.el8 13

[Bug 1819677] perl-Sys-Statistics-Linux missing in EPEL-8

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1819677 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #3 from

[Bug 1793917] perl-Test-mysqld-1.0012-4.fc32 FTBFS: DBI connect('dbname=mysql;mysql_socket=/tmp/B_Fm_kLtjo/tmp/mysql.sock;user=root','',...) failed: Access denied for user 'root'@'localhost' at /build

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1793917 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from

[Bug 1799856] perl-Syntax-Highlight-Perl6: FTBFS in Fedora rawhide/f32

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1799856 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #13 from

Fedora-32-20200401.n.1 compose check report

No missing expected images. Failed openQA tests: 5/171 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm) New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-32-20200330.n.1): ID: 564129 Test: x86_64 Everything-boot-iso memory_check URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/564129 ID: 564196 Test: x86_64 universal

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On 4/1/20 11:25 AM, Felix Schwarz wrote: I don't want to presume too much but I just hope you researched why packagedb was decommissioned and why people thought integrating the functionality into pagure was a good idea? pkgdb was decommissioned because modularity needed a lot of changes

[Test-Announce] Fedora 32 Branched 20200401.n.1 nightly compose nominated for testing

Announcing the creation of a new nightly release validation test event for Fedora 32 Branched 20200401.n.1. Please help run some tests for this nightly compose if you have time. For more information on nightly release validation testing, see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Wed, 2020-04-01 at 20:16 -0400, Paul Frields wrote: > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020, 7:53 PM Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 3:39 pm, Chris Murphy > > wrote: > > > Is the FOSS position adequately represented on the Council? > > > > From my reading of [1], the Council decision

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 08:16:29PM -0400, Paul Frields wrote: > > https://meetbot-raw.fedoraproject.org/teams/council/council.2020-04-01-14.00.log.html > > For a solution to be viable it needs to meet requirements. By that standard, GitLab (in any guise) must be excluded as well. - Solomon --

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Wed, Apr 1, 2020, 7:53 PM Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 3:39 pm, Chris Murphy > wrote: > > Is the FOSS position adequately represented on the Council? > > From my reading of [1], the Council decision is that we use FOSS in > our infrastructure except where it is "not

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 at 23:22, Paul Frields wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 7:03 AM Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 6:52 AM Nicolas Mailhot via devel > > wrote: > > > > > > Le mercredi 01 avril 2020 à 11:30 +0100, Leigh Griffin a écrit : > > > > > > > > To distill it down: > >

Re: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers

On Wed, 2020-03-18 at 14:20 +, Sérgio Basto wrote: > On Mon, 2020-03-16 at 23:44 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > sergiomb: maven-injection-plugin, cpptasks, netty, lzma-java, lz4- > > java, > > jetty-alpn-api, randomizedtesting, aalto-xml, mvel, os-maven- > > plugin, > > all this packages

Re: Fedora 32 FTBFS packages to be orphaned in 1 week

On Wed, 2020-04-01 at 15:31 +0100, Ian McInerney wrote: > > x11vnc hubbitus > > It looks like this one just needs a new build kicked off for Rawhide > and the Rawhide spec merged into f32, since it was a GCC10 failure > and it appears the spec has been fixed for rawhide since then.

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 3:39 pm, Chris Murphy wrote: Is the FOSS position adequately represented on the Council? From my reading of [1], the Council decision is that we use FOSS in our infrastructure except where it is "not viable and not available." In the case of dist-git, it seems

[389-devel] Re: Please have a look at rewriters design

> On 1 Apr 2020, at 18:36, thierry bordaz wrote: > > Hello, > > I agree that the term generic is not appropriate. I should change it > (design/PR) if it still exist somewhere. > > https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/pull-request/50981 is said to extend the > usability of existing interfaces and

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 at 21:12, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 11:51:01AM +0200, clime wrote: > > On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 at 10:54, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > > Do you mean https://github.com/fedora-infra/pkgdb2/ ? :) > > No. > > > This is just hilarious, so after going all pagure for

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20200401.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20200330.n.1 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20200401.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:0 Dropped images: 4 Added packages: 17 Dropped packages:24 Upgraded packages: 212 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 86.16 MiB Size of dropped packages

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 6:39 AM Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > > > On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 at 08:16, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: >> >> On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 11:49:41AM +0200, Clement Verna wrote: >> >There is also an historical taste to write in house applications for >> >things that don't

Re: ocaml-zip update

On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 11:26 AM Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > Right, this change was made by Olaf (and I reviewed it), see: > > https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/913 > > We may well need to rebuild everything to handle this. > > Olaf - did you have to rebuild all OCaml

[EPEL-devel] Missing devel packages in EPEL8 : solution

RHEL 8+ has binaries in the release, but is missing some corresponding -devel package. How do I build a package that needs that missing -devel package?[1] For non-module packages, CentOS has a "Devel" repo[2], that contains many of the missing -devel packages. We have tested and found that EPEL8

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 7:03 AM Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 6:52 AM Nicolas Mailhot via devel > wrote: > > > > Le mercredi 01 avril 2020 à 11:30 +0100, Leigh Griffin a écrit : > > > > > > To distill it down: > > > > > > - Gitlab has more features that are needed right now for our

Re: Why is "local" insecure PATH element ?

On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 09:57:25PM +0200, Lukas Czerner wrote: > On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 11:26:04AM -0700, Samuel Sieb wrote: > > On 4/1/20 4:27 AM, Lukas Czerner wrote: > > > I've noticed some failures in automated tests in bodhi, specifically > > > this one: > > > > > > { > > >

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 1:47 AM Panu Matilainen wrote: > > On 3/31/20 8:44 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > I understand there are practical resource considerations and so on > > here, but I still think this merits more high level and serious > > consideration. At the very least, if we have

Re: Why is "local" insecure PATH element ?

On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 04:10:02PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 3:58 PM Lukas Czerner wrote: > > > > On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 11:26:04AM -0700, Samuel Sieb wrote: > > > On 4/1/20 4:27 AM, Lukas Czerner wrote: > > > > I've noticed some failures in automated tests in

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change Proposal: ELN Buildroot and Compose V3

On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 03:55:19PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 3:24 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 11:40:49AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 6:46 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > > > wrote: > > >

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change Proposal: ELN Buildroot and Compose V3

On 01. 04. 20 21:55, Stephen Gallagher wrote: Well, Change Proposals aren't design documents. I would prefer to change the document to read more like "This will need to be implemented in such a way that contents of the ELN repository would be preferred by the software management tools over the

Re: Self Introduction: Kevin Buettner

On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 4:08 PM Sergio Durigan Junior wrote: > > On Wednesday, April 01 2020, Dan Čermák wrote: > > > Hi Kevin, > > > > welcome to the pack! > > > > Kevin Buettner writes: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> My name is Kevin Buettner. > >> > >> I've been involved in GDB development for over 20

Re: Why is "local" insecure PATH element ?

On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 3:58 PM Lukas Czerner wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 11:26:04AM -0700, Samuel Sieb wrote: > > On 4/1/20 4:27 AM, Lukas Czerner wrote: > > > I've noticed some failures in automated tests in bodhi, specifically > > > this one: > > > > > > { > > > "arch" :

Re: Self Introduction: Kevin Buettner

On Wednesday, April 01 2020, Dan Čermák wrote: > Hi Kevin, > > welcome to the pack! > > Kevin Buettner writes: > >> Hi, >> >> My name is Kevin Buettner. >> >> I've been involved in GDB development for over 20 years. I'm an >> (upstream) GDB global maintainer. I would like to become a >>

Re: Why is "local" insecure PATH element ?

On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 11:26:04AM -0700, Samuel Sieb wrote: > On 4/1/20 4:27 AM, Lukas Czerner wrote: > > I've noticed some failures in automated tests in bodhi, specifically > > this one: > > > > { > > "arch" : "x86_64", > > "code" : "SuspiciousPath", > > "context"

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change Proposal: ELN Buildroot and Compose V3

On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 3:24 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 11:40:49AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 6:46 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > > wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 12:30:13PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > > > On

Re: Self Introduction: Kevin Buettner

Hi Kevin, welcome to the pack! Kevin Buettner writes: > Hi, > > My name is Kevin Buettner. > > I've been involved in GDB development for over 20 years. I'm an > (upstream) GDB global maintainer. I would like to become a > co-maintainer of the GDB package for the Fedora project. You should

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change Proposal: ELN Buildroot and Compose V3

On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 11:40:49AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 6:46 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 12:30:13PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > > On 01. 04. 20 10:53, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > > >On Tue, Mar 31, 2020

Self Introduction: Kevin Buettner

Hi, My name is Kevin Buettner. I've been involved in GDB development for over 20 years. I'm an (upstream) GDB global maintainer. I would like to become a co-maintainer of the GDB package for the Fedora project. In order to come up to speed on what Fedora package maintenance is about, I've

Fedora-Rawhide-20200401.n.0 compose check report

No missing expected images. Compose PASSES proposed Rawhide gating check! All required tests passed Failed openQA tests: 11/171 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm) New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20200330.n.1): ID: 563350 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso apps_startstop URL:

Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2020-04-02 16:00 UTC)

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2020-04-02 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net. Local time information (via. uitime): = Day: Thursday == 2020-04-02 09:00 PDT US/Pacific 2020-04-02

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Wed, 2020-04-01 at 09:11 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > Bodhi was written by Luke, back > > in the day, for instance, but Ralph did a great job of taking it over > > (and fixing it up). Sorry, that was obviously a mental slip: I meant Randy, not Ralph. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Wed, 2020-04-01 at 12:09 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 02:15:05PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > Let's be aware that Fedora Infra's job hasn't been "Building a linux distro" > > since it's inception, for a long time its goal was much closer to "building > > and >

Re: Why is "local" insecure PATH element ?

On 4/1/20 4:27 AM, Lukas Czerner wrote: I've noticed some failures in automated tests in bodhi, specifically this one: { "arch" : "x86_64", "code" : "SuspiciousPath", "context" : { "excerpt" : [

Re: Heads-up: RPM 4.16 alpha coming to rawhide

This is _only_ going into Rawhide / F33? It looks like the change to the new OCaml dependency generator will require a complete rebuild of all OCaml packages. https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/commit/a6fe37c39b39acbcbd014dd1e6d5653ff84254a1

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Mark libdb as deprecated

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 10:30:37AM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Libdb_deprecated > > == Summary == > This change should inform maintainers and developers about effort to > remove libdb in future. > > == Owner == > * Name: [[User:fjanus|Filip Januš]] > *

Re: ocaml-zip update

On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 10:49:40AM -0600, Jerry James wrote: > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 10:44 AM Jerry James wrote: > > If I build in mock, I still get the resolvable dependencies. If I add > > --enablerepo=local, I get the unresolvable dependencies, so whatever > > changed has gone into Rawhide

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 11:51:01AM +0200, clime wrote: > On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 at 10:54, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > Do you mean https://github.com/fedora-infra/pkgdb2/ ? :) No. > This is just hilarious, so after going all pagure for dist-git and > making it all work, we will now go back to pkgdb,

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

> > [...] Nor would it have helped with the SLA requirements and > > operational cost. [...] > What reason is there to believe that a gitlab commercial SaaS > might a smaller operational cost? > I meant that in the sense of the time we invest in it to develop > features, fix

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Tue, 2020-03-31 at 14:22 -0700, 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 think;

Re: silly question: finding root.log/build.log of FTBS F32 package (slim)

On 4/1/20 4:53 AM, Richard Shaw wrote: On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 11:12 PM Samuel Sieb > wrote: On 3/31/20 7:16 PM, Richard Shaw wrote: > > It doesn't look like the spec can even be parsed... Something must be > off. There are conditionals in the spec

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

Le mercredi 01 avril 2020 à 12:15 -0400, Matthew Miller a écrit : > > I understand the sentiment but would like to tweak it a bit. Rather > than a > tooling project, Fedora is an _integration_ project. We bring > together all > of this software in the world and create polished solutions for >

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Wed, 2020-04-01 at 15:08 +0100, Leigh Griffin wrote: > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 2:47 PM Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: > > > > [...] Nor would it have helped with the SLA requirements and > > > operational cost. [...] > > > > What reason is there to believe that a gitlab commercial SaaS might a > >

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Wed, 2020-04-01 at 08:33 -0400, Alex Scheel wrote: > - Original Message - > > From: "Panu Matilainen" > > To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > > Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2020 6:22:39 AM > > Subject: Re: CPE Git Forge Decision > > > > > I also appreciate that as a community developing

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Wed, 2020-04-01 at 06:11 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 12:39:21 +0200, > Florian Weimer wrote: > > * Bruno Wolff, III: > > > > > RHEL is a special case, as CENTOS provides a free drop in replacement > > > and switching from CENTOS to Fedora shouldn't be much work.

[Bug 1819677] perl-Sys-Statistics-Linux missing in EPEL-8

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1819677 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #2 from

[Bug 1814532] perl-Encode-3.05 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1814532 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-f85e3cdf82 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are

[Bug 1815682] perl-Module-CoreList-5.20200320 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815682 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-88b16e03ec has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are

[Bug 1816303] perl-DBD-Pg-3.10.5 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816303 --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-6651f17f19 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are

[Bug 1813602] perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20200314 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1813602 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-9825755f88 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are

[Bug 1815667] perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20200320 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815667 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-9825755f88 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are

[Bug 1813720] perl-Pod-Usage-1.70 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1813720 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-d708f52a27 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are

Take over maintenance of Hugo package

I would like to co-maintain or take over the maintenance of our Hugo package. The package presently does not build, and thus it is at risk of being orphaned: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1799514 -- Mike :wq ___ devel mailing list --

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 12:52:00PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot via devel wrote: > At heart, Fedora is a tooling project. It’s a collective of people that > chose to use a specific integration toolchain. Anything involved in > creating Fedora packages cuts deep into the project core. (unlike, say, >

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Wed, 2020-04-01 at 11:49 +0200, Clement Verna wrote: > On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 at 09:47, Panu Matilainen wrote: > > > On 3/31/20 8:44 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > > > I understand there are practical resource considerations and so on > > > here, but I still think this merits more high level

[EPEL-devel] Re: fop for epel 8

On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 6:21 AM Troy Dawson wrote: > Packages in the EPEL-8 repository are volunteered by Fedora packagers > via requests by interested users. > If a package you are looking for is not there, please look at >

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 02:15:05PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > Let's be aware that Fedora Infra's job hasn't been "Building a linux distro" > since it's inception, for a long time its goal was much closer to "building > and > supporting the *community* that builds the linux distro". > If

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change Proposal: ELN Buildroot and Compose V3

On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 10:02 AM David Cantrell wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 10:19:08AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > >So although this update clarifies some part, we have not moved anywhere: > > > > > >~~~ > > > >=== Can we do this in a branch instead of in master? === > > > >This adds no

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change Proposal: ELN Buildroot and Compose V3

On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 6:46 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 12:30:13PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 01. 04. 20 10:53, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > >On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 11:31:38AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > >>I sent out the V2 version

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change Proposal: ELN Buildroot and Compose V3

Dne 01. 04. 20 v 16:01 David Cantrell napsal(a): > On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 10:19:08AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: >> So although this update clarifies some part, we have not moved anywhere: >> >> >> ~~~ >> >> === Can we do this in a branch instead of in master? === >> >> This adds no value to the

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

Am 01.04.20 um 08:42 schrieb Clement Verna: > I think this feeling comes from the mixing of git forge and dist-git use case > that you have pointed out. That seems to be the core of all the talk about "feature gaps" - obviously pagure is not nearly as advanced as gitlab/github when you want "some

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

Dne 01. 04. 20 v 15:34 Neal Gompa napsal(a): > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 9:26 AM Vít Ondruch wrote: >> >> Dne 01. 04. 20 v 14:33 Alex Scheel napsal(a): >>> - Original Message - From: "Panu Matilainen" To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2020 6:22:39

[EPEL-devel] Re: What is the proper way to handle python3 python36 in RHEL7

I see the update in koji/bodhi, thanks for doing that so quickly. -Erinn On 3/31/20 4:06 PM, 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

[Bug 1793917] perl-Test-mysqld-1.0012-4.fc32 FTBFS: DBI connect('dbname=mysql;mysql_socket=/tmp/B_Fm_kLtjo/tmp/mysql.sock;user=root','',...) failed: Access denied for user 'root'@'localhost' at /build

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1793917 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-7159589134 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-7159589134 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list

[Bug 1793917] perl-Test-mysqld-1.0012-4.fc32 FTBFS: DBI connect('dbname=mysql;mysql_socket=/tmp/B_Fm_kLtjo/tmp/mysql.sock;user=root','',...) failed: Access denied for user 'root'@'localhost' at /build

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1793917 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED Fixed In Version|

Re: Fedora 32 FTBFS packages to be orphaned in 1 week

> > > x11vnc hubbitus > It looks like this one just needs a new build kicked off for Rawhide and the Rawhide spec merged into f32, since it was a GCC10 failure and it appears the spec has been fixed for rawhide since then. -Ian ___ devel

[Bug 1793917] perl-Test-mysqld-1.0012-4.fc32 FTBFS: DBI connect('dbname=mysql;mysql_socket=/tmp/B_Fm_kLtjo/tmp/mysql.sock;user=root','',...) failed: Access denied for user 'root'@'localhost' at /build

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1793917 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 2:47 PM Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: > > > [...] Nor would it have helped with the SLA requirements and > > operational cost. [...] > > What reason is there to believe that a gitlab commercial SaaS might a > smaller operational cost? > I meant that in the sense of the time we

Re: Heads-up: RPM 4.16 alpha coming to rawhide

On 01. 04. 20 9:11, Panu Matilainen wrote: Besides meta-packages, another potential use-case for meta (whether Requires or weak dependencies) is those just-in-case dependencies across sub-packages to ensure nobody runs weird combinations even though sonames might permit it. Often they are in

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change Proposal: ELN Buildroot and Compose V3

On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 10:19:08AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: So although this update clarifies some part, we have not moved anywhere: ~~~ === Can we do this in a branch instead of in master? === This adds no value to the current approach where Red Hat maintainers would manually merge their

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

> [...] Nor would it have helped with the SLA requirements and > operational cost. [...] What reason is there to believe that a gitlab commercial SaaS might a smaller operational cost? - FChE ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 9:26 AM Vít Ondruch wrote: > > > Dne 01. 04. 20 v 14:33 Alex Scheel napsal(a): > > - Original Message - > >> From: "Panu Matilainen" > >> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > >> Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2020 6:22:39 AM > >> Subject: Re: CPE Git Forge Decision > >>

Re: Heads-up: RPM 4.16 alpha coming to rawhide

On 4/1/20 4:24 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 3:11 AM Panu Matilainen wrote: On 3/31/20 3:34 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 8:10 AM Panu Matilainen wrote: It's that time of year again... as our RPM change proposals passed with flying colors in

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

Dne 01. 04. 20 v 14:33 Alex Scheel napsal(a): > - Original Message - >> From: "Panu Matilainen" >> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org >> Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2020 6:22:39 AM >> Subject: Re: CPE Git Forge Decision >> >>> I also appreciate that as a community developing our own

Re: Heads-up: RPM 4.16 alpha coming to rawhide

On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 3:11 AM Panu Matilainen wrote: > > On 3/31/20 3:34 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 8:10 AM Panu Matilainen wrote: > >> > >> It's that time of year again... as our RPM change proposals passed with > >> flying colors in yesterdays meeting, I'll hope

[EPEL-devel] Re: fop for epel 8

Packages in the EPEL-8 repository are volunteered by Fedora packagers via requests by interested users. If a package you are looking for is not there, please look at https://bugzilla.redhat.com and see if a request has been opened for your package to be built in EPEL-8. If it hasn't please open a

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

Dne 01. 04. 20 v 12:37 Miro Hrončok napsal(a): > On 01. 04. 20 10:53, Vít Ondruch wrote: >> >> Dne 01. 04. 20 v 10:37 Michal Konecny napsal(a): >>> >>> >>> On 31/03/2020 20:53, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 12:40:55PM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: ...snip... > Because

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 03:04:57PM +0200, Clement Verna wrote: > What does NIH stands for ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_invented_here - Solomon -- Solomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet dot org High Springs, FL ^^ (email/xmpp) ^^ Quidquid latine

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

* Clement Verna [01/04/2020 15:04] : > > What does NIH stands for ? Not invented here (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_invented_here for the gory details) Emmanuel ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

Dne 01. 04. 20 v 14:41 Michal Konecny napsal(a): > > > On 01/04/2020 10:53, Vít Ondruch wrote: >> >> >> Dne 01. 04. 20 v 10:37 Michal Konecny napsal(a): >>> >>> >>> On 31/03/2020 20:53, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 12:40:55PM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: ...snip... >

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 at 14:40, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > > On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 at 08:16, Pierre-Yves Chibon > wrote: > >> On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 11:49:41AM +0200, Clement Verna wrote: >> >There is also an historical taste to write in house applications for >> >things that don't

Fedora-IoT-32-20200401.0 compose check report

No missing expected images. Failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64) New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-IoT-32-20200328.0): ID: 563097 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso base_services_start URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/563097 Passed openQA tests: 7/8 (x86_64) Installed

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 at 14:16, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 11:49:41AM +0200, Clement Verna wrote: > >There is also an historical taste to write in house applications for > >things that don't really seems critical to the Fedora Project, for > example > >do we

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 8:34 AM Alex Scheel wrote: > > - Original Message - > > From: "Panu Matilainen" > > To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > > Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2020 6:22:39 AM > > Subject: Re: CPE Git Forge Decision > > > > > > I also appreciate that as a community developing

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On 01/04/2020 10:53, Vít Ondruch wrote: Dne 01. 04. 20 v 10:37 Michal Konecny napsal(a): On 31/03/2020 20:53, Kevin Fenzi wrote: 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

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 at 08:16, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 11:49:41AM +0200, Clement Verna wrote: > >There is also an historical taste to write in house applications for > >things that don't really seems critical to the Fedora Project, for > example > >do we

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

- Original Message - > From: "Panu Matilainen" > To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2020 6:22:39 AM > Subject: Re: CPE Git Forge Decision > > > I also appreciate that as a community developing our own solutions is > > something important and something that

Fedora-Cloud-31-20200401.0 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: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 11:49:41AM +0200, Clement Verna wrote: >There is also an historical taste to write in house applications for >things that don't really seems critical to the Fedora Project, for example >do we really need a custom calendar application ? or election application >

Re: silly question: finding root.log/build.log of FTBS F32 package (slim)

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 11:12 PM Samuel Sieb wrote: > On 3/31/20 7:16 PM, Richard Shaw wrote: > > > > It doesn't look like the spec can even be parsed... Something must be > > off. There are conditionals in the spec for Fedora 15 so that tells me > > the spec file is in major need of an

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 7:47 AM Jeff Fearn wrote: > > On 1/4/20 21:11, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 12:39:21 +0200, > > Florian Weimer wrote: > >> * Bruno Wolff, III: > >> > >>> RHEL is a special case, as CENTOS provides a free drop in replacement > >>> and switching from

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

On 1/4/20 21:11, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Wed, Apr 01, 2020 at 12:39:21 +0200, >  Florian Weimer wrote: >> * Bruno Wolff, III: >> >>> RHEL is a special case, as CENTOS provides a free drop in replacement >>> and switching from CENTOS to Fedora shouldn't be much work. Is there >>> other

  1   2   >