https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2041247
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-8f91a25c60 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-8f91a25c60
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are
On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 5:35 PM Robert-André Mauchin wrote:
> Sorry for the necro but there seems to be a problem with this change. It
> broke multiple packages at the linking stage:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2043178
>
> On the package-note repo
On Sat, 2022-01-22 at 21:35 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 9:28 PM Frank Crawford
> wrote:
> >
> > Folks,
> >
> > Any idea what is going on here? I'm trying to push an update for a
> > package (s3cmd) to EPEL9. The original package worked fine a few
> > weeks
> > ago, but
On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 9:28 PM Frank Crawford wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> Any idea what is going on here? I'm trying to push an update for a
> package (s3cmd) to EPEL9. The original package worked fine a few weeks
> ago, but this fix is being failed after a day or so sitting testing
> state with the
Folks,
Any idea what is going on here? I'm trying to push an update for a
package (s3cmd) to EPEL9. The original package worked fine a few weeks
ago, but this fix is being failed after a day or so sitting testing
state with the following message:
bodhi - 2022-01-23 02:00:24.585391 (karma: 0)
The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
5 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-92a697e332
zabbix40-4.0.37-1.el7
5 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-c99f63fce9
zabbix50-5.0.19-1.el7
2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2041280
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #2 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2032430
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #17 from
The following builds have been pushed to Fedora EPEL 8 updates-testing
liblxi-1.14-1.el8
notcurses-3.0.5-3.el8
pdns-4.5.3-1.el8
seamonkey-2.53.10.2-2.el8
Details about builds:
liblxi-1.14-1.el8
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2038103
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version||perl-Devel-Cover-1.36-6.el9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2030285
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2036123
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|perl-HTML-Selector-XPath-0. |perl-HTML-Selector-XPath-0.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811577
Bug 1811577 depends on bug 2036123, which changed state.
Bug 2036123 Summary: Please branch and build perl-HTML-Selector-XPath for EPEL-8
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2036123
What|Removed |Added
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2036126
Bug 2036126 depends on bug 2036123, which changed state.
Bug 2036123 Summary: Please branch and build perl-HTML-Selector-XPath for EPEL-8
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2036123
What|Removed |Added
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2036123
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
On 1/22/22 15:50, Marcin Dulak wrote:
> /usr/bin/ld: cannot open linker script file
/builddir/build/BUILD/.package_note-ga-5.7.2-8.fc36.x86_64.ld: No such
This is a widespread known issue. Aledgedly fixed but I don't think it is.
Refer to this bug
On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 5:47 PM Kevin Kofler via devel
wrote:
>
> Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> > It breaks ALL packages using gold to link, and the "fix" is to explicitly
> > add a macro to generate gold-compatible output or to stop using gold. Also
> > affects qt5-qtwebengine:
> >
Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> It breaks ALL packages using gold to link, and the "fix" is to explicitly
> add a macro to generate gold-compatible output or to stop using gold. Also
> affects qt5-qtwebengine:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2043178#c10
And worse, neither of the
Hi Steve,
On Fri, 2022-01-21 at 13:04 -0500, Steve Grubb wrote:
> This is a continuation of the discussion from F36 Change: GNU
> Toolchain Update.
>
> Uninitialized variables are a big problem. They can be sources of information
> exposure if parts of a buffer are not initialized. They can
On Sat, 2022-01-22 at 20:49 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 03:00:14PM -0500, Steve Grubb wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 22, 2022 6:36:01 AM EST Vitaly Zaitsev via
> > devel wrote:
> > > On 21/01/2022 19:04, Steve Grubb wrote:
> > > > Uninitialized variables are a big
On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 03:00:14PM -0500, Steve Grubb wrote:
> On Saturday, January 22, 2022 6:36:01 AM EST Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> > On 21/01/2022 19:04, Steve Grubb wrote:
> > > Uninitialized variables are a big problem.
> >
> > Yes, but as a package maintainer, I don't want to deal
On 1/22/22 15:00, Steve Grubb wrote:
> On Saturday, January 22, 2022 6:36:01 AM EST Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
>> On 21/01/2022 19:04, Steve Grubb wrote:
>>> Uninitialized variables are a big problem.
>>
>> Yes, but as a package maintainer, I don't want to deal with dozens of
>> crashes after
On Saturday, January 22, 2022 6:36:01 AM EST Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> On 21/01/2022 19:04, Steve Grubb wrote:
> > Uninitialized variables are a big problem.
>
> Yes, but as a package maintainer, I don't want to deal with dozens of
> crashes after this change.
As much as I don't want
On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 11:22 AM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 09:56:24AM -0500, Kaleb Keithley wrote:
> > I know you want FTBFS bugs now for gcc-12 issues, but let me run this by
> > you first and I will open a BZ if necessary.
> >
> > For ceph I've hacked up a fix for all the
On Friday, January 21, 2022 11:26:00 PM EST John Reiser wrote:
> > It might be worthwhile to have a CFLAG that can tell glibc (or other
> > allocators) to substitute something like calloc for malloc.
>
> The environment variable MALLOC_PERTURB_ has been used by glibc malloc
> for over 15 years.
On 22. 01. 22 18:22, Kai A. Hiller wrote:
Hello everyone,
Hello Kai.
just a very quick and short reply, as I don't have time for a long and
complicated answer. See below.
I’m having trouble deciding on what is the best way to perform tests in Python
packages. Here are my thoughts and the
And the Wiki page and the images is now out:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2022-01-23_Kernel_5.16_Test_Week
On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 11:39 PM Chris Murphy
wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 3:54 AM Artem Tim wrote:
>
>> Asking here due:
>> Your message to the test mailing-list was
Hello everyone,
I’m having trouble deciding on what is the best way to perform tests in
Python packages. Here are my thoughts and the solution I find most
correct, but which is kind of verbose and ugly to read. I’d be happy
about comments. TL;DR and code at the bottom.
For a Python package
Hi,
I just finished my C23++ proposal to apply the proper Unicode Identifier
Security mechanisms from TR39 to C++ and therefore also C.
Therefore I've developed a linter to check for insecure identifiers in
source code (for most programming languages), as well via readelf for
libraries (with
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2043878
Igor Raits changed:
What|Removed |Added
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2043885
Igor Raits changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Doc Type|---
On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 09:56:24AM -0500, Kaleb Keithley wrote:
> I know you want FTBFS bugs now for gcc-12 issues, but let me run this by
> you first and I will open a BZ if necessary.
>
> For ceph I've hacked up a fix for all the other gcc-12isms in ceph and now
> it fails to build on
Hi everybody,
The Rust SIG and I have been waiting for responses from Olivier (FAS:
olem) for a while. I had noticed that their Rust packages started
accumulating FTBFS / FTI / release-monitoring bugs, as we get CCd on
those bugzillas. According to koji / dist-git / bodhi / pagure.io,
their last
-- Forwarded message -
From: Luna Jernberg
Date: Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 4:58 PM
Subject: Fwd: [Test-Announce] [Test Week] Fedora Linux Kernel 5.16
2022-01-23 through 2022-01-29
To:
-- Forwarded message -
From: Luna Jernberg
Date: Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 4:58 PM
dhcpd-pools builds for Rawhide (in mock from F35) for me on x86_64, but
failed the mass rebuild on ppc64le with:
In file included from /usr/include/stdlib.h:1032,
from ./stdlib.h:36,
from mktime.c:49:
/usr/include/bits/stdlib-ldbl.h: In function
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2041280
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |MODIFIED
--- Comment #1 from
On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 12:36:01PM +0100, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> On 21/01/2022 19:04, Steve Grubb wrote:
> >Uninitialized variables are a big problem.
>
> Yes, but as a package maintainer, I don't want to deal with dozens
> of crashes after this change.
>
> Such problems must be fixed
I know you want FTBFS bugs now for gcc-12 issues, but let me run this by
you first and I will open a BZ if necessary.
For ceph I've hacked up a fix for all the other gcc-12isms in ceph and now
it fails to build on ppc64le[1] with
...
/usr/bin/ld:
Initially the ga package (https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ga) failed during
the f36 mass rebuild,
by failing on some numerical tests "zdot wrong".
The failed build is here
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1882845
However, when trying to reproduce the failure on koji with
Robert-André Mauchin wrote:
> Sorry for the necro but there seems to be a problem with this change. It
> broke multiple packages at the linking stage:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2043178
It breaks ALL packages using gold to link, and the "fix" is to explicitly
add a macro to
ok, many thanks for the information.
Martin
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 12:01:51PM -, Martin Gansser wrote:
> gcc-12 breaks build [1] with vdr-live with ppc64le on rawhide
>
> g++ -O2 -flto=auto -ffat-lto-objects -fexceptions -g -grecord-gcc-switches
> -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2
>
Hi,
gcc-12 breaks build [1] with vdr-live with ppc64le on rawhide
g++ -O2 -flto=auto -ffat-lto-objects -fexceptions -g -grecord-gcc-switches
-pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2
-Wp,-D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1
On Sat, Jan 22, 2022 at 11:51:37AM +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> IIRC it wasn't that simple. The necessary entropy was *not* coming
> from uninitialized bytes. There were other sources of *real* entropy,
> but the Debian patch caused *none* of it to be added to the pool
> (except for the PID).
On Sat, 22 Jan 2022 at 11:51, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2022 at 10:52, Andreas Schneider wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 7:00:22 PM CET Steve Grubb wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, January 5, 2022 5:05:26 PM EST Ben Cotton wrote:
> > >
> > > >
On Sat, 22 Jan 2022 at 10:52, Andreas Schneider wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 7:00:22 PM CET Steve Grubb wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Wednesday, January 5, 2022 5:05:26 PM EST Ben Cotton wrote:
> >
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/GNUToolchainF36
> > >
> > > == Summary ==
>
On 21/01/2022 19:04, Steve Grubb wrote:
Uninitialized variables are a big problem.
Yes, but as a package maintainer, I don't want to deal with dozens of
crashes after this change.
Such problems must be fixed by upstream developers, not by volunteers
[package maintainers].
Most upstreams
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2043885
Bug ID: 2043885
Summary: EPEL9 Branch Request: perl-Crypt-X509
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Crypt-X509
Assignee: rc040...@freenet.de
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2043878
Bug ID: 2043878
Summary: EPEL9 Branch Request: perl-Net-SNMP
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Net-SNMP
Assignee: spo...@gmail.com
On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 7:00:22 PM CET Steve Grubb wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wednesday, January 5, 2022 5:05:26 PM EST Ben Cotton wrote:
>
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/GNUToolchainF36
> >
> > == Summary ==
> > Update the Fedora 36 GNU Toolchain to gcc 12 and glibc 2.35.
> >
> >
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2032430
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-7b3a04be87 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-7b3a04be87
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are
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-35-20220121.0):
ID: 004 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL:
On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 08:26:00PM -0800, John Reiser wrote:
> >It
> >might be worthwhile to have a CFLAG that can tell glibc (or other allocators)
> >to substitute something like calloc for malloc.
>
> The environment variable MALLOC_PERTURB_ has been used by glibc malloc
> for over 15 years.
53 matches
Mail list logo
