Hello,
this reply has been received from Juan, but looks like he isn't
been received into list (possible he isn't joined fedora-devel mailinglist).
Should I still wait a week to open FESCo issue or can I do it now?
SAL
- Forwarded message
On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 12:57 PM Adam Jackson wrote:
> And this mostly doesn't matter because we default to a different driver
> for most Intel hardware released since about 2006, with the notable
> exception of your (Alexei's) machine which was new as of about 2010.
Please consider Freeze
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020, at 10:11 PM, Todd Zullinger wrote:
> I wrote:
> > clime wrote:
> >> It seems the f32's git-core got many more deps for some reason, even
> >> such as dbus-broker or systemd.
> [...]
> > I'll try to poke a bit in the next few days as I can make
> > some time. I had not noticed
https://fedorapeople.org/groups/389ds/ci/nightly/2020/04/10/report-389-ds-base-1.4.3.5-20200409git36c593d.fc31.x86_64.html
___
389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
I wrote:
> clime wrote:
>> It seems the f32's git-core got many more deps for some reason, even
>> such as dbus-broker or systemd.
[...]
> I'll try to poke a bit in the next few days as I can make
> some time. I had not noticed the inflated depchain. Thank
> you for pointing it out.
I was
# Fedora Quality Assurance Meeting
# Date: 2020-04-13
# Time: 15:00 UTC
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto)
# Location: #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net
Greetings testers!
We didn't meet last week, so let's have a quick get together, mainly to
check in on current
# F32 Blocker Review meeting
# Date: 2020-04-13
# Time: 16:00 UTC
# Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net
Hi folks! We have 5 proposed Final blockers and 1 proposed Final
freeze exception to review, so let's have a Fedora 32 blocker review
meeting on Monday!
If you have time this
On 09. 04. 20 15:43, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
To remove some of the warnings thrown by `fedpkg` or to simply keep `rpmbuild`
working locally, you will have to install the `rpmautospec-rpm-macros` package
available in your nearest bodhi (it's still hot from the oven at the time of
writing this
On 09. 04. 20 23:57, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 09. 04. 20 20:45, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
I actually cannot comment on this, it may be worth opening a koji ticket to ask
if this is the case or not and if it is if they can think of a way to deal with
this.
I plan to test this in staging and
On 09. 04. 20 20:45, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
I actually cannot comment on this, it may be worth opening a koji ticket to ask
if this is the case or not and if it is if they can think of a way to deal with
this.
I plan to test this in staging and follow up on that, but possibly after Easter.
Hi,
clime wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I very much appreciate the git-core package but there seems to be some
> change under f32 which makes it download many more deps during
> installation.
>
> This is f32:
>
> $ mock -r fedora-32-x86_64 install git-core
> ...
> =
> Package
>
https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/pull-request/51022
--
389 Directory Server Development Team
___
389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 389-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
Missing expected images:
Iot dvd aarch64
Iot dvd x86_64
Failed openQA tests: 2/8 (x86_64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-IoT-33-20200401.0):
ID: 572057 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso release_identification
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/572057
Old failures
Dear all,
You are kindly invited to the meeting:
EPEL Steering Committee on 2020-04-10 from 21:00:00 to 22:00:00 UTC
At freenode@fedora-meeting
The meeting will be about:
This is the weekly EPEL Steering Committee Meeting.
A general agenda is the following:
#meetingname EPEL
#topic
How time flies! The Final Freeze is underway and the Go/No-Go decision
is in one week. Let's squish some bugs.
Action summary
Accepted blockers
-
1. dnf — DNF prompts for GPG key import for
"repo_gpgcheck=1"-repositories despite "rpm --import"-ing the keys
Dear all,
The Go/No-Go meeting for the Fedora 32 Final release will be held on
Thursday, 2020-04-16 at 17:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1. For more
information, see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Go_No_Go_Meeting
View the meeting on Fedocal at:
https://apps.fedoraproject.org/calendar/meeting/9738/
Dear all,
The Go/No-Go meeting for the Fedora 32 Final release will be held on
Thursday, 2020-04-16 at 17:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1. For more
information, see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Go_No_Go_Meeting
View the meeting on Fedocal at:
https://apps.fedoraproject.org/calendar/meeting/9738/
The following Fedora EPEL 8 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
32 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-02f03affd4
ansible-2.9.6-1.el8
3 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-83cd17b92f
nrpe-4.0.2-2.el8
2
Hello,
I very much appreciate the git-core package but there seems to be some
change under f32 which makes it download many more deps during
installation.
This is f32:
$ mock -r fedora-32-x86_64 install git-core
...
=
Package
=
Installing:
Missing expected images:
Soas live x86_64
Failed openQA tests: 5/35 (x86_64)
ID: 571959 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_notifications_live
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/571959
ID: 571960 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_default_upload
URL:
On 4/9/20 11:06 AM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 02:09:01PM -0500, Brandon Nielsen wrote:
On 4/8/20 3:42 AM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
What is the issue with using untrusted DNS servers here? An NTS client
is supposed to verify the certificates. Local MITM attackers shouldn't
On 4/9/20 10:42 AM, Björn Persson wrote:
[snip]
Fedora's defaults should be chosen to keep users reasonably secure every
way we can. If you as a sysadmin trust the DHCP server and every other
device on the local network – including any device that may be connected
in the future – then you
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822758
Bug ID: 1822758
Summary: perl-Moo-2.004000 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Moo
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 05:43:36PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 09. 04. 20 15:43, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> > We have written some documentation on how `rpmautospec` works and how you
> > can opt in at:https://docs.pagure.org/Fedora-Infra.rpmautospec/
>
> Thanks for working on this \o/
>
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1812910
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #4 from
Sorry about your troubles.
I have identified the problematic upstream change, and we will cease
rawhide updates of glibc until that issue is fixed.
Thanks,
Florian
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
Hello all,
Currently on Fedora the -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 compiler flag is enabled by default.
However it seems that the minimum acceptable optimization option for it, is -Og
and if -O0 is specified, a ton of warnings are generated: warning
_FORTIFY_SOURCE requires compiling with optimization
On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 02:09:01PM -0500, Brandon Nielsen wrote:
> On 4/8/20 3:42 AM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> > What is the issue with using untrusted DNS servers here? An NTS client
> > is supposed to verify the certificates. Local MITM attackers shouldn't
> > be able to force the client to
On Fri, 2020-04-03 at 14:58 +0200, Normand wrote:
>
> On 4/3/20 2:52 PM, Normand wrote:
> > Hello Adam,
> >
> > I identified two tests that randomly failed on
> > openqa.stg.fedoraproject.org (1)&(2)
> >
> > We do not have such problem in our IBM intranet openQA.
> >
> > So I am wondering if
On 09. 04. 20 15:43, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
We have written some documentation on how `rpmautospec` works and how you
can opt in at:https://docs.pagure.org/Fedora-Infra.rpmautospec/
Thanks for working on this \o/
I will definitively try this out soon.
Here is one important concern I have
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1821832
Upstream Release Monitoring
changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|perl-Dancer2-0.32 is|perl-Dancer2-0.33 is
Brandon Nielsen wrote:
> If the DNS servers provided by DHCP are trusted, why
> would any plain NTP servers also provided by DHCP not be trusted? I can
> do nefarious things with either.
For DNS the solution is to not trust the DHCP-provided resolvers but
validate DNSsec locally. A valid chain
OLD: Fedora-32-20200408.n.0
NEW: Fedora-32-20200409.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 0
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0 B
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size of upgraded
Hello,
I am searching for Juan Barba O, with Fedora account xhaksx.
If anyone knows, where to contact him, let me know.
If he don't want to maintain python-speaklater package anymore, let me know
too. Thank you. Adding people from package's BZ CC to CC.
I am trying to build TurboGears,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1814114
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2020-11b578e45f 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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1806473
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2020-11b578e45f 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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1793917
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Fixed In
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1799856
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Fixed In
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020, at 10:00 AM, Petr Pisar wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 12:05:07PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > if the module EOL is before a given Fedora version goes EOL, it should
> > never be proposed for installation in that Fedora version. In other words,
> > if
Hi all,
soundtracker is FTBFS and is basically gnome 1 software that
necro-limped along like a zombie for a few years (read: decades). As it
FTBFS and is dead upstream, I believe it's suffering bitrot so it's
probably time to let it die.
As such, I'm orphaning this package, and it will probably
On Thu, 9 Apr 2020 07:15:03 +0200
Kamil Paral wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 12:46 AM Tim Flink wrote:
>
> > I'm working on something that looks for certain results in resultsdb
> > and I'm getting some strange results. I'm hoping someone here can
> > point out what I'm doing wrong.
> >
> >
On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 12:05:07PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> if the module EOL is before a given Fedora version goes EOL, it should
> never be proposed for installation in that Fedora version. In other words,
> if foo:3.15 stream has EOL of 1/4/2020, it should be shown in
> 'dnf
Good Morning Everyone,
You may remember that Nils, Adam and pingou have been investigating what
it would take to get rid of maintaining the changelog and release fields
manually in our spec files (but still have them in the produced RPMs).
We have already discussed the idea in a few threads:
-
Good Morning Everyone,
You may remember that Nils, Adam and pingou have been investigating what
it would take to get rid of maintaining the changelog and release fields
manually in our spec files (but still have them in the produced RPMs).
We have already discussed the idea in a few threads:
-
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 3:23 AM Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> It does seem as if you can now build against the new OCaml version. I
> have just rebuilt ocaml-menhir with Coq enabled.
>
> I didn't touch frama-c or alt-ergo.
I actually tried to launch the builds last night, but they failed due
to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1812910
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2020-aba350ddbf has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-aba350ddbf
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1812910
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822329
Jon W changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1812910
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Version|rawhide
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822598
Bug ID: 1822598
Summary: perl-Perl-Tidy-Sweetened-1.16 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Perl-Tidy-Sweetened
Keywords:
Le mercredi 14 août 2019 à 23:50 -0400, James Antill a écrit :
> Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC
> meeting
Sadly, I find myself forced to request adding
https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/968
to FPC‘s agenda
Regards,
--
Nicolas Mailhot
On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 12:28:15PM -0400, James Cassell wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020, at 12:05 PM, Petr Pisar wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 03:02:02PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 12:13:16PM +0200, Daniel Mach wrote:
> [snip]
> > > > Setting eol_date
On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 21:21, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> There does not appear to be an explicit conflict policy for EPEL8:
>
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/FAQ#Does_EPEL_replace_packages_provided_within_Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux_or_layered_products.3F
>
> I got a report against
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 11:26 PM James Cassell
wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2020, at 9:20 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> > There does not appear to be an explicit conflict policy for EPEL8:
> >
> >
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
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
On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 09:42:22AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 05, 2020 at 09:08:51PM -0600, Jerry James wrote:
> > Hi Richard,
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 5, 2020 at 3:45 AM Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=43032715
> > >
> > > I'm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822329
--- Comment #5 from Paul Howarth ---
Can you try downloading the perl-DateTime-Format-Mail rpm and check that it
actually provide 'perl(DateTime::Format::Mail)'? The one in CentOS does so I'd
be surprised if it didn't.
dnf download
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822329
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||p...@city-fan.org
--- Comment #4 from
On 09. 04. 20 8:22, Zdenek Dohnal wrote:
I filed https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822468 on glibc, maybe they
can direct us to the right way.
It appears that it was indeed the glibc update.
After untagging it, the builds pass on 32bit.
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1821882
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1821881
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
I filed https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822468 on glibc,
maybe they can direct us to the right way.
On 4/9/20 8:12 AM, Zdenek Dohnal wrote:
> I have the same issue with vim's build:
>
> https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/8185/43148185/build.log
>
> I did the diff of
I have the same issue with vim's build:
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/8185/43148185/build.log
I did the diff of installed packages between the last successful build
and the failed one and the packages which changed are:
glibc
openssl-libs
krb5-libs
qt5-srpm-macros
graphite2
64 matches
Mail list logo
