Thank you Petr and Stephen,
the background explanations and solutions were really helpful!
I will try to proceed to repackage the troubling packages as I need them
anyways. That would simplify it a lot.
Best wishes,
Stefan
- Ursprüngliche Mail -
Von: "Stephen John Smoogen"
An:
On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 8:21 PM Zebediah Figura wrote:
>
> On 9/6/21 6:31 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 7:00 PM Zebediah Figura
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks everyone for their input.
> >>
> >> There seems to be a consensus that Fedora would prefer that we use their
> >> MinGW
On 9/6/21 6:31 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 7:00 PM Zebediah Figura wrote:
Thanks everyone for their input.
There seems to be a consensus that Fedora would prefer that we use their
MinGW dynamic libraries. However, this leaves a couple of questions:
* As I described in [1],
The following builds have been pushed to Fedora EPEL 7 updates-testing
dkms-2.8.6-1.el7
mirrormanager2-0.16-1.el7
xorgxrdp-0.2.17-2.el7
xrdp-0.9.17-2.el7
Details about builds:
dkms-2.8.6-1.el7
The following Fedora EPEL 8 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
1 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-303db869be
chromium-93.0.4577.63-1.el8
The following builds have been pushed to Fedora EPEL 8 updates-testing
cd-discid-1.4-20.el8
certbot-1.18.0-2.el8
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1994629
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-ca161ae28e has been pushed to the Fedora 34 Modular testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 7:00 PM Zebediah Figura wrote:
>
> Thanks everyone for their input.
>
> There seems to be a consensus that Fedora would prefer that we use their
> MinGW dynamic libraries. However, this leaves a couple of questions:
>
> * As I described in [1], we *may* be able to hack
Thanks everyone for their input.
There seems to be a consensus that Fedora would prefer that we use their
MinGW dynamic libraries. However, this leaves a couple of questions:
* As I described in [1], we *may* be able to hack things in the Wine
loader such that we can use unmodified dynamic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1858048
Emmanuel Seyman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||2001699, 2001700
Referenced
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2001570
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #4 from
On 06/09/2021 17:13, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Not sure if that is intentional, but if I am not mistaken, boot menu
used to be hidden if there were no issues, but it seems to be always on
ATM. Is this intentional?
Btw, /boot on BTRFS with GRUB menu hiding will cause breakages with an
"sparse file
On Mon, Sep 6 2021 at 05:13:59 PM +0200, Vít Ondruch
wrote:
Is this intentional?
No, please report a bug. Thanks.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1994629
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-da33f06185 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 Modular testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 16/205 (x86_64), 8/141 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-35-20210904.n.0):
ID: 970194 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso anaconda_help
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/970194
ID: 970288 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso
Not sure if that is intentional, but if I am not mistaken, boot menu
used to be hidden if there were no issues, but it seems to be always on
ATM. Is this intentional?
Vít
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an
There is nothing on the agenda, so I'm canceling this week's meeting.
I'll pick this up again next week if we have anything.
= Discussed and Acted in the Ticket =
#2656 Nonresponsive maintainer: Shawn Iwinski / siwinski
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2656
--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one
Hi,
On 05. 09. 21 15:29, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Vitaly Zaitsev via devel writes:
On 05/09/2021 14:52, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
if only a great, overwhelming majority of Fedora package maintainers
were able to write policies for their own packages and maintain it
themselves because SELinux
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2001570
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Fixed In
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2001570
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |MODIFIED
--- Comment #3 from
OLD: Fedora-35-20210904.n.0
NEW: Fedora-35-20210906.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:4
Dropped images: 6
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
V Mon, Sep 06, 2021 at 09:10:30AM -0400, Stephen John Smoogen napsal(a):
> On Mon, 6 Sept 2021 at 07:07, Petr Pisar wrote:
> > V Sun, Sep 05, 2021 at 09:47:51PM +0200, Stefan Bluhm napsal(a):
> > > 2. What is the right approach to build the package that depends on
> > > modules?
> > >
> > The
On Mon, 6 Sept 2021 at 07:07, Petr Pisar wrote:
>
> V Sun, Sep 05, 2021 at 09:47:51PM +0200, Stefan Bluhm napsal(a):
> > I am trying to build a package for EPEL-8.
> > (https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=75036069)
> >
> > The build fails with
> >
> > No matching package to
The update was unpushed on everything but Rawhide.
Many (but not quite all) of these packages will use gtest-devel only to
build test executables and have no runtime/install-time dependency on
it. In my opinion, those can probably get by without rebuilding if desired.
- Ben Beasley
On
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2001570
Bug ID: 2001570
Summary: perl-Module-ExtractUse-0.344 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Module-ExtractUse
Keywords:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2001570
--- Comment #2 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
the-new-hotness/release-monitoring.org's scratch build of
perl-Module-ExtractUse-0.344-1.fc32.src.rpm for rawhide completed
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=75224209
--
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2001570
--- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
Created attachment 1820858
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1820858=edit
[patch] Update to 0.344 (#2001570)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
V Sun, Sep 05, 2021 at 09:47:51PM +0200, Stefan Bluhm napsal(a):
> I am trying to build a package for EPEL-8.
> (https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=75036069)
>
> The build fails with
>
> No matching package to install: 'glassfish-jaxb-api'
> No matching package to install: 'jaf'
On Mon, 2021-09-06 at 07:23 +0100, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> We seem to have missed an announcement about the soname bump in gtest
> from 1.10.0 to 1.11.0:
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gtest/c/b290e7d10ed5fd24b4e1e45f46ad4c15848c18a5?branch=rawhide
>
> We ran into this because
On Fri, 2021-09-03 at 15:57 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 1:32 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
> > So it appears to be an SELinux issue. I suspect but cannot prove that
> > it's related to a number of AVCs related to DBUS that I see in
> > selinux-troubleshooter.
>
> I'm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1994629
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-ca161ae28e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34
Modular. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-ca161ae28e
--
You are receiving this mail
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64), 1/8 (aarch64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-34-20210905.0):
ID: 970096 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1994629
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-da33f06185 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35
Modular. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-da33f06185
--
You are receiving this mail
On Mon, 2021-09-06 at 02:08 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 5, 2021 at 2:00 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> >
> > clearly SELinux as a technology is a problem.
> >
>
> I mean, of course, that it's *not* a problem. Though I guess you
> could read the statement as sarcasm?
I was about to ask you
> Am 05.09.2021 um 17:59 schrieb Matthew Miller :
>
> On Sun, Sep 05, 2021 at 09:19:20AM +0200, Peter Boy wrote:
>> I think it is urgent that Fedora Council starts an initiative here (and I
>> would not hesitate to contribute, not just ask others to do something).
>
> To be clear, the request
Hi,
On 9/6/21 7:57 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 05, 2021 at 04:43:01PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 10:47 AM Chris Murphy wrote:
>>>
>>> systemd-udev-settle.service is deprecated. Please fix
>>> multipathd.service not to pull it in.
>>>
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64), 1/8 (aarch64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-33-20210905.0):
ID: 969961 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1482813
Bug 1482813 depends on bug 1482815, which changed state.
Bug 1482815 Summary: root is not built for s390x
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1482815
What|Removed |Added
> Am 05.09.2021 um 15:07 schrieb Stephen John Smoogen :
>
> On Sun, 5 Sept 2021 at 07:12, Peter Boy wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> ...
>>
>> I watch Distrowatch in an occasional way. It is certainly not the most
>> reliable indicator, unquestioningly. But is is one among others. Currently
>> Fedora
Hi folks,
We seem to have missed an announcement about the soname bump in gtest
from 1.10.0 to 1.11.0:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gtest/c/b290e7d10ed5fd24b4e1e45f46ad4c15848c18a5?branch=rawhide
We ran into this because it broke python-steps for us, may affect other
packages too:
On Sun, Sep 5, 2021 at 2:00 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Sun, Sep 5, 2021 at 12:07 PM Matthew Miller
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 05, 2021 at 01:11:28PM +0200, Peter Boy wrote:
> > > considered nearly "dead" and has suffered greatly under Novell. And if you
> > > look at sites like stackexchange
40 matches
Mail list logo
