The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
11 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-f1e9ccd247
zabbix40-4.0.29-1.el7
9 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-04cc5bcb08
nagios-4.4.6-4.el7
7
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1939759
--- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
An unexpected error occurred while creating the scratch build and has been
automatically reported. Sorry!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1939759
Bug ID: 1939759
Summary: perl-Getopt-Long-Descriptive-0.109 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Getopt-Long-Descriptive
Keywords:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1890933
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #9 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1932429
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1933398
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|perl-Perl-Critic-Pulp-99-1. |perl-Perl-Critic-Pulp-99-1.
No missing expected images.
Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check!
2 of 43 required tests failed, 4 results missing
openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING**
below
Failed openQA tests: 17/187 (x86_64), 16/126 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1939432
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #3 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1939427
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #3 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1939742
Bug ID: 1939742
Summary: perl-MooseX-App-Cmd-0.33 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-MooseX-App-Cmd
Keywords: FutureFeature,
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20210315.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20210316.n.1
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 20
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 178
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 16.28 MiB
Size of dropped packages:0
John Reiser wrote:
> On 3/16/21, David Howells wrote:
> > John Reiser wrote:
> >
> >> See the manual page "man 2 getdents".
> > Um, which bit? I don't see anything obvious to that end.
>
> On that manual page:
> =
> The system call getdents() reads several linux_dirent structures from
* Steven Whitehouse:
> If you are looking for a hint on how large a buffer to allocate, then
> st_blksize is generally used as a hint for directory reads, or
> otherwise, a fixed size buffer or a page or two. The st_size field is
> meaningless for directories and you'll get all kinds of odd
On 3/16/21 11:51 AM, John Reiser wrote:
> On 3/16/21, David Howells wrote:
>> John Reiser wrote:
>>
>>> See the manual page "man 2 getdents".
>>
>> Um, which bit? I don't see anything obvious to that end.
>
> On that manual page:
> =
> The system call getdents() reads several linux_dirent
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1939683
Bug ID: 1939683
Summary: perl-MooseX-Getopt-0.75 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-MooseX-Getopt
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 5:32 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> Hello Pythonistas.
>
>
> I find myself cop-pasting this boring snippet each time I create a Python
> package (using the old macros or the new):
>
>
>%package -n python3-foo
>Summary:%{summary}
>
>%description -n
Hi Miro,
in general I think explicit is better than implicit
(and since I am Dutch, this seems obvious to me).
But regarding your question, I think a better argument for creating a
macro is to prevent mistakes from packagers. I think that is more
relevant than avoiding a few lines of code in
Hi,
On 16/03/2021 16:51, John Reiser wrote:
On 3/16/21, David Howells wrote:
John Reiser wrote:
See the manual page "man 2 getdents".
Um, which bit? I don't see anything obvious to that end.
On that manual page:
=
The system call getdents() reads several linux_dirent structures
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1890933
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--- Comment #8 from
Am 16.03.21 um 18:03 schrieb Sumantro Mukherjee:
Hey All
Fedora 34 GNOME 40 Test Day is happening[0] on 2021-03-17 through 2021-03-19.
This is the time when we test the new features and version bumps of
all the GNOME apps which came with the mega-update.
This time, we have a lot of new changes
Hi, it looks like Søren left Red Hat without changing his email. Does
anybody know how to contact him? I'd like to retire vino from rawhide,
which I incorrectly thought could not be done while he owns the package.
Nonresponsive maintainer bug:
Il 16/03/21 17:50, Fabio Valentini ha scritto:
> Hi everybody,
>
> I've realized that there's a big mismatch between the permissions that
> are necessary and the immediate impact for orphaning and retiring a
> package:
>
> orphan:
> - is reversible by single button press by anybody in "packager"
Last week the EPEL Steering Committee voted and accepted a new day and
time for their weekly meeting. It was also agreed to follow the U.S.
daylight savings time since the majority of the committee members were
affected by that.
Day of Week: Wednesday
Time of Day: 4:00 pm Eastern U.S. Time
Hey All
Fedora 34 GNOME 40 Test Day is happening[0] on 2021-03-17 through 2021-03-19.
This is the time when we test the new features and version bumps of
all the GNOME apps which came with the mega-update.
This time, we have a lot of new changes coming along and we would
appreciate as much
On 3/16/21, David Howells wrote:
John Reiser wrote:
See the manual page "man 2 getdents".
Um, which bit? I don't see anything obvious to that end.
On that manual page:
=
The system call getdents() reads several linux_dirent structures from the
directory
referred to by the open file
Hi everybody,
I've realized that there's a big mismatch between the permissions that
are necessary and the immediate impact for orphaning and retiring a
package:
orphan:
- is reversible by single button press by anybody in "packager" group
- has no immediate effect / effect only after 6 weeks of
jplesnik opened a new pull-request against the project:
`perl-DateTime-Format-Pg` that you are following:
``
Tests
``
To reply, visit the link below
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-DateTime-Format-Pg/pull-request/1
___
perl-devel mailing list
On ti, 16 maalis 2021, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
Good Morning Everyone,
Since February 24th the packager kir has been receiving a daily email asking
them to either adjust their bugzilla or their FAS account so the email address
in FAS matches an existing bugzilla account.
Having a bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1939536
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 5:28 PM Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 11:24:47AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > * Takayuki Nagata:
> >
> > > I think "--with-arch=" should be "rv64g" for gcc without compressed
> > > instruction support, because the default is RV64GC[0].
> >
> >
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 04:50:57PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Richard W. M. Jones:
>
> >> I don't know if this has happened yet, probably not. Otherwise we'd be
> >> building this ABI variant regularly (like all the other targets).
> >
> > We don't intend to build this for Fedora, as
* Richard W. M. Jones:
>> I don't know if this has happened yet, probably not. Otherwise we'd be
>> building this ABI variant regularly (like all the other targets).
>
> We don't intend to build this for Fedora, as there's only one
> processor which doesn't support this extension, and we don't
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 04:34:07PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Richard W. M. Jones:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 11:24:47AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> * Takayuki Nagata:
> >>
> >> > I think "--with-arch=" should be "rv64g" for gcc without compressed
> >> > instruction support,
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 7/187 (x86_64), 11/126 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-34-20210315.n.0):
ID: 816528 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso modularity_tests
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/816528
ID: 816562 Test: x86_64
Good Morning Everyone,
Since February 24th the packager kir has been receiving a daily email asking
them to either adjust their bugzilla or their FAS account so the email address
in FAS matches an existing bugzilla account.
Having a bugzilla account is mandatory per:
* Richard W. M. Jones:
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 11:24:47AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Takayuki Nagata:
>>
>> > I think "--with-arch=" should be "rv64g" for gcc without compressed
>> > instruction support, because the default is RV64GC[0].
>>
>> As far as I understand it, there is no
(As Peter said, please don't send the same email twice.)
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 10:20:22AM -, Billa Surendra wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> From last 10 days I am struggling to rebuilding gcc-10.2.1-9.fc33.src.rpm
> SRPM on RISC-V Fedora image. Here I am planning to rebuilt this SRPM without
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1939432
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-3e5f135703 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-3e5f135703
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 11:24:47AM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Takayuki Nagata:
>
> > I think "--with-arch=" should be "rv64g" for gcc without compressed
> > instruction support, because the default is RV64GC[0].
>
> As far as I understand it, there is no glibc port for RISC-V without
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1939536
--- Comment #2 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
the-new-hotness/release-monitoring.org's scratch build of
perl-Getopt-Long-Descriptive-0.108-1.fc32.src.rpm for rawhide completed
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=63898973
Hello Henrik,
I do use radare2 on both EPEL7 and EPEL8 ... I will be happy to co-maintain
if you need a hand there.
I have to admit I am terrible with reading devel mail lists so direct mail
works better with me.
>The question is then what should be done with the stale and known broken
EPEL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1939432
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1939536
--- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
Created attachment 1763686
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1763686=edit
[patch] Update to 0.108 (#1939536)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1939536
Bug ID: 1939536
Summary: perl-Getopt-Long-Descriptive-0.108 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Getopt-Long-Descriptive
Keywords:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1838000
errata-xmlrpc changed:
What|Removed |Added
Link ID||Red Hat Product Errata
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1837988
errata-xmlrpc changed:
What|Removed |Added
Link ID||Red Hat Product Errata
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1837975
errata-xmlrpc changed:
What|Removed |Added
Link ID||Red Hat Product Errata
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1838000
--- Comment #25 from errata-xmlrpc ---
This issue has been addressed in the following products:
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7.6 Extended Update Support
Via RHSA-2021:0883 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2021:0883
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1837988
--- Comment #26 from errata-xmlrpc ---
This issue has been addressed in the following products:
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7.6 Extended Update Support
Via RHSA-2021:0883 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2021:0883
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1837975
--- Comment #24 from errata-xmlrpc ---
This issue has been addressed in the following products:
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7.6 Extended Update Support
Via RHSA-2021:0883 https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2021:0883
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1939432
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Version|rawhide
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1938614
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #2 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1938597
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #5 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1938396
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #6 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1939427
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-ed3306a0fe has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-ed3306a0fe
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1939427
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1939427
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Version|rawhide
OLD: Fedora-34-20210315.n.0
NEW: Fedora-34-20210316.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 6
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0 B
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size of upgraded
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1890933
--- Comment #7 from Gerd Pokorra ---
An epel8 branch is requested:
fedpkg request-branch epel8
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/32893
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
On Tue, 16 Mar 2021 22:29:39 +0900
Takayuki Nagata wrote:
> Hi Billa,
>
> I am not sure if compressed instruction support can be disabled, but
> it appears to me that --with-arch= should be rv32gc or rv64gc for
> multilib. It is implemented in the gcc/config.gcc file.
>
> Florian mentioned
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1939427
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jples...@redhat.com
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 12:17 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 09:23:01AM -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> >
> > setting up rsync for this point will be a difficult problem and may need to
> > be delayed for a long time.
> >
> > 1. ELN recomposes every 3-4 hours. The
Hi Billa,
I am not sure if compressed instruction support can be disabled, but
it appears to me that --with-arch= should be rv32gc or rv64gc for
multilib. It is implemented in the gcc/config.gcc file.
Florian mentioned that there is no glibc without compressed
instruction support. Perhaps, gcc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1890933
--- Comment #6 from Gerd Pokorra ---
Yes a scratch build is done:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=63889671
I will go on.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1890933
--- Comment #5 from Petr Pisar ---
I think that all dependencies are there.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list --
Announcing the creation of a new nightly release validation test event
for Fedora 34 Branched 20210316.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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1890933
Gerd Pokorra changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1939439
Bug ID: 1939439
Summary: perl-MouseX-App-Cmd-0.30-20.fc35 FTBFS: Failed test
'Internal hashes match' at t/build_emulates_new.t line
18.
Product: Fedora
Version:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1939434
Bug ID: 1939434
Summary: perl-MooseX-App-Cmd-0.32-16.fc35 FTBFS: Failed test
'Internal hashes match' at t/build_emulates_new.t line
16.
Product: Fedora
Version:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1939432
Bug ID: 1939432
Summary: perl-HTML-FormFu-MultiForm-1.03-12.fc35 FTBFS:
Couldn't load Crypt::Cipher::AES: Can't locate
Crypt/Cipher/AES.pm in @INC
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1939427
Bug ID: 1939427
Summary: perl-Dancer-Session-Cookie-0.30-11.fc35 FTBFS:
WARNING: The key derivation method "opensslv1" is
deprecated. Using -pbkdf=>'pbkdf2' would be better.
I thought new thread can get more attention from members. sorry for that.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1939424
Bug ID: 1939424
Summary: perl-Crypt-PWSafe3-1.22-17.fc35 FTBFS: Failed test
'open a pwsafe3 database ('blocksize' is not a
recognized argument at
You basically just sent this same mail in reply to another thread you
started, why are you doing that?
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 10:23 AM Billa Surendra
wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> From last 10 days I am struggling to rebuilding gcc-10.2.1-9.fc33.src.rpm
> SRPM on RISC-V Fedora image. Here I am
Dear all,
From last 10 days I am struggling to rebuilding gcc-10.2.1-9.fc33.src.rpm
SRPM on RISC-V Fedora image. Here I am planning to rebuilt this SRPM without
compressed instruction support. Following changed I have done on gcc.spec file.
%ifarch riscv64
--with-arch=rv64g
Dear all,
From last 10 days I am struggling to rebuilding gcc-10.2.1-9.fc33.src.rpm
SRPM on RISC-V Fedora image. Here I am planning to rebuilt this SRPM without
compressed instruction support. Following changed I have done on gcc.spec file.
%ifarch riscv64
--with-arch=rv64g
Hello Pythonistas.
I find myself cop-pasting this boring snippet each time I create a Python
package (using the old macros or the new):
%package -n python3-foo
Summary:%{summary}
%description -n python3-foo %_description
And using one of those in %files:
%files -n
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-32-20210315.0):
ID: 816372 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL:
On 3/10/21 6:58 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
Hi all,
I put some comments on the OpenSSH mailing list[1] about UpdateHostKeys
and other SHA-1 related changes.
The OpenSSH release notes simply tell people to update OpenSSH. In
practice, people who use distributions like Fedora, RHEL and CentOS are
John Reiser wrote:
> See the manual page "man 2 getdents".
Um, which bit? I don't see anything obvious to that end.
On AFS directories are handled as files that the filesystem downloads and
parses locally. The size returned in st_size is the size of the directory
content blob.
David
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1937584
Emmanuel Seyman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
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-33-20210315.0):
ID: 816148 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL:
Hello everyone,
Please find the logs for yesterday’s meeting below. We will meet again in 2
weeks.
Minutes:
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/teams/neurofedora/neurofedora.2021-03-15-13.00.html
Log:
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/teams/neurofedora/neurofedora.2021-03-15-13.00.log.html
Hello everyone,
Please find the logs for yesterday’s meeting below. We will meet again in 2
weeks.
Minutes:
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/teams/neurofedora/neurofedora.2021-03-15-13.00.html
Log:
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/teams/neurofedora/neurofedora.2021-03-15-13.00.log.html
https://fedorapeople.org/groups/389ds/ci/nightly/2021/03/16/report-389-ds-base-2.0.3-20210316git1827c76da.fc33.x86_64.html
___
389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
85 matches
Mail list logo
