No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/7 (x86_64), 1/7 (aarch64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-33-20210212.0):
ID: 776530 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1928344
Bug ID: 1928344
Summary: perl-Business-ISBN-Data-20210112.005 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Business-ISBN-Data
Keywords:
https://fedorapeople.org/groups/389ds/ci/nightly/2021/02/13/report-389-ds-base-2.0.3-20210213gita355b30b2.fc33.x86_64.html
___
389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
Missing expected images:
Xfce raw-xz armhfp
Minimal raw-xz armhfp
Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check!
10 of 43 required tests failed
openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING**
below
Failed openQA tests: 38/183 (x86_64), 25/124 (aarch64)
New failures
On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 1:10 AM Kevin Kofler via devel
wrote:
>
> Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> > And why would I want to do Red Hat's / IBM's work for free?
> >
> > Contributing to Fedora provides value to me because I use Fedora myself.
> > In contrast, what would I gain from contributing to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=184
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-0b994a1a92 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 Modular testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1909492
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-bc244f7da3 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 Modular testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1909154
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-bc244f7da3 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 Modular testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1906719
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-bc244f7da3 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 Modular testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1905544
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-bc244f7da3 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 Modular testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1897847
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-bc244f7da3 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 Modular testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1897670
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-bc244f7da3 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 Modular testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887487
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-bc244f7da3 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 Modular testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879289
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-bc244f7da3 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 Modular testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=184
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-7e1b6d0ac2 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 Modular testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1909492
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-6d25713de2 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 Modular testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1909154
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-6d25713de2 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 Modular testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1906719
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-6d25713de2 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 Modular testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1905544
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-6d25713de2 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 Modular testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879289
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-6d25713de2 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 Modular testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1897847
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-6d25713de2 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 Modular testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1897670
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-6d25713de2 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 Modular testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887487
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-6d25713de2 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 Modular testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 02:02:16AM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> Ben Cotton wrote:
> > 2. kde-settings — KDE needs to pick up F34 backgrounds — NEW
> > ACTION: kde-settings maintainers to adopt F34 backgrounds
>
> Oh, it's Groundhog Day, again?
>
> Can we PLEASE find a process for the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925754
Upstream Release Monitoring
changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|perl-Data-Dump-Color-0.242
Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> And why would I want to do Red Hat's / IBM's work for free?
>
> Contributing to Fedora provides value to me because I use Fedora myself.
> In contrast, what would I gain from contributing to ELN?
PS: Especially considering that the stable product Red Hat / IBM
Ben Cotton wrote:
> 2. kde-settings — KDE needs to pick up F34 backgrounds — NEW
> ACTION: kde-settings maintainers to adopt F34 backgrounds
Oh, it's Groundhog Day, again?
Can we PLEASE find a process for the backgrounds which does NOT include
having this beta blocker open at each and every
Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> Is this a Fedora project or a Red Hat project using Fedora resources?
>
> Yes.
"Yes" is not a valid answer to that "or" question.
> Do I need to be employed by Red Hat to be a member of the ELN SIG?
>
> No, anyone with an interest in helping will be welcomed
Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> All Fedora's GPG key - starting with Fedora 27 - are now stored in
> fedoraproject.org DNS record and can be verified
> using DNSSEC.
>
> Why? How it can be used? That is long story and you can read about it in my
> blog entry:
>
>
Fedora 34, of course. I'll get it right next week (maybe)
--
Ben Cotton
He / Him / His
Senior Program Manager, Fedora & CentOS Stream
Red Hat
TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an
Sounds good. Just find me on IRC or by email and let me know what you
would like help on. I can help run/monitor scripts of builds and help
script reporting to BZ for things that fail.
Thanks,
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 03:55:41PM +0100, Ondrej Dubaj wrote:
Thank you for your advice and
Ben Cotton writes:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/rpmautospec
>
> == Summary ==
> The goal of this change is to deploy in production the
> [https://docs.pagure.org/fedora-infra.rpmautospec/ rpmautospec]
> project.
>
> With it, the content of the `Release` and `%changelog` fields in
Well, my friends, branch day has come and gone, which means it's time
to start sending blocker status emails. Without further ado:
Action summary
Accepted blockers
-
1. distribution — (several artifacts) exceeds maximum size — NEW
ACTION: none
2.
On 12/02/2021 21:19, Justin Forbes wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 10:21 AM Ben Cotton wrote:
>>
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Power4kPageSize
>>
>> == Summary ==
>>
>> On ppc64le, the kernel is currently compiled for 64k page size.
>>
>> This change proposes using the more common
On Friday, February 12, 2021 7:05:28 PM CET Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 03:33:14PM +0100, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 11, 2021 2:24:28 PM CET Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> > wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 10:19:25AM +0100, Pavel Raiskup
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 10:21 AM Ben Cotton wrote:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Power4kPageSize
>
> == Summary ==
>
> On ppc64le, the kernel is currently compiled for 64k page size.
>
> This change proposes using the more common 4k page size.
>
> Some HPC workloads may be
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 08:22:45PM +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Comments are welcomed.
You can use "host -t TYPE61" instead of "dig" to get less verbose output.
"host -v -t TYPE61" will show a little more (like the flags) while still
being less noisy than dig.
--
Matthew Miller
Fedora
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 2:42 PM Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 06:08:31PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > On 12. 02. 21 17:20, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > > ** Adjust the packaging so rpmautospec does not live in a specific,
> > > versionized python environment (and thus could be
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 06:08:31PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 12. 02. 21 17:20, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > ** Adjust the packaging so rpmautospec does not live in a specific,
> > versionized python environment (and thus could be use to bootstrap
> > python)
>
> Thank you!
>
> Don't hesitate to
All Fedora's GPG key - starting with Fedora 27 - are now stored in fedoraproject.org DNS record and can be verified
using DNSSEC.
Why? How it can be used? That is long story and you can read about it in my
blog entry:
Hi Fedorans,
With the consent of the maintainer, I updated bullet to 3.08 in Fedora 34
and Rawhide. I also am in the process of rebuilding the dependent packages
in Fedora (they all work fine for me in local rebuilds). gazebo and fawkes
are still going, but the others are done. There is also one
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 12:29:45PM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> We can hash out any additional rules (such as whether retaining
> membership over time has requirements) at the meetings.
Based on experience, I strongly recommend at minimum a requirement for
anyone who has not been active by
https://github.com/389ds/389-ds-base/pull/4617
--
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:
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 03:33:14PM +0100, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> On Thursday, February 11, 2021 2:24:28 PM CET Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 10:19:25AM +0100, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, February 10, 2021 2:49:00 PM CET Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> > > >
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 12:07 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> On 12. 02. 21 16:25, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> >
> > Meeting Decisions
> >
> > Any proposal brought to a meeting will be discussed live at that meeting and
> > then will pass or be rejected by a majority vote of those SIG members
> >
Hi Kevin,
is there specific reason, why scratch builds cannot do it? I met hard to
reproduce issues in builds several times. I would prefer to analyse
scratch builds instead of production builds.
Could for example just single per-user scratch build archive be stored
for some short time? Might be
Hi everybody,
The elementary OS 6 development is finally heading towards the finish
line, and the upcoming granite and wingpanel updates will have an
soname change (granite) and a renamed library (wingpanel-2 ->
wingpanel-3). In both cases, the ABI change is primarily caused by the
removal of
On 12. 02. 21 17:20, Ben Cotton wrote:
** Adjust the packaging so rpmautospec does not live in a specific,
versionized python environment (and thus could be use to bootstrap
python)
Thank you!
Don't hesitate to let me know once there is testable proof of concept for this,
so I can try to
On 12. 02. 21 16:25, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
Meeting Decisions
Any proposal brought to a meeting will be discussed live at that meeting and
then will pass or be rejected by a majority vote of those SIG members present
(requiring a minimum of three SIG members for a quorum). A vote of +1
On 2/12/21 15:55, Fabio Valentini wrote:
And when do you plan to merge those side tags? I need to push some
changes to F34 before the beta freeze myself.
Thanks, Fabio!
I went ahead and finished up the remaining few rebuilds and merged the
side tags, so it should be all in the regular build
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Power4kPageSize
== Summary ==
On ppc64le, the kernel is currently compiled for 64k page size.
This change proposes using the more common 4k page size.
Some HPC workloads may be disadvantaged slightly. Workstation users
are likely to encounter fewer bugs.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/rpmautospec
== Summary ==
The goal of this change is to deploy in production the
[https://docs.pagure.org/fedora-infra.rpmautospec/ rpmautospec]
project.
With it, the content of the `Release` and `%changelog` fields in spec
files can be auto-generated,
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Power4kPageSize
== Summary ==
On ppc64le, the kernel is currently compiled for 64k page size.
This change proposes using the more common 4k page size.
Some HPC workloads may be disadvantaged slightly. Workstation users
are likely to encounter fewer bugs.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/rpmautospec
== Summary ==
The goal of this change is to deploy in production the
[https://docs.pagure.org/fedora-infra.rpmautospec/ rpmautospec]
project.
With it, the content of the `Release` and `%changelog` fields in spec
files can be auto-generated,
Hi,
Jerry James wrote:
> I took them all.
Thanks! Your OCaml packages should now be also reviewed,
althoug Dan has beaten me to #1927441 :)
--
Jan Staněk
Software Engineer, Red Hat
jsta...@redhat.com irc: jstanek
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
ELN Special Interest Group (SIG)
Mission
The goal of ELN (Enterprise Linux Next) is to achieve a continuously
bootstrappable RHEL release. Using the classic approach, RHEL is forked
from Fedora and developed privately for some extended time before it
re-emerges fully formed as a Product.
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 1:34 PM Milan Crha wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2021-02-10 at 17:57 +0100, Milan Crha wrote:
> > I'll update this thread once I've the side tags ready,
> > with compiled evolution-data-server.
>
> Hi,
> the side tags are named f35-gnome and f34-gnome and the
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1921396
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Resolution|---
Missing expected images:
Minimal raw-xz armhfp
Xfce raw-xz armhfp
Failed openQA tests: 28/183 (x86_64), 24/124 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-34-20210211.n.1):
ID: 775518 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_cockpit_updates
URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1926922
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
Depends On|
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021, at 2:27 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Greetings.
>
> We have enabled the koji 'save-failed-tree' plugin in
> koji.fedoraproject.org. This plugin allows you to tell koji to bundle up
> a failed official builds chroot (either partly or fully) and download it
> to investigate it
On Wed, 2021-02-10 at 17:57 +0100, Milan Crha wrote:
> I'll update this thread once I've the side tags ready,
> with compiled evolution-data-server.
Hi,
the side tags are named f35-gnome and f34-gnome and the
evolution-data-server and evolution are already built in them. I have
ongoing
OLD: Fedora-34-20210211.n.1
NEW: Fedora-34-20210212.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 1
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 182
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 8.54 MiB
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1926922
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=184
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-7e1b6d0ac2 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32
Modular. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-7e1b6d0ac2
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=184
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-0b994a1a92 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33
Modular. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-0b994a1a92
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1906719
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-6d25713de2 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32
Modular. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-6d25713de2
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1909492
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-6d25713de2 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32
Modular. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-6d25713de2
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1909154
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-6d25713de2 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32
Modular. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-6d25713de2
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1905544
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-6d25713de2 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32
Modular. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-6d25713de2
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1897847
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-6d25713de2 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32
Modular. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-6d25713de2
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1897670
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-6d25713de2 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32
Modular. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-6d25713de2
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887487
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-6d25713de2 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32
Modular. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-6d25713de2
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879289
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-6d25713de2 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32
Modular. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-6d25713de2
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1909492
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-bc244f7da3 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33
Modular. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-bc244f7da3
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1909154
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-bc244f7da3 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33
Modular. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-bc244f7da3
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1906719
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-bc244f7da3 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33
Modular. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-bc244f7da3
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1905544
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-bc244f7da3 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33
Modular. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-bc244f7da3
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1897847
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-bc244f7da3 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33
Modular. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-bc244f7da3
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887487
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-bc244f7da3 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33
Modular. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-bc244f7da3
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1897670
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-bc244f7da3 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33
Modular. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-bc244f7da3
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879289
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-bc244f7da3 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33
Modular. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-bc244f7da3
--
You are receiving this mail
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/7 (x86_64), 1/7 (aarch64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-32-20210211.0):
ID: 775470 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL:
Hi,
I've prepared new perl-generators. They will generate run-time requires
for perl's scripts stored in the /usr/libexec/ directory.
This behavior can be helpful in creating tests sub-packages that will
have scripts here (like perl-Convert-ASN1, perl-LDAP).
If you have some noexec perl's
ppisar merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-Graphics-TIFF` that you
are following.
Merged pull-request:
``
Add FMF plan
``
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Graphics-TIFF/pull-request/2
___
perl-devel mailing list --
85 matches
Mail list logo
