[EPEL-devel] Re: Fast-moving packages in EPEL

On 11.10.20 23:29, Nick Howitt wrote: > How do you intend to handle the switch to PHP7.3? Not sure yet - I wanted to make sure it even makes sense to keep nextcloud in EPEL7 first. But that's another reason it's probably risky to jump people from NC10 to NC18+ (NC13 was the last release to

Re: our containers with alias vim=vi

On 10/10/20 2:37 PM, clime wrote: > Hello, > > could Fedora and CentOS containers for docker and podman come with > `alias vim=vi` in ~/.bashrc? > > I would very much welcome it as I am used to type vim everywhere but > if vi starts instead I am happy too. I know that the solution is to > create a

[Bug 1870745] EPEL8 Branch Request: perl-DBIx-Class

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1870745 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #2 from

[389-devel] Please review : 4372 bindmech not correctly validated in chaining db

https://github.com/389ds/389-ds-base/pull/4374 — Sincerely, William Brown Senior Software Engineer, 389 Directory Server SUSE Labs, Australia ___ 389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to

Re: Fedora Account System and Bugzilla Mismatch

El dom., 11 oct. 2020 a las 14:23, Kevin Fenzi () escribió: > > On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 12:12:11PM -0300, Sergio Belkin wrote: > > Hi, > > I've changed my mail address of FAS because my old one does not exist > > anymore. > > So I've received a mail telling me that "Fedora Account System and > >

[EPEL-devel] Fedora EPEL 6 updates-testing report

The following Fedora EPEL 6 Security updates need testing: Age URL 9 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-f853880b07 prosody-0.11.7-1.el6 The following builds have been pushed to Fedora EPEL 6 updates-testing kyotocabinet-1.2.78-1.el6 Details about builds:

[EPEL-devel] Fedora EPEL 7 updates-testing report

The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing: Age URL 12 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-98b234afda libuv-1.40.0-1.el7 9 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-bd6a96cd24 python34-3.4.10-7.el7 9

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

The following Fedora EPEL 8 Security updates need testing: Age URL 9 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-0f2bfced63 prosody-0.11.7-1.el8 4 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-b15161810d pdns-4.3.1-1.el8 The following builds have been

Re: bodhi updates stuck in "pending" state

On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 1:04 AM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 11:03:56PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > Hi everybody, > > > > To me, it looks like some recent bodhi updates are stuck in "pending" > > unintentionally. This might be the result of a bodhi bug that let > > release

Re: bodhi updates stuck in "pending" state

On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 11:03:56PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > Hi everybody, > > To me, it looks like some recent bodhi updates are stuck in "pending" > unintentionally. This might be the result of a bodhi bug that let > release branch updates created from side tags sit in "pending" without >

Re: Packager Dashboard out of sync? - https://packager.fedorainfracloud.org

On 11. 10. 20 10:14, Felix Schwarz wrote: Hi, it seems that the packager dashboard does not synchronize my data anymore: https://packager.fedorainfracloud.org/fschwarz For example it still shows bug #1874669 ("Please build python-cssselect2 for EPEL8") as NEW even though that bug is closed

Re: bodhi updates stuck in "pending" state

On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 11:46 PM Richard Shaw wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 4:04 PM Fabio Valentini wrote: >> >> Hi everybody, >> >> To me, it looks like some recent bodhi updates are stuck in "pending" >> unintentionally. This might be the result of a bodhi bug that let >> release branch

Re: bodhi updates stuck in "pending" state

On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 4:04 PM Fabio Valentini wrote: > Hi everybody, > > To me, it looks like some recent bodhi updates are stuck in "pending" > unintentionally. This might be the result of a bodhi bug that let > release branch updates created from side tags sit in "pending" without > ever

[EPEL-devel] Re: Fast-moving packages in EPEL

On 11/10/2020 18:22, Christopher Engelhard wrote: On 11.10.20 15:10, H wrote: I'd like it updated, and kept updated, for EPEL 7. Do you happen to have a system with the current 10.0.something EPEL7 package set up & would you be willing to - if I make an updated package - test the upgrade

bodhi updates stuck in "pending" state

Hi everybody, To me, it looks like some recent bodhi updates are stuck in "pending" unintentionally. This might be the result of a bodhi bug that let release branch updates created from side tags sit in "pending" without ever going into "testing" state without manually prodding them. This affects

Re: RPM review: jack-mixer

OK, thanks a lot for this explanation ... I will fix my packages :) Le 11/10/2020 à 19:29, Erich Eickmeyer a écrit : Hi Yann, On 10/11/2020 10:11 AM, Yann Collette wrote: Hello I see that you have a "Requires: jack-audio-connection-kit". I feel because of this, your package will not work

Re: RPM review: jack-mixer

Hi Yann, On 10/11/2020 10:11 AM, Yann Collette wrote: > Hello > > I see that you have a "Requires: jack-audio-connection-kit". > > I feel because of this, your package will not work with pipewire-jack. > > Am I wrong ? > > Best regards, > > Yann > That is 100% incorrect. In fact, pipewire-jack

[EPEL-devel] Re: Fast-moving packages in EPEL

On 11.10.20 15:10, H wrote: > I'd like it updated, and kept updated, for EPEL 7. Do you happen to have a system with the current 10.0.something EPEL7 package set up & would you be willing to - if I make an updated package - test the upgrade process? I could set up something myself, but I think

Re: Fedora Account System and Bugzilla Mismatch

On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 12:12:11PM -0300, Sergio Belkin wrote: > Hi, > I've changed my mail address of FAS because my old one does not exist anymore. > So I've received a mail telling me that "Fedora Account System and > Bugzilla Mismatch" > Sadly, I forget my bugzilla password, and so if I login

[EPEL-devel] Re: Fast-moving packages in EPEL

On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 07:47:22AM +0200, Christopher Engelhard wrote: > Hi, > the nextcloud server package is currently stuck at ancient version 10 > (current is 20) in EPEL7 (It's not (yet) available EPEL8 repos). > > I'd like to fix that, but > > - upstream releases a new version roughly

Re: RPM review: jack-mixer

Hello I see that you have a "Requires: jack-audio-connection-kit". I feel because of this, your package will not work with pipewire-jack. Am I wrong ? Best regards, Yann Le 10/10/2020 à 20:41, Erich Eickmeyer a écrit : Hi all, I've brought-over another package from Ubuntu, this time it's

[Test-Announce] 2020-10-12 @ 16:00 UTC - Fedora 33 Blocker Review Meeting

# F33 Blocker Review meeting # Date: 2020-10-12 # Time: 16:00 UTC # Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net Hi folks! We have 1 proposed Final blocker and 2 proposed Final freeze exceptions to review (as of now), so we'll have a Fedora 33 blocker review meeting on Monday. If you

[EPEL-devel] Re: Fast-moving packages in EPEL

On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 02:05:20PM +0200, Christopher Engelhard wrote: > I'm sort of hesitant to dive into learning how modularity works, though > ... although, maybe a good opportunity to learn. The spin-up is a little rougher than we'd hoped, but once you've got it set up it shouldn't be too

Re: fawkes

On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 03:01:06PM +0200, Till Hofmann wrote: > > The build succeeded, here is the update: > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-10d819f69d > > Please give karma if you can! Cool. I've proposed it as a Freeze Break request. kevin signature.asc Description:

Re: Preferred way to ask for package update

On 10/11/20 3:55 PM, Andy Mender wrote: On Sun, 11 Oct 2020 at 15:24, Kai A. Hiller > wrote: Hello, what ways are there to let other maintainers know that I need them to update a package? What is the preferred way to do it? Some ways that came to my

Fedora Account System and Bugzilla Mismatch

Hi, I've changed my mail address of FAS because my old one does not exist anymore. So I've received a mail telling me that "Fedora Account System and Bugzilla Mismatch" Sadly, I forget my bugzilla password, and so if I login using FAS, it tells me: "Would you like to create an account for... (new

Fedora-33-20201011.n.0 compose check report

No missing expected images. Failed openQA tests: 3/181 (x86_64) New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-33-20201010.n.0): ID: 691002 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_background URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/691002 ID: 691035 Test: x86_64

Re: Preferred way to ask for package update

On Sun, 11 Oct 2020 at 15:24, Kai A. Hiller wrote: > Hello, > > what ways are there to let other maintainers know that I need them to > update a package? What is the preferred way to do it? Some ways that came > to my mind are: > >- PR with the required changes to their package >-

Preferred way to ask for package update

Hello, what ways are there to let other maintainers know that I need them to update a package? What is the preferred way to do it? Some ways that came to my mind are: * PR with the required changes to their package * Blocking on the release monitoring bugzilla bug * Opening a new bug

Fedora 33 compose report: 20201011.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-33-20201010.n.0 NEW: Fedora-33-20201011.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

[EPEL-devel] Re: Fast-moving packages in EPEL

On October 11, 2020 7:57:45 AM EDT, Nicolas Chauvet wrote: >Le dim. 11 oct. 2020 à 07:47, Christopher Engelhard a >écrit : >> >> Hi, >> the nextcloud server package is currently stuck at ancient version 10 >> (current is 20) in EPEL7 (It's not (yet) available EPEL8 repos). >> >> I'd like to fix

Re: fawkes

On 10/11/20 1:51 PM, Till Hofmann wrote: On 10/11/20 1:56 AM, Rich Mattes wrote: On 10/10/20 5:27 PM, Till Hofmann wrote: On 10/10/20 6:24 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Sat, Oct 10, 2020 at 10:59:12AM +0200, Till Hofmann wrote: On 10/10/20 10:54 AM, Till Hofmann wrote: On 10/9/20

[EPEL-devel] Re: Fast-moving packages in EPEL

The version check can be disabled in NC: diff -Naur -b nextcloud/lib/private/Updater.php nextcloud.njh/lib/private/Updater.php --- nextcloud/lib/private/Updater.php 2019-04-08 15:22:33.0 -0600 +++ nextcloud.tjr/lib/private/Updater.php 2019-05-20 12:48:46.007165729 -0600 @@ -188,14

Fedora-Rawhide-20201011.n.0 compose check report

No missing expected images. Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check! 5 of 43 required tests failed, 8 results missing openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING** below Failed openQA tests: 21/181 (x86_64) Old failures (same test failed in

[EPEL-devel] Re: Fast-moving packages in EPEL

One thing I forgot that makes things even worse: - upstream does not support updates across more than one major version, so anybody who actually has the old v10 installed will have their installation completely broken by ANY update at this point - for the same reason, trying to limit major

[EPEL-devel] Re: Fast-moving packages in EPEL

On 11.10.20 13:57, Nicolas Chauvet wrote: > I'm fine with retiring it. > > But on the alternatives , you can have modules (or application > streams) for both epel and fedora. > It would be a good way forward. so it won't enforce nextcloud version > with a given fedora and or epel and would allow

[EPEL-devel] Retiring blender for epel7

Hi, Same as in nextcloud, I'm proposing to retire blender from epel7. The packaged version if still working is very old and unmaintained. (there are lots of unfixed CVE). Having a full featured and modern blender there looks out of reach. Thanks. -- - Nicolas (kwizart)

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20201011.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20201010.n.0 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20201011.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:0 Dropped images: 0 Added packages: 25 Dropped packages:0 Upgraded packages: 64 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 80.64 MiB Size of dropped packages:0

[EPEL-devel] Re: Fast-moving packages in EPEL

Le dim. 11 oct. 2020 à 07:47, Christopher Engelhard a écrit : > > Hi, > the nextcloud server package is currently stuck at ancient version 10 > (current is 20) in EPEL7 (It's not (yet) available EPEL8 repos). > > I'd like to fix that, but > > - upstream releases a new version roughly every 4

Re: fawkes

On 10/11/20 1:56 AM, Rich Mattes wrote: On 10/10/20 5:27 PM, Till Hofmann wrote: On 10/10/20 6:24 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Sat, Oct 10, 2020 at 10:59:12AM +0200, Till Hofmann wrote: On 10/10/20 10:54 AM, Till Hofmann wrote: On 10/9/20 11:46 PM, Till Hofmann wrote: On 10/9/20 9:19

[Bug 1887082] perl-Email-Sender-1.300035 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887082 Emmanuel Seyman changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Fixed In Version|

Fedora-Cloud-31-20201011.0 compose check report

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

Fedora-Cloud-32-20201011.0 compose check report

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-32-20201010.0): ID: 690720 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL:

Packager Dashboard out of sync? - https://packager.fedorainfracloud.org

Hi, it seems that the packager dashboard does not synchronize my data anymore: https://packager.fedorainfracloud.org/fschwarz For example it still shows bug #1874669 ("Please build python-cssselect2 for EPEL8") as NEW even though that bug is closed since 2020-09-19. Also a lot of new bugs are

[EPEL-devel] Re: Proposing an EPEL packaging SIG

Hello Alexandre! On 11.09.20 20:52, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote: The rationale is that many Fedora packagers do not specifically care about EL, and with their long release cycles the maintenance burden is higher (e.g. upgrading to fix a security vulnerability might not be possible if the newer

Fedora-IoT-33-20201011.0 compose check report

No missing expected images. Soft failed openQA tests: 1/16 (x86_64) (Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug) Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-IoT-33-20201008.0): ID: 690590 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_clevis URL: