https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2124136
Bug ID: 2124136
Summary: Please branch and build perl-ExtUtils-XSBuilder in
epel9
Product: Fedora EPEL
Version: epel9
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
On Sat, Sep 03, 2022 at 08:32:47PM +1000, Frank Crawford wrote:
>
> The document I used
> was
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Update_Guide/#multiple_packages
>
> It was the only place I could find that really talked about side-tags,
> and wait-repo looks only
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123426
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-66cf5d4e88 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=2123426
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-5213abf65a has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing
Bruno Postle wrote on 2022/09/04 17:44:
Can someone give me hint as to what I'm doing wrong here, I have a C++
package that builds fine for f35 & f36 with x86_64 & aarch64, but
which fails on f37-x86_64 (the build is ok on f37-aarch64):
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1934532
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|perl-Astro-FITS-CFITSIO-1.1 |perl-Astro-FITS-CFITSIO-1.1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1934532
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Resolution|---
Here we go:
- F37: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-8414514ae6
- rawhide: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-0c2d48988e
After the mass rebuild in the F37 side tag, we tagged all builds also
in a rawhide side tag, rebuilt everything in one go, untagged the F37
On 04-09-2022 22:52, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 04. 09. 22 22:08, Sandro wrote:
On 04-09-2022 20:42, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 04. 09. 22 14:15, Sandro wrote:
Hi,
Hi.
I'm tinkering with a package in review, trying to understand the Python RPM
build process. The package is hatch-fancy-pypi-readme
On 04. 09. 22 22:08, Sandro wrote:
On 04-09-2022 20:42, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 04. 09. 22 14:15, Sandro wrote:
Hi,
Hi.
I'm tinkering with a package in review, trying to understand the Python RPM
build process. The package is hatch-fancy-pypi-readme [1].
The package uses hatch for build,
On 04-09-2022 20:42, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 04. 09. 22 14:15, Sandro wrote:
Hi,
Hi.
I'm tinkering with a package in review, trying to understand the Python RPM
build process. The package is hatch-fancy-pypi-readme [1].
The package uses hatch for build, but it includes a non-license file,
On Sat, 2022-09-03 at 13:39 -0500, Richard Shaw wrote:
> Have you tried building the package yourself yet? When asking for
> someone to support an EPEL branch it's not always straightforward. I
> tried building the rawhide branch for EPEL 9 and ran into the
> following:
>
> No matching package to
On Sun, Sep 4, 2022 at 6:29 PM Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
> You might want to watch our Nest with Fedora 2022 talk. More features
> are coming too, we are working on a direct FIDO2 integration in SSSD and
> FreeIPA .
Thanks for the update. Good news about the progress. I will watch the
On 04. 09. 22 14:15, Sandro wrote:
Hi,
Hi.
I'm tinkering with a package in review, trying to understand the Python RPM
build process. The package is hatch-fancy-pypi-readme [1].
The package uses hatch for build, but it includes a non-license file,
AUTHORS.md, which I thought would be
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123969
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-820d29ea37 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-820d29ea37
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123968
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-820d29ea37 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-820d29ea37
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123967
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-820d29ea37 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-820d29ea37
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
On su, 04 syys 2022, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
On Sun, Sep 4, 2022 at 3:52 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
Well, not really. 2FA isn't a magic bullet. I would be in favor of
doing this, but you can't treat any security measure as solving all
your problems completely.
Nothing is a magic bullet (and
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123967
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Fixed In
On Sun, Sep 4 2022 at 04:48:10 PM +, Gary Buhrmaster
wrote:
However, last this was discussed, the Fedora AAA system(s)
did not (yet?) support the full fido2/webauthn/passkey
functionality, so at this time such full integration is just a
dream(*).
You don't have to be a provenpackager to
On Sun, Sep 4, 2022 at 3:48 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
> Personally, once a year wouldn't be anywhere near frequent enough to
> trigger me to Do Something About It - it took me years to turn off
> Bugzilla's "hey look you have needinfo bugs!" thing and I was getting
> that every *day*. :P But I
On Sun, Sep 4, 2022 at 3:52 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
> Well, not really. 2FA isn't a magic bullet. I would be in favor of
> doing this, but you can't treat any security measure as solving all
> your problems completely.
Nothing is a magic bullet (and most security can be bypassed
with the $10
Hey!
Can't join on Tuesday next week as i will be at the Red Hat Open Tour
Stockholm event then
On 9/4/22, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Hi folks! I'm proposing we cancel the QA meeting tomrrow. It's a holiday
> in North America and I don't have anything much for the agenda again.
> There will be a
Hi folks! I'm proposing we cancel the QA meeting tomrrow. It's a holiday
in North America and I don't have anything much for the agenda again.
There will be a blocker review meeting on Tuesday, due to the holiday.
If you're aware of anything it would be useful to discuss this week,
please do
On Sun, 2022-09-04 at 10:18 +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> On 04/09/2022 02:40, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Maybe if there are
> > folks like that they'd be happy to drop the privileges so if they do
> > lose their laptop or something, the consequences are more limited.
>
> We just need
On Sun, 2022-09-04 at 03:02 +, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 4, 2022 at 1:06 AM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> > Perhaps it would be better (although more noisy) to just mail all
> > provenpackagers every cycle and ask if anyone would like to leave the
> > group?
>
> One should ask a PP (I
On Sun, Sep 4, 2022 at 1:38 PM Mattia Verga via devel
wrote:
> If anyone wants to have a look to what packages **may** be orphaned when
> those users are removed from the packager group, I've set up a script
> and uploaded the results here [1].
Thanks for doing this.
The list does not look
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123968
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123969
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123186
Emmanuel Seyman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Doc Type|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2123185
Emmanuel Seyman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version||perl-HTML-Tiny-1.07-1.fc38
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2122868
Emmanuel Seyman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Fixed In Version|
Il 19/08/22 18:53, Gary Buhrmaster ha scritto:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 10:47 AM P J P wrote:
>
>> * Interesting numbers there.
> (see below on another number)
>
>> * While I get that such pruning from time to time is generally good.
>>What happens to the packages orphaned by removing
I noticed on the packager dashboard that I have a package that was failing
for EPEL 7[1] and I have since fixed it, but I don't need to build a new
package and Koschei hasn't attempted a rebuild since 6/29.
While I could just ignore it, I was wondering if there was a way to force a
rebuild? I see
OLD: Fedora-37-20220903.n.0
NEW: Fedora-37-20220904.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:2
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:1
Upgraded packages: 0
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0 B
Size of dropped packages:1.33 MiB
Size
Hi,
I'm tinkering with a package in review, trying to understand the Python
RPM build process. The package is hatch-fancy-pypi-readme [1].
The package uses hatch for build, but it includes a non-license file,
AUTHORS.md, which I thought would be trivial to patch around, so it's
not included
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20220903.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20220904.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:1
Dropped images: 1
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:1
Upgraded packages: 32
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0 B
Size of dropped packages:1.33 MiB
Can someone give me hint as to what I'm doing wrong here, I have a C++
package that builds fine for f35 & f36 with x86_64 & aarch64, but
which fails on f37-x86_64 (the build is ok on f37-aarch64):
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/bpostle/IfcOpenShell/build/4771106/
[ 0%] Building CXX
On 04/09/2022 02:40, Adam Williamson wrote:
Maybe if there are
folks like that they'd be happy to drop the privileges so if they do
lose their laptop or something, the consequences are more limited.
We just need to force all proven packagers to use 2FA. Problem solved.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly
On 04/09/2022 00:01, Adam Williamson wrote:
But yeah, looking at that, one 'loophole' is it doesn't check if
they're actually needing*proven* packager powers - just packager
powers. If a proven packager is only building packages they have
explicit commit rights to, they may not need proven
Il 04/09/22 00:01, Adam Williamson ha scritto:
> On Sat, 2022-09-03 at 13:04 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 03, 2022 at 12:24:11PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>> So, I have a probably-controversial idea for a follow-up on this.
>>>
>>> Even after this sweep, we have 141 proven
41 matches
Mail list logo
