I'm out of the office on Friday, so you get tomorrow's blocker summary
today! Two notes:
1. This is a big list, so some bugs may have changed status while I
was working on it.
2. Go/No-Go for the early target date is a week from today. Happy bug squashing!
Action summary
Michal Srb wrote:
> Unlike RPM repositories, Maven repositories can easily hold multiple
> versions of libraries. Once a JAR is built, the resulting bytecode will
> work with current and future JVMs. There is no need to mass-rebuild JARs
> every 6 months. And there is certainly no need to try to
Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> By the way, SOVERSION can consist of more than one digit. It can be
> 0.5.2 and this is not an error:
> https://autotools.io/libtool/version.html
Other build systems such as CMake are even more flexible than libtool and
allow arbitrary combinations of major
On Wed, 2021-10-06 at 15:41 -0500, Joe Doss wrote:
>
> > Does anybody know how to fix a currently broken instance and can
> > share
> > their solution?
>
> Is there anything on the console log when you reboot it after the
> updates? If you can share the log that would be helpful.
There's the
Have there been updated F35 wireplumber packages pushed somewhere? I haven't
seen anything on Bodhi this week, so I have not done any testing. I see the
meeting is scheduled for tomorrow morning in my timezone, so it's likely that I
(and potentially many others) will be not be able to test
Hi,
I contacted the maintainers of a golang package using
$package-maintain...@fedoraproject.org and got a bounce response from
an email that I understand is part of go-sig:
ext-mx.corp.redhat.com[10.4.204.10] said: 554 5.7.1 :
Recipient address rejected: Access denied (in reply to RCPT TO
On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 2:49 AM Scott Talbert wrote:
>
> I'm orphaning poco: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/poco
>
> I'm not sure why I picked it up originally - I don't use it. It currently
> FTBFS in rawhide due to OpenSSL 3.0 (and can't be fixed easily by going
> back to OpenSSL 1.1
On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 08:18:44AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 12:46:11AM -0400, Christopher wrote:
> > Running on EC2, it's kinda hard to get good information from a system
> > that won't boot. The machine won't boot to the point of being able to
> > capture the
Watching the recording now :)
On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 8:53 PM Dusty Mabe wrote:
>
>
> On 10/5/21 5:53 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Tomorrow we will be holding a video meeting for the Fedora CoreOS
> community.
> >
> > Harshal Patil will be joining us to give a brief overview of how
On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 12:46:11AM -0400, Christopher wrote:
> Running on EC2, it's kinda hard to get good information from a system
> that won't boot. The machine won't boot to the point of being able to
> capture the system log, and the screenshot of the instance doesn't
> appear to be super
What appears to be our nightly AMI build for F34 with updates
(125523088429/Fedora-Cloud-Base-34-20211006.0.x86_64-hvm-us-east-1-gp2-0)
won't even start once (no updating required; it's immediately broken).
The attachment won't go through on this list, but I
captured the last lines from the system
Dne 06. 10. 21 v 20:06 Stephen Snow napsal(a):
On Wed, 2021-10-06 at 18:39 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
--snip--
So it
seems we are in agreement with the `dummy-onboarding-` prefix
No, it should be something more appropriate like `entry-level-tutor-`
Keep it coming please :)
or something
> Am 06.10.2021 um 17:04 schrieb Mikolaj Izdebski :
>
> On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 1:27 PM Peter Boy wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Am 04.10.2021 um 15:29 schrieb Mikolaj Izdebski :
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 2:08 PM Peter Boy wrote:
However, we lack concepts on how to proceed after removing
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-33-20211006.0):
ID: 1017316 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL:
There is an issue with Xen instances (e.g. t2.small) - see
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2010058.
What I saw was that it would hang for a couple of minutes waiting for
the disk to appear, then give up and go into emergency mode.
The workaround is to edit the Dracut script that
On 10/7/21 3:52 AM, Richard Fearn wrote:
> There is an issue with Xen instances (e.g. t2.small) - see
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2010058.
>
> What I saw was that it would hang for a couple of minutes waiting for
> the disk to appear, then give up and go into emergency mode.
>
Hi everyone,
It's that time already! The Fedora Linux 35 Fina Go/No-Go[1] meeting
is scheduled for Thursday 14 October at 1700 UTC in #fedora-meeting.
At this time, we will determine the status of the F35 Final for the 19
October early target date[2]. For more information about the Go/No-Go
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 1/15 (aarch64)
Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-IoT-35-20211005.0):
ID: 1017889 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_clevis@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1017889
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/16 (x86_64)
(Tests
OLD: Fedora-35-20211006.n.0
NEW: Fedora-35-20211007.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 4
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0 B
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size of upgraded
On 10/5/21 04:39, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Oct 04, 2021 at 12:07:30PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Mon, Oct 04, 2021 at 01:03:27PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
Hi all! I just got back from Open Source Summit, several of the talks I
found interesting were on RISC-V -- a high-level
Dear all,
You are kindly invited to the meeting:
ELN SIG on 2021-10-08 from 12:00:00 to 13:00:00 US/Eastern
At fedora-meet...@irc.libera.chat
The meeting will be about:
Source: https://calendar.fedoraproject.org//meeting/9920/
___
devel
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.
- If you wish to read this in rendered markdown, check the post on
discussion
Announcing the creation of a new nightly release validation test event
for Fedora-IoT 35 RC 20211007.0. Please help run some tests for this
nightly compose if you have time. For more information on nightly
release validation testing, see:
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-34-20211006.0):
ID: 1017449 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL:
I've just orphaned package perl-Nagios-Plugin.
It was removed from CPAN by request of Nagios Enterprises, succeeded by
Monitoring::Plugin which is in Fedora.
Jitka
--
Jitka Plesnikova
Software Engineer
Red Hat
___
devel mailing list --
Hi!
I've updated flite from the ancient 1.3 to 2.2 in rawhide and I'm
rebuilding speech-dispatcher in a side-tag (f36-build-side-46691). The
other consumer is fawkes, which I'm not rebuilding as it doesn't use any
of the new symbols and it should run with either 1.3 or 2.2 installed.
flite 2.1
On 07/10/2021 17:45, Ben Cotton wrote:
Subpackage `remove-retired-packages` has been created (subpackage of
`fedora-upgrade`).
I suggest integrating this functionality into dnf as a plugin.
Example:
sudo dnf clean-retired --releasever=32
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
On 07. 10. 21 17:45, Ben Cotton wrote:
* We suggest users to remove packages that are no longer maintained
and may contain security vulnerabilities.
This makes perfect sense.
* We make sure that archaic packages do not break upgrade between two
versions of Fedora.
When are you supposed to
On 29. 09. 21 19:08, Ben Cotton wrote:
Fedora have a 6 months cycle, PHP and a 1 year, common practice for some years
There seem to be some errors in this sentence.
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
___
devel mailing list --
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RetiredPackages
== Summary ==
Easy the task of removing packages, which were retired and no longer
receives updates.
== Owner ==
* Name: [[User:msuchy| Miroslav Suchý]]
* Email: msu...@redhat.com
== Detailed Description ==
This follows the
On 02/10/2021 15:27, James Szinger wrote:
These days, I think FreeIPA or Active Directory are the best choices,
but both are complicated and possibly too much for a SO/HO, workgroup,
or departmental sysadmin. AD has the advantage of supporting Windows,
MacOS, and Samba; the last time I looked
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 13/204 (x86_64), 10/141 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-35-20211006.n.0):
ID: 1017531 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_repository_hd_variation
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1017531
ID: 1017554 Test:
Missing expected images:
Iot dvd aarch64
Iot dvd x86_64
Failed openQA tests: 1/16 (x86_64), 1/15 (aarch64)
Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-IoT-36-20211004.0):
ID: 1018548 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_clevis
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1018548
ID: 1018563
Le lundi 04 octobre 2021 à 14:36 +0200, Miro Hrončok a écrit :
> 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:
>
On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 18:23:00 +0200,
Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 07. 10. 21 17:45, Ben Cotton wrote:
* We suggest users to remove packages that are no longer maintained
and may contain security vulnerabilities.
This makes perfect sense.
* We make sure that archaic packages do not break
On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 1:30 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 1:50 PM Josh Stone wrote:
> >
> > On 10/4/21 12:12 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 3:07 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > >> * How good is emulation support
> > >
> > > The lack of real hardware for RISC-V
I'm orphaning poco: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/poco
I'm not sure why I picked it up originally - I don't use it. It currently
FTBFS in rawhide due to OpenSSL 3.0 (and can't be fixed easily by going
back to OpenSSL 1.1 because one of its other BR's requires OpenSSL 3.0).
Nothing in
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2012019
Bug ID: 2012019
Summary: perl-Encode-3.14 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Encode
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2011383
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-c7e5fc5c72 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-c7e5fc5c72
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2011383
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-f6d98de4ef has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-f6d98de4ef
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2011383
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2011383
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
Fixed In Version|
Hi everyone,
It's that time already! The Fedora Linux 35 Fina Go/No-Go[1] meeting
is scheduled for Thursday 14 October at 1700 UTC in #fedora-meeting.
At this time, we will determine the status of the F35 Final for the 19
October early target date[2]. For more information about the Go/No-Go
On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 9:44 AM Troy Dawson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 6:28 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 9:24 AM Troy Dawson wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 7:39 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 3:36 PM Troy Dawson wrote:
On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 9:24 AM Troy Dawson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 7:39 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 3:36 PM Troy Dawson wrote:
>> >
>> > *this is worth a discussion in todays EPEL Steering Committee Meeting*
>> >
>> > It sounds like the epel9-next is going to
On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 6:28 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 9:24 AM Troy Dawson wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 7:39 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 3:36 PM Troy Dawson wrote:
> >> >
> >> > *this is worth a discussion in todays EPEL Steering
On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 7:39 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 3:36 PM Troy Dawson wrote:
> >
> > *this is worth a discussion in todays EPEL Steering Committee Meeting*
> >
> > It sounds like the epel9-next is going to startup by building against
> the CS buildroot. Changing it at
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1997118
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://metacpan.org/releas
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2011755
Bug ID: 2011755
Summary: Upgrade perl-DBIx-SearchBuilder to 1.71
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-DBIx-SearchBuilder
Assignee:
On Wed, 2021-10-06 at 20:43 -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> Would it be possible to get BuildRequires: %{py3_dist NAME} working
> on
> EPEL7? At first I thought it was sufficient for epel-rpm-macros to
> require python3-rpm-macros, but now I think we may need to override
> the
> definition of
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1997118
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Upgrade |Upgrade
On 07. 10. 21 4:43, Orion Poplawski wrote:
Would it be possible to get BuildRequires: %{py3_dist NAME} working on EPEL7?
At first I thought it was sufficient for epel-rpm-macros to require
python3-rpm-macros, but now I think we may need to override the definition of
py3_dist. In fedora it
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RetiredPackages
== Summary ==
Easy the task of removing packages, which were retired and no longer
receives updates.
== Owner ==
* Name: [[User:msuchy| Miroslav Suchý]]
* Email: msu...@redhat.com
== Detailed Description ==
This follows the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=204
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-974b321a83 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=2009939
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-f6d98de4ef 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
On Thu, 7 Oct 2021 at 09:52, Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> >
> > That is the theory, yes, that grobisplitter isn't required.
> > But nobody was able to say that was for certain. Thus, it needs to be
> > tested.
> >
>
> I've verified this with my internal build infrastructure, so yes, I
> know it's not
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2008958
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-825dd1879f 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=2011383
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #3 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2007039
Upstream Release Monitoring
changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|perl-SNMP-Info-3.80 is |perl-SNMP-Info-3.81 is
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2007039
--- Comment #4 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
Created attachment 1830440
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1830440=edit
[patch] Update to 3.81 (#2007039)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2007039
--- Comment #5 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
the-new-hotness/release-monitoring.org's scratch build of
perl-SNMP-Info-3.81-1.fc34.src.rpm for rawhide completed
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=76875445
--
You are
The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
20 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-f005e1b879
debmirror-2.35-1.el7
The following builds have been pushed to Fedora EPEL 7 updates-testing
R-littler-0.3.14-1.el7
eot-utils-1.1-21.el7
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2011383
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-c7e5fc5c72 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=2010107
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #2 from
64 matches
Mail list logo
