The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
632 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-3c9292b62d
condor-8.6.11-1.el7
374 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-c499781e80
python-gnupg-0.4.4-1.el7
372
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1796214
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2020-7081f6fa6d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-7081f6fa6d
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1796214
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2020-7081f6fa6d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-7081f6fa6d
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System ---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1829102
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=1829119
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|perl-RT-Client-REST-0.57-1. |perl-RT-Client-REST-0.57-1.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1829089
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|perl-Module-CoreList-5.2020 |perl-Module-CoreList-5.2020
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1829089
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|perl-Module-CoreList-5.2020 |perl-Module-CoreList-5.2020
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1829119
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|perl-RT-Client-REST-0.57-1. |perl-RT-Client-REST-0.57-1.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1829102
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.2 |perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.2
https://fedorapeople.org/groups/389ds/ci/nightly/2020/05/08/report-389-ds-base-1.4.4.1-20200507git1b7b12e.fc31.x86_64.html
___
389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1829119
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Fixed In
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1829089
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Fixed In
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1829102
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Fixed In
It could be interesting to support snapshots of attribute trees here.
We could do something with a concurrent b+tree within the entry where we have:
attribute tree:
pinned-initial-state:
write-state:
That way we only copy-on-write what we need into the write state, and we have
an easy revert
On 29. 04. 20 16:27, Tomas Orsava wrote:
Hello everyone.
I’m working on a change to rename pythonXY packages to pythonX.Y, e.g. python39
to python3.9.
*Motivation:*
When you install an additional Python interpreter, the command that runs it
contains a dot (e.g. /usr/bin/python3.9) but the
On 29. 04. 20 16:27, Tomas Orsava wrote:
Hello everyone.
I’m working on a change to rename pythonXY packages to pythonX.Y, e.g. python39
to python3.9.
*Motivation:*
When you install an additional Python interpreter, the command that runs it
contains a dot (e.g. /usr/bin/python3.9) but the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1831525
Bill Pemberton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1830631
Bill Pemberton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Resolution|---
On 07. 05. 20 23:35, Felix Schwarz wrote:
What is the Fedora policy regarding Python 2 packages in F33?
If there was a Fesco exception for some package last year can we assume that
we can/should keep the package also in F33? I did not find anything about the
assumed scope of these Fesco
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1833166
Bug ID: 1833166
Summary: perl-Regexp-Grammars-1.055 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Regexp-Grammars
Keywords: FutureFeature,
On 07. 05. 20 20:58, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Seems reasonable to me. I'd not push it to stable releases, but seems
fine to land in rawhide.
Yes, I was only imagining this for rawhide.
Want to work up a PR? or I guess wait for discussion a bit more.
I am waiting for more discussion (particularly
On 07. 05. 20 19:57, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Would it be needed if we moved from say python 3.6 to python 3.8?
If there is enough people going to work on this, python 3.8 can be introduced as
%python3_other.
But I guess python 3.6 is going to be maintained the entire life of
rhel7?
AFAIK
Hi folks,
I'm packaging tpcclib (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1832562)
and as per the review, I wanted to confirm the licence for tpcclib (
https://gitlab.utu.fi/vesoik/tpcclib/-/blob/master/license.md)
Should it be "GPLv2+ and GPLv3+ "or something else?
Thanks,
What is the Fedora policy regarding Python 2 packages in F33?
If there was a Fesco exception for some package last year can we assume that
we can/should keep the package also in F33? I did not find anything about the
assumed scope of these Fesco exceptions.
Specifically this is about bug
Dear all,
You are kindly invited to the meeting:
EPEL Steering Committee on 2020-05-08 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
> In the rare occasion that I need to make downstream-only changes with
> patches, I usually just explode the upstream tarball, run "git init",
> then "git add .", "git commit -m import", apply my changes, and then
> do "git diff --patch > ../00-my-changes.patch" (if it's just one
> commit), or
Missing expected images:
Iot dvd x86_64
Iot dvd aarch64
Failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64)
Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-IoT-33-20200505.0):
ID: 594388 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso release_identification
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/594388
Passed openQA tests:
As we've been discussing performance recently, I did a little checking
on how many times we duplicate a slapi_entry when doing a single
modification. I updated an entry like this (which is actually pretty
small):
dn: uid=mareynol,ou=people,dc=example,dc=com
uid: mareynol
objectClass: top
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1833097
Bug ID: 1833097
Summary: perl-DBD-Pg-3.12.0 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-DBD-Pg
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 03:12:08PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
...snip...
>
> Can we please have modular repos in separate package again?
>
> Basically revert this plus some extra comps/kickstarts changes:
>
>
On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 08:39:19PM +0200, clime wrote:
...snip... please folks... please trim your posts? :)
> These are some great stats!
>
> But I would like to note that exploded repos (or source-git repos)
> have at least two other advantages.
>
> 1) they consume less space than tarballs
On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 03:26:59PM -0400, Robbie Harwood wrote:
> Tomas Tomecek writes:
>
> > Thank you all for raising all the questions and concerns.
> >
> > Before I reply, I'd like to stress that we are still in a prototype
> > phase - not everything is solved (clearly) and at this point, we
On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 03:28:25PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> churchyard suggested we add a "Feedback" section to the Change
> proposal template[1]. I see two benefits to this:
>
> 1. It provides FESCo a useful summary of the community feedback (and
> in particular the reasoning behind rejecting
On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 06:46:48PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
...snip...
>
> The latest tag for a source package name wins for the Koji-generatged
> repository. I don't know what happens if different source packages
> build subpackages of the same name.
koji operates on source packages, so as
On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 02:44:59AM -0400, Elliott Sales de Andrade wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Some time ago, I reset my Fedora notifications to the defaults
> (previously it was just stuff from before I was a packager). As a
> member of various SIGs, this means I get a lot of notifications for
>
On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 12:11:58PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 07. 05. 20 11:46, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> > Question: should I be using %{python3_pkgversion} at all? Some packages
> > still use it, e.g. python3-ply (python36-ply binary package), and
> > some don't.
>
> 0) It is
El jue., 7 may. 2020 a las 18:04, Ian McInerney ()
escribió:
> I'll swap my git-revise (
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1830306) package for
> python-ovirt-engine-sdk4. And if no one else needs a swap I could also take
> sqm-scripts.
>
> I will hopefully do the review in the next
On 07. 05. 20 16:13, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Dne 06. 05. 20 v 15:12 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
This has downsides: When the files are changed in next update, I won't get them
updated, because they are shipped as
%config(noreplace). (If they were not shipped as %config(noreplace), it would
be even
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 6:39 PM Jerry James wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 10:26 AM Jerry James wrote:
> > For the latter error, see
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MJAVADOC-615, which claims that
> > "the JDK issue has been resolved" without specifying how it was
> > resolved.
>
>
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 10:26 AM Jerry James wrote:
> For the latter error, see
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MJAVADOC-615, which claims that
> "the JDK issue has been resolved" without specifying how it was
> resolved.
They're probably talking about
Announcing the creation of a new nightly release validation test event
for Fedora 33 Rawhide 20200507.n.0. 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
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 10:24 AM Jerry James wrote:
> I am having exactly the same problem with antlr3 and stringtemplate4.
> A web search shows that adding 8 to the
> maven-javadoc-plugin configuration is supposed to fix the problem, but
> for antlr3 and stringtemplate4 that just changes the
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 10:16 AM Ben Cotton wrote:
> I adopted the maven-verifier-plugin package a while ago because it's a
> dependency of a dependency of a package I care about and I didn't want
> it to get retired. Now it is time to pay the piper. With the Java 11
> change[1],
I adopted the maven-verifier-plugin package a while ago because it's a
dependency of a dependency of a package I care about and I didn't want
it to get retired. Now it is time to pay the piper. With the Java 11
change[1], maven-verifier-plugin fails to build. I know even less
about Java than I do
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 4:03 PM Juan Orti Alcaine
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm looking for these packages to be reviewed. Anyone interested in some
> reviews in exchange?
>
> python-ovirt-engine-sdk4 - Python SDK for version 4 of the oVirt Engine API
>
On 2020-05-06 11:24, Lumir Balhar wrote:
I've took a look and the new guidelines look good to me.
The only thing I am afraid of is that there is a lot of magic behind new
macros. Previously, macros were a way how to use standard Python
commands like "python3 setup.py build" without memorizing
Hey folks,
Good news, I have an update on the future of Fedora community apps. I wrote
up this post to outline where things are at, and where we hope for them to
go.
https://communityblog.fedoraproject.org/the-future-of-fedora-community-apps/
Hope everyone is staying healthy and happy!
Best,
On 2020-05-06 13:44, Miro Hrončok wrote:
In this change:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Make_ambiguous_python_shebangs_error
We have advised the following:
pathfix.py -pni "%{__python3} %{py3_shbang_opts}"
To fix the shebangs.
-p preserves timestamps
-n prevents creating
Hello,
I'm looking for these packages to be reviewed. Anyone interested in some
reviews in exchange?
python-ovirt-engine-sdk4 - Python SDK for version 4 of the oVirt Engine API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1832979
sqm-scripts - Traffic shaper scripts of the CeroWrt project
Vít Ondruch writes:
> Dne 06. 05. 20 v 20:39 clime napsal(a):
>> On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 13:21, Fabio Valentini wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 10:37 AM Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 05. 05. 20 v 18:37 Fabio Valentini napsal(a):
> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 5:06 PM Tomas Tomecek wrote:
Dne 06. 05. 20 v 15:12 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
> This has downsides: When the files are changed in next update, I won't get
> them updated, because they are shipped as
> %config(noreplace). (If they were not shipped as %config(noreplace), it would
> be even worse, as my changes would be
>
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 10:24 PM Simo Sorce wrote:
> Well, a way to allow force pushes would be to have a git hook that
> branches the tree before the force push. (creating a branch named
> something like audit-force-push-)
> That way you can retain data for legal/auditing reasons, while allowing
Welcome Hunor o/
On Thu, 7 May 2020 at 10:57, Hunor Csomortáni wrote:
> Hello Fedora People,
>
> I'm Hunor Csomortáni and this is my long due self introduction to the
> community.
>
> I'm working at Red Hat and I've been a member of the Packit team since
> February. This means I'm going to
On Thu, 7 May 2020 at 06:54, clime wrote:
>
> Dne čt 7. kvě 2020 12:19 uživatel Vít Ondruch napsal:
>>
>>
>> Dne 06. 05. 20 v 20:39 clime napsal(a):
>> > On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 13:21, Fabio Valentini wrote:
>> >> On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 10:37 AM Vít Ondruch wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Dne 05. 05. 20 v
Hi everyone!
Just in case you didn't catch the CPE Weekly mail last week and you have
interest in stopping by, I will be hosting a CPE PO Office Hours slot from
1400-1500 UTC on #fedora-meeting-1.
There is no agenda for this slot, it is open to finding out more about what
the CPE team are
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
Dne čt 7. kvě 2020 12:19 uživatel Vít Ondruch napsal:
>
> Dne 06. 05. 20 v 20:39 clime napsal(a):
> > On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 13:21, Fabio Valentini
> wrote:
> >> On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 10:37 AM Vít Ondruch
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Dne 05. 05. 20 v 18:37 Fabio Valentini napsal(a):
> On Mon, May
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1832729
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Link ID||Github
|
On 06. 05. 20 11:19, Tomas Tomecek wrote:
On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 6:16 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
In what way does keeping the spec file in our fork help us?
(speechless for like a minute)
I don't really understand this comment. Speechless because our workflow is
tedious?
I just couldn't
Dne 06. 05. 20 v 20:39 clime napsal(a):
> On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 13:21, Fabio Valentini wrote:
>> On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 10:37 AM Vít Ondruch wrote:
>>>
>>> Dne 05. 05. 20 v 18:37 Fabio Valentini napsal(a):
On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 5:06 PM Tomas Tomecek wrote:
Hi Tomas,
On 07. 05. 20 11:46, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
Question: should I be using %{python3_pkgversion} at all? Some packages
still use it, e.g. python3-ply (python36-ply binary package), and
some don't.
0) It is no longer required from technical point of view.
1) There was no
Hello Fedora People,
I'm Hunor Csomortáni and this is my long due self introduction to the community.
I'm working at Red Hat and I've been a member of the Packit team since
February. This means I'm going to spend more time in Fedora-space than
before.
Previously I was doing automation and
Michel Alexandre Salim writes:
> Would anyone like to swap a review?
>
> psi-notify - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1832623
Looks simple enough, I'll try to review it today. If I don't manage to,
anyone else can take the review.
___
On Thursday, 07 May 2020 at 05:07, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> On 5/6/20 4:31 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > On 06. 05. 20 3:39, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> > > This is related to my breaking of various packages by dropping
> > > python34-six. Should we:
> > >
> > > - re-add python34-six
> >
> > For now,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1832726
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
On 07. 05. 20 5:07, Orion Poplawski wrote:
FWIW, leaves appear to be:
# repoquery --disablerepo=* --enablerepo=epel* --whatrequires python34 | while
read pkg; do [ -z "$(repoquery --disablerepo=* --enablerepo=epel*
--whatrequires $pkg --alldeps --recursive)" ] && echo $pkg; done
Not sure
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1832726
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
sting() was not seen.
# Looks like your test exited with 255 after test #4.
# Seeded srand with seed '20200507' from local date.
t/acceptance.t ..
Dubious, test returned 255 (wstat 65280, 0xff00)
All 4 subtests passed
Useless use of a constant ("27") in void context at t/bundle.t lin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1832726
--- Comment #2 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
the-new-hotness/release-monitoring.org's scratch build of
perl-RT-Client-REST-0.60-1.fc30.src.rpm for rawhide completed
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=44184559
--
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1832729
Bug ID: 1832729
Summary: perl-perl5i-2.13.2-14.fc33 FTBFS: Couldn't find
declarator 'func' at
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/Devel/Declare/Context/Sim
ple.pm line
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1832726
--- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
Created attachment 1686081
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1686081=edit
[patch] Update to 0.60 (#1832726)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1832726
Bug ID: 1832726
Summary: perl-RT-Client-REST-0.60 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-RT-Client-REST
Keywords: FutureFeature,
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/1 (x86_64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
ID: 594200 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/594200
--
Mail generated by check-compose:
* Fabio Valentini:
> In the rare occasion that I need to make downstream-only changes with
> patches, I usually just explode the upstream tarball, run "git init",
> then "git add .", "git commit -m import", apply my changes, and then
> do "git diff --patch > ../00-my-changes.patch" (if it's just
* Pierre-Yves Chibon:
> On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 08:39:19PM +0200, clime wrote:
>> But I would like to note that exploded repos (or source-git repos)
>> have at least two other advantages.
>>
>> 1) they consume less space than tarballs for each version because
>> objects in git repo are
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
The following Fedora EPEL 6 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
12 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-aa01e58571
openvpn-2.4.9-1.el6
6 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-c8a92d6324
wordpress-5.1.5-1.el6
The following builds have been
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1831970
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2020-18a1ca9f3f has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1831970
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2020-e14e2b414a has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade
79 matches
Mail list logo
