https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025845
Bug ID: 2025845
Summary: stompclt-1.8 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: stompclt
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
Assignee:
Matthew Miller kirjoitti 21.11.2021 klo 20.45:
On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 04:27:18PM +, Tom Hughes wrote:
That page seems substantially (if not completely?) identical to the current
doc at
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/How_to_Get_Sponsored_into_the_Packager_Group/
On 11/22/21 08:39, Jan K wrote:
Most seem to come because of dependency of truth. I have not been able
to take it due to lacking rights, so someone should take it for now and
can transfer it to me once I have needed access rights.
Jan
fas: copperi
I've taken truth for now since I
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025237
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-8b69e9fdeb has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025236
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-e8d8c14a2f has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing
Wonderful, thank you! This is the sort of pointer I was looking for. I will now
try it.
On Monday, November 22, 2021, 07:05:13 PM CST, Ben Beasley
wrote:
Please compare with
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/xfontsel/blob/rawhide/f/xfontsel.spec,
paying close attention to the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025236
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-f3531067ed has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025237
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-091ef2aaa5 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing
Please compare with
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/xfontsel/blob/rawhide/f/xfontsel.spec,
paying close attention to the comments in the spec file. SKS keyservers have
gone offline since that package obtained its keyring, so try using
hkps://keys.openpgp.org instead.
That package also uses
The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
66 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-f005e1b879
debmirror-2.35-1.el7
4 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-70fe95babd
openssl11-1.1.1k-2.el7
The following builds have
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025237
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #4 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025236
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #4 from
Thank you to Dan Čermák for reviewing this package. However, I had two
questions from his comments. The first was that the spec file should use
gpgverify.
So, I went to the suggested webpage:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_source_file_verification
and did the
Hello,
Anyone willing to review this request for a recently (>8 weeks) orphaned
package?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025138
Happy to review in return.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 03:57:59PM +, Sebastian Crane wrote:
> Greetings! I'm looking forward to being involved with the Fedora
> project. I've used Fedora for a number of years now, and have really
> enjoyed the user experience, especially the advanced package
> management capabilities.
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 12:12:03PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Sérgio Basto said:
> > and why ipmitool was orphaned ? it was built successfully , its
> > maintain upstream ...
>
> It also has mulitple co-maintainers... hopefully somebody can step up?
Yeah, I use ipmitool all
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 08:58:06AM +, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 04:35:20 +, Globe Trotter via devel wrote:
> > Thank you, your answer makes sense and clarifies to me what is on the
> > instructions page. If I were editing the page, I would make sure that it
> > says
Dne 22. 11. 21 v 17:57 Nico Kadel-Garcia napsal(a):
Which is precisely why pointing it to the 'stream' release seems the
only workable solution.
That is EPEL-next
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL_Next#Introduction
Miroslav
___
devel mailing list
Dne 22. 11. 21 v 17:57 Nico Kadel-Garcia napsal(a):
Which is precisely why pointing it to the 'stream' release seems the
only workable solution.
That is EPEL-next
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL_Next#Introduction
Miroslav
___
epel-devel mailing
On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 07:51:58PM -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> On 11/21/21 19:23, devel@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote:
> > Just noting that I had a strange one-time s390x and x86_64 build failure.
>
> More:
>
> s390x:
>
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=79143231
>
>
Hi everybody,
It appears that eclipseo missed some dependencies when pushing his
latest updates in the Rust stack - which should've "only" updated
rav1e to the latest version, but turned out to have a much bigger
scope. These mega-rust-stack-updates have been submitted to Rawhide,
Fedora 35, and
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 12:56 PM Richard W.M. Jones
wrote:
...
> libqemuutil.a.p/util_vfio-helpers.c.o -c ../util/vfio-helpers.c
> during RTL pass: mach
> ../util/vfio-helpers.c: In function 'qemu_vfio_open_pci':
> ../util/vfio-helpers.c:523:1: internal compiler error: in
>
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 2:01 PM Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> First I don't feel comfortable announcing this, I'm not happy about the
> situation and so I don't want to be the lightning rod :-).
I do not believe anyone should blame you for bringing
this up (although, it should be noted, killing the
Once upon a time, Sérgio Basto said:
> and why ipmitool was orphaned ? it was built successfully , its
> maintain upstream ...
It also has mulitple co-maintainers... hopefully somebody can step up?
--
Chris Adams
___
devel mailing list --
gcc -Ilibqemuutil.a.p -I. -I.. -Isubprojects/libvhost-user
-I../subprojects/libvhost-user -Iqapi -Itrace -Iui -Iui/shader
-I/usr/include/glib-2.0 -I/usr/lib/glib-2.0/include -I/usr/include/sysprof-4
-I/usr/include/libmount -I/usr/include/blkid -I/usr/include/gio-unix-2.0
On 22. 11. 21 16:48, Sérgio Basto wrote:
1. ipmitool will be retired in 6 weeks
and why ipmitool was orphaned ? it was built successfully , its
maintain upstream ...
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ipmitool
says "Orphaned for: Lack of time"
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 11:55 AM Carl George wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 8:11 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >
> > On 22. 11. 21 15:00, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> > > - builds will require a valid Red Hat subscription (the no-cost variant is
> > >OK as well, though [2])
> >
> > I cannot help
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 11:55 AM Carl George wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 8:11 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >
> > On 22. 11. 21 15:00, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> > > - builds will require a valid Red Hat subscription (the no-cost variant is
> > >OK as well, though [2])
> >
> > I cannot help
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 03:48:46PM +, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Mon, 2021-11-22 at 14:44 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > 1. ipmitool will be retired in 6 weeks
>
> and why ipmitool was orphaned ? it was built successfully , its
> maintain upstream ...
Unclear - also unclear why
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 9:01 AM Pavel Raiskup wrote:
>
> Hello Fedora EPEL maintainers!
>
> First I don't feel comfortable announcing this, I'm not happy about the
> situation and so I don't want to be the lightning rod :-). But I believe
> that we can come to acceptable Copr/Mock solution and
Hi everyone,
I am resending this message, because I think it got lost. I sent it at
the begining of a weekend, so people must not have seen it.
I am CC'ing the change owner, as I feel that more clarification is
required. I maintain that this change should only apply to updates;
`dnf install`,
Dear all,
Greetings! I'm looking forward to being involved with the Fedora
project. I've used Fedora for a number of years now, and have really
enjoyed the user experience, especially the advanced package
management capabilities.
I serve as the Outreach Team co-chair of the SPDX Working Group,
On Mon, 2021-11-22 at 14:44 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 22. 11. 21 14:11, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 01:12:28PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > > Full report available at:
> > > https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/orphans-2021-11-22.txt
> > > grep it for your FAS
No missing expected images.
Compose PASSES proposed Rawhide gating check!
All required tests passed
Failed openQA tests: 7/208 (x86_64), 7/142 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20211121.n.0):
ID: 1068187 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso support_server
URL:
Most seem to come because of dependency of truth. I have not been able to take
it due to lacking rights, so someone should take it for now and can transfer it
to me once I have needed access rights.
Jan
fas: copperi
From: Miro Hrončok
Sent: Monday, November
On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 at 10:15, Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 10:12 AM Carl George wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 8:37 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On 22/11/2021 15:00, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> > > > - builds will require a valid Red Hat subscription
On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 at 10:15, Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 10:12 AM Carl George wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 8:37 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On 22/11/2021 15:00, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> > > > - builds will require a valid Red Hat subscription
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025616
Bug ID: 2025616
Summary: perlbrew-0.93 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perlbrew
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
Assignee:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 10:12 AM Carl George wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 8:37 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
> wrote:
> >
> > On 22/11/2021 15:00, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> > > - builds will require a valid Red Hat subscription (the no-cost variant is
> > >OK as well, though [2])
> >
> >
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 10:12 AM Carl George wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 8:37 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
> wrote:
> >
> > On 22/11/2021 15:00, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> > > - builds will require a valid Red Hat subscription (the no-cost variant is
> > >OK as well, though [2])
> >
> >
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 8:37 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
>
> On 22/11/2021 15:00, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> > - builds will require a valid Red Hat subscription (the no-cost variant is
> >OK as well, though [2])
>
> I'm going to retire all my EPEL8 packages as I can't build/test them in
>
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 8:37 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
>
> On 22/11/2021 15:00, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> > - builds will require a valid Red Hat subscription (the no-cost variant is
> >OK as well, though [2])
>
> I'm going to retire all my EPEL8 packages as I can't build/test them in
>
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 8:27 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>
> Dne 22. 11. 21 v 15:10 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
> >
> > However, enough of my personal views. Since we have not used RHEL for
> > copr/mock EPEL buidlroots until now, but we used
> > a downstream freely-available RHEL-copy (CentOS Linux),
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 8:27 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>
> Dne 22. 11. 21 v 15:10 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
> >
> > However, enough of my personal views. Since we have not used RHEL for
> > copr/mock EPEL buidlroots until now, but we used
> > a downstream freely-available RHEL-copy (CentOS Linux),
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 8:11 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> On 22. 11. 21 15:00, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> > - builds will require a valid Red Hat subscription (the no-cost variant is
> >OK as well, though [2])
>
> I cannot help myself but I consider this very unpleasant for EPEL packagers.
>
>
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 8:11 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> On 22. 11. 21 15:00, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> > - builds will require a valid Red Hat subscription (the no-cost variant is
> >OK as well, though [2])
>
> I cannot help myself but I consider this very unpleasant for EPEL packagers.
>
>
On 22. 11. 21 15:25, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
But EPEL is built against RHEL (not Alma, not Rocky).
True. As well as it is true today that it is not built against CentOS Linux
(and yet we do that in mock).
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
On 22. 11. 21 15:25, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
But EPEL is built against RHEL (not Alma, not Rocky).
True. As well as it is true today that it is not built against CentOS Linux
(and yet we do that in mock).
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
On Sun, Nov 21, 2021 at 6:51 AM KC wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just reporting that synergy installation fail on CentOS 8 & Rocky 8.
>
> > dnf install synergy
> Last metadata expiration check: 4:17:16 ago on Sun 21 Nov 2021 06:28:05 PM
> CST.
> Error:
> Problem: conflicting requests
> - nothing provides
On 22/11/2021 15:00, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
- builds will require a valid Red Hat subscription (the no-cost variant is
OK as well, though [2])
I'm going to retire all my EPEL8 packages as I can't build/test them in
mock without any subscriptions.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev
On Mon, 2021-11-22 at 15:10 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 22. 11. 21 15:00, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> > - builds will require a valid Red Hat subscription (the no-cost variant is
> >OK as well, though [2])
>
> I cannot help myself but I consider this very unpleasant for EPEL packagers.
>
>
Dne 22. 11. 21 v 15:10 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
However, enough of my personal views. Since we have not used RHEL for copr/mock EPEL buidlroots until now, but we used
a downstream freely-available RHEL-copy (CentOS Linux), could we not continue doing so by using e.g. AlmaLinux?
For day to day
Dne 22. 11. 21 v 15:10 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
However, enough of my personal views. Since we have not used RHEL for copr/mock EPEL buidlroots until now, but we used
a downstream freely-available RHEL-copy (CentOS Linux), could we not continue doing so by using e.g. AlmaLinux?
For day to day
On 22. 11. 21 15:11, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 03:00:04PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 22. 11. 21 14:56, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 02:44:16PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 22. 11. 21 14:11, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 03:00:04PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 22. 11. 21 14:56, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 02:44:16PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >>On 22. 11. 21 14:11, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >>>On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 01:12:28PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
On 22. 11. 21 15:00, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
- builds will require a valid Red Hat subscription (the no-cost variant is
OK as well, though [2])
I cannot help myself but I consider this very unpleasant for EPEL packagers.
Getting and configuring the subscription was always so unfriendly for me
Hello Fedora EPEL maintainers!
First I don't feel comfortable announcing this, I'm not happy about the
situation and so I don't want to be the lightning rod :-). But I believe
that we can come to acceptable Copr/Mock solution and this needs to be
discussed... so here we are.
By the end of the
Hello Fedora EPEL maintainers!
First I don't feel comfortable announcing this, I'm not happy about the
situation and so I don't want to be the lightning rod :-). But I believe
that we can come to acceptable Copr/Mock solution and this needs to be
discussed... so here we are.
By the end of the
On 22. 11. 21 14:56, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 02:44:16PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 22. 11. 21 14:11, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 01:12:28PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
Full report available at:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 02:44:16PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 22. 11. 21 14:11, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 01:12:28PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >>Full report available at:
> >>https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/orphans-2021-11-22.txt
> >>grep it for your FAS
On 22. 11. 21 14:11, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 01:12:28PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
Full report available at:
https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/orphans-2021-11-22.txt
grep it for your FAS username and follow the dependency chain.
A lot of virt and filesystem
Hi folks,
we have nothing on the agenda, so I'm cancelling today's meeting.
See y'all next week, hopefully.
Zbyszek
= Discussed and Voted in the Ticket =
#2695 Suggested new intro paragraph for Updates policy
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2695
https://pagure.io/fesco/fesco-docs/pull-request/54
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 05:58:43PM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> What else is there that people care about in Fedora that's only i686?
It's not a big deal, but we're using gcc -m32 as a convenient way to
check that various packages still build on 32-bit (as part of CI).
The aim is to catch
PSA: Building any Rust packages in rawhide is broken right now.
rust-packaging 19 was pushed to rawhide without also updating
rust-srpm-macros to 19, which results in broken BRs for all Rust
packages.
Zbigniew, please fix the broken rust-packaging update ASAP -
rust-packaging 19 and
On Mon, Nov 22, 2021 at 01:12:28PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> Full report available at:
> https://churchyard.fedorapeople.org/orphans-2021-11-22.txt
> grep it for your FAS username and follow the dependency chain.
A lot of virt and filesystem packages are shown in the report, but I
think it
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20211121.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20211122.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 36
Dropped packages:2
Upgraded packages: 83
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 50.95 MiB
Size of dropped packages
Hi,
ImageMagick 6.9.12.30 have more security fixes and it was built on
Rawhide and F35
Now I think we also should update F34 since we have a bunch of security
fixes .
So I prepared f34-build-side-48004 so please use
fedpkg build --target=f34-build-side-48004 to build your package for
Fedora 34
On 22. 11. 21 13:11, Pavel Březina wrote:
That and release all three modified packages as a single update.
How do you do that for rawhide?
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/#updating-inter-dependent-packages
The following packages are orphaned and will be retired when they
are orphaned for six weeks, unless someone adopts them. If you know for sure
that the package should be retired, please do so now with a proper reason:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_remove_a_package_at_end_of_life
Note: If
On 11/22/21 12:39, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
On Monday, 22 November 2021 at 12:23, Pavel Březina wrote:
Hi fedora-devel,
Fedora 36 change Enforce Authselect Configuration Consistency [1] is going
to transfer file ownership from pam and glibc to authselect package.
I wonder what is
On Monday, 22 November 2021 at 12:23, Pavel Březina wrote:
> Hi fedora-devel,
> Fedora 36 change Enforce Authselect Configuration Consistency [1] is going
> to transfer file ownership from pam and glibc to authselect package.
>
> I wonder what is the correct way to do that? Is it sufficient to
Hi fedora-devel,
Fedora 36 change Enforce Authselect Configuration Consistency [1] is
going to transfer file ownership from pam and glibc to authselect package.
I wonder what is the correct way to do that? Is it sufficient to just
remove/add the ownership in spec file %files?
[1]
On 11/8/21 22:52, Miro Hrončok wrote:
The following packages are orphaned and will be retired when they
are orphaned for six weeks, unless someone adopts them. If you know
for sure
that the package should be retired, please do so now with a proper
reason:
Hello team,
Academic Software Foundation released OpenVDB 9.0.0 with support of
NanoVDB [1] which is useful for Blender 3D [2]. Scratch build resulted a
failure on arm7vh architectures related to exhausted virtual memory [3].
Suggested workaround is to decrease the debugging verbose noise in
Hello everyone,
Please join us at the next Open NeuroFedora team meeting on Monday 22nd
November (today!) at 1300UTC in #fedora-neuro on IRC (Libera.chat) or
Matrix. The meeting is a public meeting, and open for everyone to
attend. You can join us over:
Matrix:
On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 01:12:56 -0800
Luya Tshimbalanga wrote:
> Hello team,
>
> Academic Software Foundation released OpenVDB 9.0.0 with support of
> NanoVDB [1] which is useful for Blender 3D [2]. Scratch build resulted a
> failure on arm7vh architectures related to exhausted virtual memory
Hi everyone,
This is a weekly report from the CPE (Community Platform Engineering)
Team. If you have any questions or feedback, please respond to this
report or contact us on #redhat-cpe channel on libera.chat
(https://libera.chat/).
If you wish to read this in the form of a blog post, check the
Hello team,
Academic Software Foundation released OpenVDB 9.0.0 with support of
NanoVDB [1] which is useful for Blender 3D [2]. Scratch build resulted a
failure on arm7vh architectures related to exhausted virtual memory [3].
Suggested workaround is to decrease the debugging verbose noise in
On Sat, Nov 20, 2021 04:35:20 +, Globe Trotter via devel wrote:
> Thank you, your answer makes sense and clarifies to me what is on the
> instructions page. If I were editing the page, I would make sure that it says
> somewhere that we need to ssh in and then create the directories and
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025106
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025237
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version||perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025237
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |MODIFIED
--- Comment #1 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025237
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-a298f4d27a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-a298f4d27a
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025237
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |MODIFIED
--- Comment #1 from
84 matches
Mail list logo
