The following Fedora EPEL 8 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
4 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-f9c76d4c79
ansible-2.9.27-1.el8
1 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-51a1d774bf
rpki-client-7.4-1.el8
The following builds have been
The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
44 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-f005e1b879
debmirror-2.35-1.el7
4 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-9db00036f5
java-latest-openjdk-17.0.1.0.12-1.rolling.el7
0
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2014714
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|perl-DateTime-TimeZone-2.50 |perl-DateTime-TimeZone-2.50
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2016582
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Resolution|---
On 31. 10. 21 19:21, Gordon Messmer wrote:
(it doesn't even use git snapshot, but upstream release tarball).
In my opinion, calling it an "upstream release tarball" implies intent that is
not in evidence. GitHub's release tarballs are a side-effect of declaring a
release for a project
On Sun, 2021-10-31 at 22:56 +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 31, 2021 at 10:44 PM Luya Tshimbalanga
> wrote:
> >
> > Hello team,
> >
> > ImageMagick is updated 6.9.12.28 on Rawhide and got side tag as
> > 35-build-side-47231.
>
> Sorry, I am confused. Did you mean to say the update
On Sun, Oct 31, 2021 at 10:44 PM Luya Tshimbalanga
wrote:
>
> Hello team,
>
> ImageMagick is updated 6.9.12.28 on Rawhide and got side tag as
> 35-build-side-47231.
Sorry, I am confused. Did you mean to say the update and rebuilds for
rawhide are *finished* and you're starting the process for
Hello team,
ImageMagick is updated 6.9.12.28 on Rawhide and got side tag as
35-build-side-47231. For my understanding, the following packages
(including those from RPM Fusion) may need a rebuild based on these
dependencies:
`dnf repoquery --whatrequires "libMagick*" --qf "%{reponame}
On 10/31/21 04:57, Julian Sikorski wrote:
I had some time today so I decided to try updating to F35 ahead of the
release. It did not work unfortunately:
Error:
Problem 2: problem with installed package pam_mount-2.16-12.fc34.x86_64
- package pam_mount-2.16-12.fc34.x86_64 requires
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2018841
Bug ID: 2018841
Summary: perl-Moose-2.2200 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Moose
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
On 2021-10-28 00:15, Remi Collet wrote:
Le 28/10/2021 à 08:33, l...@fedoraproject.org a écrit :
On 2021-10-27 10:21 a.m., "Antonio T. sagitter"
wrote:
Use a side-tag
(https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Update_Guide/#multiple_packages),
please.
Done. '''
On 10/31/21 02:45, Miro Hrončok wrote:
See for example
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-mako/pull-request/13
Would we upstream that? I think that the "staying close to upstream
projects" policy suggests that we should. And, personally, I don't
think we should patch source
On 2021-10-31 10:14, Fabio Valentini wrote:
On Sun, Oct 31, 2021 at 5:37 PM Luya Tshimbalanga
wrote:
On 2021-10-21 02:01, Michael J Gruber wrote:
Have you managed to get this to work, or what is the particular issue?
Fonts SIG helped resolve the issue. You can view the updated spec files
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 1/15 (aarch64)
Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-IoT-34-20211019.0):
ID: 1047829 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_clevis@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1047829
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/16 (x86_64)
(Tests
On Sun, Oct 31, 2021 at 5:37 PM Luya Tshimbalanga
wrote:
>
>
> On 2021-10-21 02:01, Michael J Gruber wrote:
> > Have you managed to get this to work, or what is the particular issue?
> >
> Fonts SIG helped resolve the issue. You can view the updated spec files
> below:
>
>
# Fedora Quality Assurance Meeting
# Date: 2021-11-01
# Time: 15:00 UTC
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto)
# Location: #fedora-meeting on irc.libera.chat
Greetings testers!
Now Fedora 35 validation is (finally) behind us, let's check in on
status, and get the 36 cycle
On Sat, 2021-10-30 at 22:52 +0200, Björn 'besser82' Esser wrote:
> Am Samstag, dem 30.10.2021 um 22:00 +0200 schrieb Alexander Ploumistos:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'm wondering if there's an "elegant" and "rpm" way to do the
> > following, without calling an external tool (and maybe adding another
> >
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2017178
Emmanuel Seyman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Status|NEW
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2017183
Emmanuel Seyman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2018777
Emmanuel Seyman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Fixed In Version|
On 2021-10-21 02:01, Michael J Gruber wrote:
Have you managed to get this to work, or what is the particular issue?
Fonts SIG helped resolve the issue. You can view the updated spec files
below:
On Sun, 2021-10-31 at 14:50 +0100, Julian Sikorski wrote:
> W dniu 20.10.2021 o 20:09, Julian Sikorski pisze:
> > W dniu 29.09.2021 o 10:08, Julian Sikorski pisze:
> > > W dniu 28.09.2021 o 09:32, Julian Sikorski pisze:
> > > > W dniu 22.09.2021 o 21:07, Julian Sikorski pisze:
> > > > > Am
Missing expected images:
Xfce raw-xz armhfp
Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check!
1 of 43 required tests failed
openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING**
below
Failed openQA tests: 5/206 (x86_64), 8/141 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed in
W dniu 20.10.2021 o 20:09, Julian Sikorski pisze:
W dniu 29.09.2021 o 10:08, Julian Sikorski pisze:
W dniu 28.09.2021 o 09:32, Julian Sikorski pisze:
W dniu 22.09.2021 o 21:07, Julian Sikorski pisze:
Am 22.09.21 um 19:38 schrieb Fabio Valentini:
On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 6:35 PM Julian Sikorski
W dniu 31.10.2021 o 12:57, Julian Sikorski pisze:
Hello,
I had some time today so I decided to try updating to F35 ahead of the
release. It did not work unfortunately:
Error:
Problem 1: package
mupen64plus-qt-1.12-1.20200226git1709647.fc31.x86_64 requires
libquazip5.so.1()(64bit), but
On 10/31/21 12:57, Julian Sikorski wrote:
Hello,
I had some time today so I decided to try updating to F35 ahead of the
release. It did not work unfortunately:
Error:
Problem 1: package
mupen64plus-qt-1.12-1.20200226git1709647.fc31.x86_64 requires
libquazip5.so.1()(64bit), but none of
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20211030.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20211031.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:1
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 2
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 37
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 575.28 KiB
Size of dropped packages:0
Hello,
I had some time today so I decided to try updating to F35 ahead of the
release. It did not work unfortunately:
Error:
Problem 1: package
mupen64plus-qt-1.12-1.20200226git1709647.fc31.x86_64 requires
libquazip5.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
-
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2018695
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
On 30. 10. 21 21:42, Gordon Messmer wrote:
On 10/29/21 05:49, Miro Hrončok wrote:
For some of them (e.g. mako), this seems to be a mistake even.
There are a lot of "dev0" versions in that set, so I took a look for the
cause. It looks like all of the "dev0" packages use github source rather
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-34-20211030.0):
ID: 1047451 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL:
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-35-20211030.0):
ID: 1047435 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL:
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-33-20211030.0):
ID: 1047419 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL:
33 matches
Mail list logo
