Hi Neal,
On 8/26/2020 7:43 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 10:08 PM Erich Eickmeyer
wrote:
HI all,
Since the release of Koji 1.22, there has been a bug [1] blocking any
Fedora Jam 33 or Rawhide iso images from being spun. As you can imagine,
this is making me quite nervous. As
https://fedorapeople.org/groups/389ds/ci/nightly/2020/08/27/report-389-ds-base-1.4.4.4-20200826gitcbcdf05.fc32.x86_64.html
___
389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 10:08 PM Erich Eickmeyer
wrote:
>
> HI all,
>
> Since the release of Koji 1.22, there has been a bug [1] blocking any
> Fedora Jam 33 or Rawhide iso images from being spun. As you can imagine,
> this is making me quite nervous. As it turns out, I'm waiting for Koji
> 1.22
https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/pull-request/51250
—
Sincerely,
William Brown
Senior Software Engineer, 389 Directory Server
SUSE Labs
___
389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
HI all,
Since the release of Koji 1.22, there has been a bug [1] blocking any
Fedora Jam 33 or Rawhide iso images from being spun. As you can imagine,
this is making me quite nervous. As it turns out, I'm waiting for Koji
1.22 to be released so that images can start building again. If this
Hey there,
I'm seeing some odd behaviour in an import test. I'm seeing that a large number
of entries won't import unless the directory is restarted before the import
task is performed.
The error appears to be:
[25/Aug/2020:14:14:58.973490600 +1000] - WARN - import_foreman - import
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872870
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-EPEL-2020-4fec85b1f3 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-4fec85b1f3
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC
meeting Thursday at 2020-08-27 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on
irc.freenode.net.
Local time information (via. uitime):
= Day: Thursday ==
2020-08-27 09:00 PDT US/Pacific
2020-08-27
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872870
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--- Comment #1 from
On Wed, 2020-08-26 at 18:46 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 6:25 PM Michel Alexandre Salim
> wrote:
> >
> > So:
> > F32 has rpmdevtools 8.10, which was first released... over three
> > years
> > ago
> >
> > * Sat Jan 14 2017 Ville Skyttä - 8.10-1
> >
> > The spec in pagure
On Wed, 2020-08-26 at 18:46 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 6:25 PM Michel Alexandre Salim
> wrote:
> >
> > So:
> > F32 has rpmdevtools 8.10, which was first released... over three
> > years
> > ago
> >
> > * Sat Jan 14 2017 Ville Skyttä - 8.10-1
> >
> > The spec in pagure
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 6:25 PM Michel Alexandre Salim
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2020-08-26 at 15:16 -0700, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
> > On Wed, 2020-08-26 at 20:23 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't really know who maintains `rpmdev-newspec python-foo` but
> > > the
> > > output
> > >
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 6:25 PM Michel Alexandre Salim
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2020-08-26 at 15:16 -0700, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
> > On Wed, 2020-08-26 at 20:23 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't really know who maintains `rpmdev-newspec python-foo` but
> > > the
> > > output
> > >
On Wed, 2020-08-26 at 15:16 -0700, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
> On Wed, 2020-08-26 at 20:23 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >
> > I don't really know who maintains `rpmdev-newspec python-foo` but
> > the
> > output
> > (when I run this on Fedora 32) is really severely outdated beyond
> > being
On Wed, 2020-08-26 at 15:16 -0700, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
> On Wed, 2020-08-26 at 20:23 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >
> > I don't really know who maintains `rpmdev-newspec python-foo` but
> > the
> > output
> > (when I run this on Fedora 32) is really severely outdated beyond
> > being
On Wed, 2020-08-26 at 20:23 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 26. 08. 20 19:59, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
> > Per https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/782, "Forbid
> > %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files" Python packages should not
> > blindly glob contents of the sitelib/sitearch
On Wed, 2020-08-26 at 20:23 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 26. 08. 20 19:59, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
> > Per https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/782, "Forbid
> > %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files" Python packages should not
> > blindly glob contents of the sitelib/sitearch
On Wed, 2020-08-26 at 20:09 +, Michal Fabik wrote:
> Hey guys,
> I wish to apologize for the mess. It's only my second or third
> release and the first one that involved a soname bump, which, as I've
> learned, was the first-ever soname bump for libreport. Reportedly, it
> hadn't really been
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872870
Scott Talbert changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Doc Type|---
Hey guys,
I wish to apologize for the mess. It's only my second or third release and the
first one that involved a soname bump, which, as I've learned, was the
first-ever soname bump for libreport. Reportedly, it hadn't really been
necessary ever before (even though there had been ABI changes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872870
Bug ID: 1872870
Summary: perl-Data-Validate-IP build for EPEL7
Product: Fedora EPEL
Version: epel7
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Data-Validate-IP
Assignee: s...@techie.net
Hi all,
Fedora 33 went into Beta freeze yesterday so we need to do a bit of
planning how we handle GNOME megaupdates during that time. This is how
my plan looks like:
GNOME 3.37.91 was released during this weekend. I was keeping an eye on
the modules and built everything as they were
On 26. 08. 20 19:59, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
Per https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/782, "Forbid
%{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files" Python packages should not
blindly glob contents of the sitelib/sitearch directories.
This makes sense, in fact, I just got bit by this
On 26. 08. 20 19:59, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
Per https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/782, "Forbid
%{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files" Python packages should not
blindly glob contents of the sitelib/sitearch directories.
This makes sense, in fact, I just got bit by this
Per https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/782, "Forbid
%{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files" Python packages should not
blindly glob contents of the sitelib/sitearch directories.
This makes sense, in fact, I just got bit by this packaging python-
sphinx-hoverxref
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 07:18:49PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
>
> Hrm. It looks like at least some of those issues were transient, yes.
> However, two issues are still left:
>
> - libdkimpp-2.0.0-6.fc33 is tagged with f33 and f34 but 2.0.0-3.fc32
> is in the f33 repos
f34 should have been
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 7:11 PM kevin wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 11:45:48AM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 9:33 PM kevin wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 08:14:38PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > > > Do you think it would be a good idea to file
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 11:45:48AM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 9:33 PM kevin wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 08:14:38PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > > Do you think it would be a good idea to file bugs for those packages
> > > where a build for f33 was
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872450
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2020-23773e0436 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 05:45:24PM +0200, Petr Šplíchal wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > # Packages not included in mass rebuild?
> >
> > - tmt is newer in 32 than in 33:
> > 0:0.20-1.fc32 > 0:0.19-1.fc33
>
> Recently I was unable to build a fresh tmt package for rawhide
> because of a missing build
On 26. 08. 20 17:45, Petr Šplíchal wrote:
Hi!
# Packages not included in mass rebuild?
- tmt is newer in 32 than in 33:
0:0.20-1.fc32 > 0:0.19-1.fc33
Recently I was unable to build a fresh tmt package for rawhide
because of a missing build dependency:
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 07:55:23AM -0400, Josef Ridky wrote:
> Never done that before, but it sounds like the right way.
>
> I've tried to follow this description [1], but I am not able to proceed it
> due of lack of privileges.
> Do I have to be proven packager to be able to create and use side
Hi!
> # Packages not included in mass rebuild?
>
> - tmt is newer in 32 than in 33:
> 0:0.20-1.fc32 > 0:0.19-1.fc33
Recently I was unable to build a fresh tmt package for rawhide
because of a missing build dependency:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=48098490
The following builds have been pushed to Fedora EPEL 6 updates-testing
dynafed-1.6.0-1.el6
Details about builds:
dynafed-1.6.0-1.el6 (FEDORA-EPEL-2020-eb59a49b75)
Ultra-scalable dynamic system for federating
The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
742 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-3c9292b62d
condor-8.6.11-1.el7
482 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-bc0182548b
bubblewrap-0.3.3-2.el7
191
The following Fedora EPEL 8 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
14 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-c2936180ed
ansible-2.9.12-1.el8
The following builds have been pushed to Fedora EPEL 8 updates-testing
icewm-1.8.0-1.el8
lcg-infosites-3.1.0-19.el8
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1831322
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #3 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1831324
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #5 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872760
Bug ID: 1872760
Summary: Upgrade perl-File-Flat to 1.07
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-File-Flat
Assignee: rc040...@freenet.de
On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 4:25 PM Kamil Paral wrote:
> I'd accept the criterion as proposed (because we need it now), and do the
> reorganization later (possibly when this cycle is over and we have more
> time to bikeshed about best criterion layout). I'm fine with either adding
> to the existing
=
#fedora-meeting-2: FESCO (2020-08-26)
=
Meeting started by dcantrell at 14:01:48 UTC. The full logs are
available at
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2020-08-26/fesco.2020-08-26-14.01.log.html
.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1869795
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Fixed In
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868727
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|perl-BSON-1.12.2-1.fc33 |perl-BSON-1.12.2-1.fc33
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1869185
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Fixed In
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868736
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|perl-MongoDB-2.2.2-1.fc33 |perl-MongoDB-2.2.2-1.fc33
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872748
Emmanuel Seyman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868727
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Fixed In
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868736
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Fixed In
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872748
Bug ID: 1872748
Summary: All information erased after changing component
Product: Bugzilla
Version: 5.0
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Component:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872724
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
CC|
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 12/181 (x86_64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-33-20200825.n.1):
ID: 648652 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/648652
ID: 648688 Test: x86_64
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872724
Bug ID: 1872724
Summary: All information erased after changing component
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
that solves my problem, many thanks for your help,
Regards
Martin
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 07:42:19 -0500
Richard Shaw wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 7:25 AM Josef Ridky wrote:
>
> > It's not missing. F33 of freecad has just lower ID, than F34 build:
> >
> >
> > 1574306 freecad-0.18.4-12.fc33 hobbes1069 2020-08-23
> > 19:18:05 complete
> >
OLD: Fedora-33-20200825.n.1
NEW: Fedora-33-20200826.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:1
Dropped images: 5
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:7
Upgraded packages: 0
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0 B
Size of dropped packages:2.47 MiB
Size
Rex Dieter wrote:
> Martin Gansser wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> when trying to compile sayonara with the recent doxygen-1.8.20 version,
>> the built fails with this error:
>>
>> /usr/bin/cmake -E cmake_progress_start
>> /builddir/build/BUILD/sayonara-player-1.6.0-beta6/x86_64-redhat-linux-
>
Martin Gansser wrote:
> Hi,
>
> when trying to compile sayonara with the recent doxygen-1.8.20 version,
> the built fails with this error:
>
> /usr/bin/cmake -E cmake_progress_start
> /builddir/build/BUILD/sayonara-player-1.6.0-beta6/x86_64-redhat-linux-
gnu/CMakeFiles
> 0 + doxygen -u
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872450
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2020-23773e0436 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-23773e0436
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 5:19 AM Fabio Valentini
wrote:
> # Built for f34 (and f32) but not f33:
>
> (packages were updated but package maintainer seems to have missed the f33
> branch point and has not submitted updates for f33)
>
> - fdupes is newer in 32 than in 33:
> 1:2.1.1-1.fc32 >
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 7:25 AM Josef Ridky wrote:
> It's not missing. F33 of freecad has just lower ID, than F34 build:
>
>
> 1574306 freecad-0.18.4-12.fc33 hobbes1069 2020-08-23
> 19:18:05 complete
> 1597835 freecad-0.18.4-12.fc34 hobbes1069 2020-08-21
>
Dne 25. 08. 20 v 19:09 Aleksandra Fedorova napsal(a):
> Hi, Vit,
>
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 11:21 AM Vít Ondruch wrote:
>> Looking at the ELN SIG page [1], there is no contact information, no ML,
>> no issue tracker. I would like to discuss bootstrapping issues such as
>> [2], but there is no
On 26/08/2020 14:25, Christian Dersch wrote:
> On 26/08/2020 14:15, Richard Shaw wrote:
>
>> I was checking out my builds to make sure I rebuilt something and
>> noticed I appeared to be missing a freecad f33 build I know completed:
>>
>>
It's not missing. F33 of freecad has just lower ID, than F34 build:
1574306 freecad-0.18.4-12.fc33 hobbes1069 2020-08-23 19:18:05
complete
1597835 freecad-0.18.4-12.fc34 hobbes1069 2020-08-21 17:28:30
complete
Josef Ridky
Software Engineer
Core Services
On 26/08/2020 14:15, Richard Shaw wrote:
> I was checking out my builds to make sure I rebuilt something and
> noticed I appeared to be missing a freecad f33 build I know completed:
>
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/builds?userID=hobbes1069=-build_id
>
> But if I just look at freecad builds
I was checking out my builds to make sure I rebuilt something and noticed I
appeared to be missing a freecad f33 build I know completed:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/builds?userID=hobbes1069=-build_id
But if I just look at freecad builds it shows up:
Never done that before, but it sounds like the right way.
I've tried to follow this description [1], but I am not able to proceed it due
of lack of privileges.
Do I have to be proven packager to be able to create and use side tags? Do you
have any ideas, where/how to start with this?
[1]
No missing expected images.
Passed openQA tests: 7/7 (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 26. 08. 20 12:18, Fabio Valentini wrote:
- python3-magic is newer in 32 than in 33:
0:5.38-2.fc32 > 0:0.4.15-4.fc33
python3-magic from Fedora 32 is obsoleted by python3-file-magic
python3-magic from Fedora 33 is a different project, no direct upgrade path.
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone:
Following up on the recent discussion, I've checked repository
contents of f32 and f33 for downgrades and categorized them. I also
dropped packages with F33FTBFS issues from the list since for these
the reason for the downgrade is already documented as a bug.
# Koji tagging / compose issues?
On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 9:33 PM kevin wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 08:14:38PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > Do you think it would be a good idea to file bugs for those packages
> > where a build for f33 was "forgotten"?
> > Since I already have the "downgrade check" scripted [0] it's a
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/7 (x86_64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-32-20200825.0):
ID: 648493 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL:
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 11:15 AM Josef Ridky wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> upstream authors has released new major version of net-snmp that is now
> heading to Rawhide and F33.
> As part of this update, soname will change from .35 to .40.
>
> I would like to ask all maintainers, that rely on some
On Wednesday, 26 August 2020 at 11:15, Josef Ridky wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> upstream authors has released new major version of net-snmp that is
> now heading to Rawhide and F33. As part of this update, soname will
> change from .35 to .40.
>
> I would like to ask all maintainers, that rely on
Hi folks,
upstream authors has released new major version of net-snmp that is now heading
to Rawhide and F33.
As part of this update, soname will change from .35 to .40.
I would like to ask all maintainers, that rely on some part from net-snmp to
rebuild their packages with new version of
On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 at 19:19, Daniel P. Berrangé
wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 05:07:52PM +0200, Clement Verna wrote:
> > On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 at 14:02, Daniel P. Berrangé
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I have a docker recipe that does not much more than:
> > >
> > > FROM fedora:rawhide
> > > RUN
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 10:03:24AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> Suddenly the umask in my Fedora Rawhide system seems to have
> changed from 0002 -> 0077. As far as I know this didn't
> happen because of any action I have taken.
Never mind, this was a bug:
Suddenly the umask in my Fedora Rawhide system seems to have
changed from 0002 -> 0077. As far as I know this didn't
happen because of any action I have taken.
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming and virtualization blog:
Hi,
when trying to compile sayonara with the recent doxygen-1.8.20 version, the
built fails with this error:
/usr/bin/cmake -E cmake_progress_start
/builddir/build/BUILD/sayonara-player-1.6.0-beta6/x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu/CMakeFiles
0
+ doxygen -u docs/doxygen.cfg
error: configuration file
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 3/16 (x86_64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
New soft failures (same test not soft failed in Fedora-IoT-33-20200824.0):
ID: 648247 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_clevis
URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872450
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
On 2020-08-25 1:30 a.m., Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 25. 08. 20 8:44, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote:
On 2020-08-24 2:16 a.m., Miro Hrončok wrote:
Luya,
1) do you plan to update this in Fedora 33 as well?
Yes.
Please let me know when ready and we can build all three packages in a
side tag.
The
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1872450
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Doc Type|---
82 matches
Mail list logo
