https://fedorapeople.org/groups/389ds/ci/nightly/2020/03/27/report-389-ds-base-1.4.3.4-20200327git335b6de.fc31.x86_64.html
___
389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1817797
Bug ID: 1817797
Summary: perl-App-cpm-0.990 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-App-cpm
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1817764
--- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
An unexpected error occurred while creating the scratch build and has been
automatically reported. Sorry!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1817764
Bug ID: 1817764
Summary: perl-AnyEvent-Handle-UDP-0.050 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-AnyEvent-Handle-UDP
Keywords:
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 11:24 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 04:10:08PM +0100, Petr Pisar wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 03:54:07PM +0100, Petr Viktorin wrote:
> > > On 2020-03-25 17:33, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote:
> > > > [Branching] removes community
No missing expected images.
Compose PASSES proposed Rawhide gating check!
All required tests passed
Failed openQA tests: 6/171 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20200325.n.0):
ID: 557862 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_notifications_live
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 1/171 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm)
Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-32-20200325.n.0):
ID: 558110 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso apps_startstop
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/558110
ID: 558123 Test: arm Minimal-raw_xz-raw.xz
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 07:01:22PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 26. 03. 20 18:46, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 06:15:13PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > > On 26. 03. 20 18:13, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> > > > > E.g. is it going to be after mid-May or before?
> > > > I have to say
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20200325.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20200326.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:1
Dropped images: 1
Added packages: 8
Dropped packages:1
Upgraded packages: 89
Downgraded packages: 1
Size of added packages: 53.20 MiB
Size of dropped packages
Dear all,
You are kindly invited to the meeting:
EPEL Steering Committee on 2020-03-27 from 21:00:00 to 22:00:00 UTC
At freenode@fedora-meeting
The meeting will be about:
This is the weekly EPEL Steering Committee Meeting.
A general agenda is the following:
#meetingname EPEL
#topic
OLD: Fedora-32-20200325.n.0
NEW: Fedora-32-20200326.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 5
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 67
Downgraded packages: 1
Size of added packages: 77.35 MiB
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size
On 26. 03. 20 18:46, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 06:15:13PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 26. 03. 20 18:13, Tomas Mraz wrote:
E.g. is it going to be after mid-May or before?
I have to say that the schedule of the OpenSSL 3.0 release is a little
bit conflicting with the F33
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 1:11 PM Panu Matilainen
wrote:
>
> On 3/26/20 4:08 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 08:44:47AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> >> On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 8:22 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at
No missing expected images.
Passed openQA tests: 1/1 (x86_64)
--
Mail generated by check-compose:
https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 06:15:13PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 26. 03. 20 18:13, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> > > E.g. is it going to be after mid-May or before?
> > I have to say that the schedule of the OpenSSL 3.0 release is a little
> > bit conflicting with the F33 schedule. However I should be
No missing expected images.
Passed openQA tests: 1/1 (x86_64)
--
Mail generated by check-compose:
https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
On 3/25/20 4:47 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
Starting a new sub-thread.
On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 5:33 AM Aleksandra Fedorova wrote:
As Ben is on PTO, I'd like to present the System-Wide Change
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ELN_Buildroot_and_Compose
== Summary ==
The goal of the ELN
On 26. 03. 20 18:13, Tomas Mraz wrote:
E.g. is it going to be after mid-May or before?
I have to say that the schedule of the OpenSSL 3.0 release is a little
bit conflicting with the F33 schedule. However I should be able to have
a rebase to a beta version of OpenSSL 3.0 prepared at the end of
On Thu, 2020-03-26 at 17:11 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 26. 03. 20 17:07, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> > On Wed, 2020-03-25 at 09:34 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > > On 24. 03. 20 13:22, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> > > > Most probably we will revert this
> > > > change in upstream 1.1.1 branch and I will
For several years I've run my kickstart installs through a squid proxy
that caches packages that I download. My kickstarts have something
like this:
url
--url=http://mirror.chpc.utah.edu/pub/fedora/linux/releases/31/Everything/x86_64/os/
--proxy=http://squid.example.com:3128
As I test many
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815682
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2020-5059a21a1b has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade
On 3/26/20 4:08 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 08:44:47AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 8:22 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 07:38:33AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 7:33 AM Zbigniew
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 11:29:36AM -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 at 11:28, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 at 07:00, Ján ONDREJ wrote:
> >
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> I am maintainer of TurboGears packages in Fedora. After release of RHEL8,
>
I don't know, now I can't even get the ‘fedpkg local’ to reproduce it :-(
Jerry, I suggest this bug is real, but is also likely to be a bug in
Coq (most likely) or the OCaml runtime, possibly in the Weak module.
You might have more luck asking the upstream developers for help.
As for what to do
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 05:31:56PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> I recently noticed that the commit list in dist-git shows the number
> of successful/failed/cancelled builds from a given commit [e.g. 1,2].
> I haven't seen this announced, but this is super cool and useful!
> A
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 11:41:56AM -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 at 10:54, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 02:08:57PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> > wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 03:29:50PM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> > > > No, rpm
On 26. 03. 20 17:07, Tomas Mraz wrote:
On Wed, 2020-03-25 at 09:34 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 24. 03. 20 13:22, Tomas Mraz wrote:
Most probably we will revert this
change in upstream 1.1.1 branch and I will update the rawhide build
with the revert patch as well.
Can this please happen
On Wed, 2020-03-25 at 09:34 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 24. 03. 20 13:22, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> > Most probably we will revert this
> > change in upstream 1.1.1 branch and I will update the rawhide build
> > with the revert patch as well.
>
> Can this please happen rather sooner than later?
On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 at 10:54, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 02:08:57PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 03:29:50PM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> > > No, rpm doesn't use many Linux-specific calls and this is no
> > > exception. In fact it
On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 at 11:28, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 at 07:00, Ján ONDREJ wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am maintainer of TurboGears packages in Fedora. After release of RHEL8,
>> I am trying to build it for EPEL. But there are some dependencies, which
>> are not
On Thu, 26 Mar 2020 at 07:00, Ján ONDREJ wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am maintainer of TurboGears packages in Fedora. After release of RHEL8,
> I am trying to build it for EPEL. But there are some dependencies, which
> are not satisfied yet. What complicates my work is, that the unresponsible
>
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 04:10:08PM +0100, Petr Pisar wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 03:54:07PM +0100, Petr Viktorin wrote:
> > On 2020-03-25 17:33, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote:
> > > [Branching] removes community maintainer from the conversation about what
> > > downstream is doing. While we want
On 25. 03. 20 17:10, Miro Hrončok wrote:
Finally, of the set of packages that we're going to be including, we
anticipate around 200-300 of them will have distro conditionals that
need investigation (with fewer needing actual modification). The ELN
SIG will be doing this initial investigation and
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 03:54:07PM +0100, Petr Viktorin wrote:
> On 2020-03-25 17:33, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote:
> > [Branching] removes community maintainer from the conversation about what
> > downstream is doing. While we want to give community member a voice in
> > that conversation.
>
> I
On 2020-03-25 17:33, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote:
[Branching] removes community maintainer from the conversation about what
downstream is doing. While we want to give community member a voice in
that conversation.
I fear that this proposal *forces* the community member to participate
in the
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 02:08:57PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 03:29:50PM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> > No, rpm doesn't use many Linux-specific calls and this is no
> > exception. In fact it doesn't use any of the *at() family calls
> > directly either.
On 26. 03. 20 12:39, Miro Hrončok wrote:
Hello,
I've been hit today three times already with $subject. I've waited several
hours, but it is still happening.
Is this a known state? Is there some annobin/gcc rebuild currently in progress?
Annonbin was rebuilt and the problem is gone.
Can
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 08:44:47AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 8:22 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 07:38:33AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 7:33 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > -
Hi, Neil,
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 2:41 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 7:41 AM Aleksandra Fedorova
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 10:34 AM Vít Ondruch wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Dne 25. 03. 20 v 20:22 James Cassell napsal(a):
> > > > On Wed, Mar 25, 2020, at 1:18 PM,
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 7:41 AM Aleksandra Fedorova wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 10:34 AM Vít Ondruch wrote:
> >
> >
> > Dne 25. 03. 20 v 20:22 James Cassell napsal(a):
> > > On Wed, Mar 25, 2020, at 1:18 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> > >> Dne 25. 03. 20 v 18:06 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
> > >>>
On 3/26/20 2:20 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 07:38:33AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
Since RPM 4.14, RPM creates a new directory, writes the database
content there, then renames the directory when it's done.
Does it use renameat2(RENAME_EXCHANGE)?
No, rpm
Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 07:52:37AM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
>> Heads up in case anyone else hits this since apparently new gcc landed in
>> rawhide last night (gcc-10.0.1-0.10.fc33)
...
>> Will file a bug later when I get a chance.
>
> Are you using -g1 ? Might be
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 07:52:37AM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Heads up in case anyone else hits this since apparently new gcc landed in
> rawhide last night (gcc-10.0.1-0.10.fc33)
>
> Been working on/off for almost 2 weeks to get latest qtwebengine to build
> (and finally got all scratch builds
Heads up in case anyone else hits this since apparently new gcc landed in
rawhide last night (gcc-10.0.1-0.10.fc33)
Been working on/off for almost 2 weeks to get latest qtwebengine to build
(and finally got all scratch builds to succeed last night), only to see this
new failure this morning
Thanks.
чт, 26 мар. 2020 г., 15:50 Peter Robinson :
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 6:28 AM Vascom wrote:
> >
> > Why libusbx still not updated to 1.0.23?
> > Version 1.0.22 was released two years ago.
>
> Maybe it slipped through the cracks, maybe there wasn't anything of
> note that was thought to
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 6:28 AM Vascom wrote:
>
> Why libusbx still not updated to 1.0.23?
> Version 1.0.22 was released two years ago.
Maybe it slipped through the cracks, maybe there wasn't anything of
note that was thought to affect Fedora directly. The maintainers there
are normally pretty
On 3/26/20 2:35 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 02:00:49PM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
[cutting to the chase]
- a one-shot service: this is easier to implement, it just needs to
happen in one place. The hard part is making sure that the machine
does not
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 8:22 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 07:38:33AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 7:33 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > - a one-shot service: this is easier to implement, it just needs to
> > >
- Original Message -
> From: "Neal Gompa"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Cc: "Pierre-Yves Chibon" , "Pete Walter"
> , "Fedora Python SIG"
>
> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2020 1:50:30 AM
> Subject: Re: Help needed to get dependencies in EPEL 8 for pagure
>
> On
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 02:00:49PM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> >>I left it open on purpose (note the "probably" in there) as there
> >>would be any number of ways to achieve the rebuild with varying
> >>degrees of automation and opt-out opportunities, depending on what
> >>is actually
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 7:25 AM Vascom wrote:
> BZ ticket already submitted and I wrote there.
> I will try email to maintainers directly now.
>
If it's been a couple of weeks then I would just start the non-responsive
policy...
Thanks,
Richard
___
BZ ticket already submitted and I wrote there.
I will try email to maintainers directly now.
чт, 26 мар. 2020 г., 15:22 Richard Shaw :
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 1:28 AM Vascom wrote:
>
>> Why libusbx still not updated to 1.0.23?
>> Version 1.0.22 was released two years ago.
>>
>
> It would
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 07:38:33AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 7:33 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 01:16:22PM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> > > On 3/26/20 1:02 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > > >On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 1:28 AM Vascom wrote:
> Why libusbx still not updated to 1.0.23?
> Version 1.0.22 was released two years ago.
>
It would probably be better to try emailing the maintainer(s) as they may
not see you message to devel, or submit a BZ ticket.
Same for netpbm
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=42772763
Josef Ridky
Software Engineer
Core Services Team
Red Hat Czech, s.r.o.
- Original Message -
| From: "Antonio Trande"
| To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
| Cc: ja...@fedoraproject.org
| Sent:
On 3/26/20 1:32 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 01:16:22PM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
On 3/26/20 1:02 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 11:22:47AM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
=== Upgrading ===
* Ability to upgrade is not affected
*
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 12:00:14PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> This bug is VERY annoying! Although not very reproducible, I can
> usually hit it after about 4-6 hours of looping ‘fedpkg build’.
I mean ‘fedpkg local’. Local builds, not building in Koji.
Rich.
--
Richard Jones,
This bug is VERY annoying! Although not very reproducible, I can
usually hit it after about 4-6 hours of looping ‘fedpkg build’.
Considering the whole Coq build is quite lengthy you'd think that one
of these commands would hit it much more quickly:
$ while true ; do gdb -ex 'set args -coqlib
On 26/03/20 12:39, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've been hit today three times already with $subject. I've waited
> several hours, but it is still happening.
>
> Is this a known state? Is there some annobin/gcc rebuild currently in
> progress?
>
> (I'm using devel to communicate this so
Hello,
I've been hit today three times already with $subject. I've waited several
hours, but it is still happening.
Is this a known state? Is there some annobin/gcc rebuild currently in progress?
(I'm using devel to communicate this so other who are also hit by that know
what's going on.)
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 10:34 AM Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
>
> Dne 25. 03. 20 v 20:22 James Cassell napsal(a):
> > On Wed, Mar 25, 2020, at 1:18 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> >> Dne 25. 03. 20 v 18:06 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
> >>> Dne 25. 03. 20 v 17:33 Aleksandra Fedorova napsal(a):
> > [snip]
> We
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 7:33 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 01:16:22PM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> > On 3/26/20 1:02 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > >On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 11:22:47AM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > >>=== Upgrading ===
> > >>*
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 01:16:22PM +0200, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On 3/26/20 1:02 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> >On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 11:22:47AM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> >>=== Upgrading ===
> >>* Ability to upgrade is not affected
> >>* After upgrade completes, manual action
On 3/26/20 1:02 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 11:22:47AM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
=== Upgrading ===
* Ability to upgrade is not affected
* After upgrade completes, manual action (rpmdb --rebuilddb) will
probably be needed to convert to sqlite. Alternatively user
On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 11:22:47AM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> === Upgrading ===
> * Ability to upgrade is not affected
> * After upgrade completes, manual action (rpmdb --rebuilddb) will
> probably be needed to convert to sqlite. Alternatively user can change
> configuration to stay on BDB.
Do I
Hello,
I am maintainer of TurboGears packages in Fedora. After release of RHEL8, I am
trying to build it for EPEL. But there are some dependencies, which are not
satisfied yet. What complicates my work is, that the unresponsible maintainer
is a SIG, currently infra-sig. I have filled some
On 26. 03. 20 11:13, Dan Horák wrote:
results from my upgrade attempt today
Chyba:
Problém 1: problem with installed package hgview-1.13.0-1.fc31.noarch
- hgview-1.13.0-1.fc31.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
- nothing provides python3-qscintilla needed by
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1661251
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Link ID||CPAN 54956
--
You are receiving this
results from my upgrade attempt today
Chyba:
Problém 1: problem with installed package hgview-1.13.0-1.fc31.noarch
- hgview-1.13.0-1.fc31.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
- nothing provides python3-qscintilla needed by hgview-1.13.1-1.fc32.noarch
Problém 3: package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1661251
--- Comment #3 from Petr Pisar ---
Could you provide "dmidecode" command output from the machine where you observe
the warning?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Dne 25. 03. 20 v 20:22 James Cassell napsal(a):
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2020, at 1:18 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>> Dne 25. 03. 20 v 18:06 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
>>> Dne 25. 03. 20 v 17:33 Aleksandra Fedorova napsal(a):
> [snip]
We can come up with guidelines, for example:
1) Try to find a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815682
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2020-16e771d04d has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 01:20:58PM +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Where is the segfault? Is it in coqc or is it in the generated code
> or is it in the OCaml compiler or is it somewhere else?
I managed to reproduce this on my mostly Rawhide x86-64 development
machine by running fedpkg build
The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
589 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-3c9292b62d
condor-8.6.11-1.el7
331 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-c499781e80
python-gnupg-0.4.4-1.el7
329
Why libusbx still not updated to 1.0.23?
Version 1.0.22 was released two years ago.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
75 matches
Mail list logo
