On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 9:09 PM Kevin Kofler via devel
wrote:
>
> Adam Williamson wrote:
> > So here's an idea I was thinking about over the RH shutdown: I propose
> > we gate stable release critical path updates on the openQA tests.
>
> -1
>
> We already enforce too strict requirements on
Silverblue is already quite close to that proposal.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
Happy New Year everyone!
I've tried to get in touch with Eduardo concerning co-maintainership of
the python-rfc3987 package for EPEL8 a couple times at/after December
7th and haven't heard back from him.
If anybody knows how to contact him other than via his email address
stored in FAS (on Cc),
On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 02:58:02PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Tom Callaway:
>
> > This makes me very suspicious of something in glibc between 2.32
> > (Fedora 33) and 2.32.9000 (rawhide), but I'm not sure where to look
> > from here. Any ideas?
>
> Does the issue go away if you disable the
* Tom Callaway:
> This makes me very suspicious of something in glibc between 2.32
> (Fedora 33) and 2.32.9000 (rawhide), but I'm not sure where to look
> from here. Any ideas?
Does the issue go away if you disable the Chromium sandbox?
One difference is that the stat functions are called in a
I orphaned:
jabberpy
This package was used by Spacewalk and RH no longer work on this project and I
have no use for this package.
--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Associate Manager, Community Packaging Tools, #brno, #fedora-buildsys
___
devel mailing
Looks like this might be it. Running with --no-sandbox brings back the
strings. Is there a reference to how the stat calls should now be done?
Thanks,
~spot
On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 8:58 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Tom Callaway:
>
> > This makes me very suspicious of something in glibc between
Just to let everybody know, Ruby 3.0 has landed in Rawhide. The binary
packages have been rebuilt, but there might be other compatibility
issue. If you need help fixing your package, please come to discuss the
issue to ruby-sig ML.
Vít
Dne 02. 12. 20 v 19:07 Ben Cotton napsal(a):
* Tom Callaway:
> Looks like this might be it. Running with --no-sandbox brings back the
> strings. Is there a reference to how the stat calls should now be
> done?
I suspect some of the preprocessor conditionals in
SyscallSets::IsFileSystem in
Hello all,
Looking at the reboot meeting logs, looks like we initially meant to
reconvene on January 6, then pivoted to finding a next meeting time and
avoid selection bias... then with the holidays that never happened.
I've started a WhenIsGood, picking a timezone that should work for
people
> * Peter Robinson:
>
>
> If the signatures end up in RPM headers, they will land in the RPM
> database, too.
>
> “rpm -qla | wc -l” shows around 28,589 files for me, in the Fedora 33
> container image. / seems to need 183 MiB right now. If the signatures
> land in the RPM database and the
* Daniel P. Berrangé:
> On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 02:58:02PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Tom Callaway:
>>
>> > This makes me very suspicious of something in glibc between 2.32
>> > (Fedora 33) and 2.32.9000 (rawhide), but I'm not sure where to look
>> > from here. Any ideas?
>>
>> Does the
Based on my (admittedly extremely limited) understanding of things, this
seems correct as is:
#if defined(__x86_64__) || defined(__aarch64__)
case __NR_newfstatat: // fstatat(). EPERM not a valid errno.
#elif defined(__i386__) || defined(__arm__) || \
(defined(ARCH_CPU_MIPS_FAMILY) &&
On 11/30/20 2:06 PM, Tom Stellard wrote:
Hi,
As part of the f34 change request[1] for removing make from the
buildroot, I will be doing a mass update of packages[2] to add
BuildRequires: make where it is needed.
If you are a package maintainer and would prefer to update your packages
on
On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 06:41:36AM +0100, Onyeibo Oku wrote:
> Is this still active? My Firefox plugins are getting disabled and I
> cannot install new ones (they are reported as corrupt). Is there a new
> instance of this bug?
Yeah, it came back because as Adams says:
On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 6:26 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
> Hey folks!
>
> So here's an idea I was thinking about over the RH shutdown: I propose
> we gate stable release critical path updates on the openQA tests.
>
+1, awesome
I'm glad I'm not going to be that person that everybody pokes when
On Friday, January 8, 2021 3:38:44 PM WET Christoph Karl wrote:
> Hello everyone!
>
> I want to un-retire the package python-pyswip.
>
> According to "dead.package" the reason for retiring this package is/was:
> "SWI Prolog (package pl) has been retired from Fedora, this package
> provided
On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 07:32:59AM -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
> I'm working on building the new openexr package but the unit tests are
> failing
> but just on aarch64 and s390x.
>
> The aarch64 test instances are down due to the infra move and there are none
> for s390x.
>
> What's the best
Hello everyone!
I want to un-retire the package python-pyswip.
According to "dead.package" the reason for retiring this package is/was:
"SWI Prolog (package pl) has been retired from Fedora, this package
provided Python bindings for SWI Prolog."
I checked this with Jerry James (maintainer of
After review, Fedora has determined that the Nmap Public Source
License (NPSL) Version 0.92[1] is not acceptable for use in Fedora. We
have updated our "Bad License" list[2] to include NPSL. No software
under that license may be included in Fedora (including EPEL and
COPRs).
The license includes
Just wondering whether there is a particular reason 5.10 kernel has not been
submitted for testing in bodhi for F33. Or is it simply an oversight?
--
Bojan
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
Before be submitted in bodhi , we can test here:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jforbes/kernel-stabilization
On Fri, 2021-01-08 at 22:40 +, Bojan Smojver via devel wrote:
> Just wondering whether there is a particular reason 5.10 kernel has
> not been submitted for testing in
On 08. 01. 21 23:24, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 09:34:29PM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
So if anything, I think this change is in line with your views here.
Well, if (and as long as) the gating only blocks the autopush and does not
prevent a manual push (as yet
On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 11:26:57PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >>Well, if (and as long as) the gating only blocks the autopush and does not
> >>prevent a manual push (as yet another requirement), I withdraw my objection.
> >
> >I think we should get to the point where it blocks manual pushes
Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> I think you've got this backwards, Kevin. This is about disabling the
> autopush if any of those tests fail. So the result would be that
> critical path packages would get 1) more testing before the existing
> autopush occurs and 2) if any of those tests fail, it won't
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/php80
== Summary ==
Update the PHP stack in Fedora to latest version 8.0.x
== Owner ==
* Name: [[User:Remi| Remi Collet]] and [[SIGs/PHP|PHP SIG]]
* Email: remi at fedoraproject dot org
== Detailed Description ==
Update the PHP stack in Fedora to latest
On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 09:34:29PM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> > So if anything, I think this change is in line with your views here.
>
> Well, if (and as long as) the gating only blocks the autopush and does not
> prevent a manual push (as yet another requirement), I withdraw my
Hi,
I'm initiating the non-responsive maintainer process for tnorth,
per
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers/
An EPEL branch request has been open since November 19 with no
response.
Does anyone know how to get in touch with him?
Bugzilla:
On Fri, 2021-01-08 at 23:26 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 08. 01. 21 23:24, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 09:34:29PM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> > > > So if anything, I think this change is in line with your views here.
> > >
> > > Well, if (and as long as) the
Yeah, I'm aware of alternative testing mechanisms and I already
participated in the testing of kernel 5.10. That's not the problem.
Kernel 5.9 is EOL. 5.10.5 fixes CVE-2020-36158, for example. There is
no choice but to go to that branch now anyway. So, I am wondering
whether there is some known
On Fri, 2021-01-08 at 15:34 -0800, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm initiating the non-responsive maintainer process for tnorth,
> per
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers/
>
> An EPEL branch request has been open since November 19
On Fri, 2021-01-08 at 21:34 +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > I think you've got this backwards, Kevin. This is about disabling the
> > autopush if any of those tests fail. So the result would be that
> > critical path packages would get 1) more testing before the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914186
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-b4ced75f82 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-b4ced75f82
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914243
Bug ID: 1914243
Summary: perl-App-cpm-0.997000 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-App-cpm
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
Thanks. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914192. Nick
On 08/01/2021 09:59, Petr Pisar wrote:
On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 09:11:57AM +, Nick Howitt wrote:
How do I request an update to ddclient for EL7? It looks like EL8 has moved
to the forked version, 3.9.1, but EL7 is stuck on
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914243
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Doc Type|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914188
Bug ID: 1914188
Summary: Upgrade perl-Gnome2-Wnck to 0.18
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Gnome2-Wnck
Assignee: liangsuil...@gmail.com
On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 09:11:57AM +, Nick Howitt wrote:
> How do I request an update to ddclient for EL7? It looks like EL8 has moved
> to the forked version, 3.9.1, but EL7 is stuck on the old un-forked version
> of 3.8.3-2 which had its development stopped in 2015. I need a later version
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914186
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914186
Bug ID: 1914186
Summary: Upgrade perl-Gnome2-Vte to 0.12
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Gnome2-Vte
Assignee: ppi...@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914186
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-743598dc16 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-743598dc16
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914227
Bug ID: 1914227
Summary: perl-MooseX-App: FTBFS with Moose 2.2014
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
URL: https://koschei.fedoraproject.org/package/perl-MooseX-
App
https://fedorapeople.org/groups/389ds/ci/nightly/2021/01/08/report-389-ds-base-2.0.1-20210108git65678bb3b.fc33.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=1914124
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-a809aab738 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-a809aab738
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914124
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-4f4825533c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-4f4825533c
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914124
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914172
Bug ID: 1914172
Summary: Upgrade perl-App-CLI to 0.52
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-App-CLI
Assignee: emman...@seyman.fr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914006
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914006
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914173
Bug ID: 1914173
Summary: Upgrade perl-Carp-Assert-More to 1.26
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Carp-Assert-More
Assignee: spo...@gmail.com
How do I request an update to ddclient for EL7? It looks like EL8 has
moved to the forked version, 3.9.1, but EL7 is stuck on the old
un-forked version of 3.8.3-2 which had its development stopped in 2015.
I need a later version as Cloudflare's API changed after 2015.
Regards,
Nick
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914006
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-724ee60bff has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-724ee60bff
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914006
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-340dcab125 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-340dcab125
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914124
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914174
Bug ID: 1914174
Summary: Upgrade perl-Config-Model-TkUI to 1.373
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Config-Model-TkUI
Assignee:
Notification time stamped 2021-01-08 19:02:41 UTC
From f506a8c5c50741d0485ed2950c92657a6c610b97 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Tom Stellard
Date: Jan 08 2021 19:02:36 +
Subject: Add BuildRequires: make
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Remove_make_from_BuildRoot
---
diff --git
On Fri, 8 Jan 2021, Nick Howitt wrote:
On 08/01/2021 14:22, Scott Talbert wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2021, Richard Shaw wrote:
On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 4:27 AM Nick Howitt wrote:
Thanks. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914192.
Nick
Hopefully that works for you but my
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914173
Xavier Bachelot changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914173
Xavier Bachelot changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Resolution|---
Notification time stamped 2021-01-08 19:00:02 UTC
From c75deeac5d8008a3504fbd4f4ac4f513af6ef1e8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Tom Stellard
Date: Jan 08 2021 18:59:56 +
Subject: Add BuildRequires: make
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Remove_make_from_BuildRoot
---
diff --git
Notification time stamped 2021-01-08 19:00:13 UTC
From 44854d317e36f70248a31b6d356cc759ef02de38 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Tom Stellard
Date: Jan 08 2021 19:00:08 +
Subject: Add BuildRequires: make
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Remove_make_from_BuildRoot
---
diff --git
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914367
Bug ID: 1914367
Summary: perl-Net-HTTP-6.20 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Net-HTTP
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914243
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
On Fri, 8 Jan 2021, Richard Shaw wrote:
On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 4:27 AM Nick Howitt wrote:
Thanks. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914192.
Nick
Hopefully that works for you but my experience is things change very slowly
for EL, specifically EL 7 and I wouldn't expect
On 08/01/2021 14:22, Scott Talbert wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2021, Richard Shaw wrote:
On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 4:27 AM Nick Howitt wrote:
Thanks. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914192.
Nick
Hopefully that works for you but my experience is things change very
slowly
On 11/30/20 2:06 PM, Tom Stellard wrote:
Hi,
As part of the f34 change request[1] for removing make from the
buildroot, I will be doing a mass update of packages[2] to add
BuildRequires: make where it is needed.
If you are a package maintainer and would prefer to update your packages
on
After review, Fedora has determined that the Nmap Public Source
License (NPSL) Version 0.92[1] is not acceptable for use in Fedora. We
have updated our "Bad License" list[2] to include NPSL. No software
under that license may be included in Fedora (including EPEL and
COPRs).
The license includes
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/php80
== Summary ==
Update the PHP stack in Fedora to latest version 8.0.x
== Owner ==
* Name: [[User:Remi| Remi Collet]] and [[SIGs/PHP|PHP SIG]]
* Email: remi at fedoraproject dot org
== Detailed Description ==
Update the PHP stack in Fedora to latest
The following Fedora EPEL 8 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
9 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-d4406c9c75
awstats-7.8-2.el8
8 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-001e4d949f
dia-0.97.3-16.el8
3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914006
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #4 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914186
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #4 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1911534
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-724ee60bff has been pushed to the Fedora 33 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=1914006
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-724ee60bff has been pushed to the Fedora 33 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=1914124
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-a809aab738 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 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=1914186
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-b4ced75f82 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 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=1911534
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-340dcab125 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 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=1914124
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #5 from
https://fedorapeople.org/groups/389ds/ci/nightly/2021/01/09/report-389-ds-base-2.0.1-20210109git65678bb3b.fc33.x86_64.html
___
389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
78 matches
Mail list logo
