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-35-20211212.0):
ID: 1085437 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL:
There was a leak in 0.3.40 that could explain this, see
https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/pipewire/pipewire/-/issues/1840
Upcoming 0.3.41 will have this fixed. At least I can't reproduce this
anymore with the test you posted below.
Wim
On Sun, Dec 12, 2021 at 12:49 PM Dominique Martinet
wrote:
>
Missing expected images:
Iot dvd x86_64
Iot dvd aarch64
Failed openQA tests: 1/16 (x86_64), 2/15 (aarch64)
Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-IoT-36-20211211.0):
ID: 1085449 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_clevis
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1085449
ID: 1085465
The information is not lost (it's already emitted by Anitya in
anitya.project.version.update.v2 message topic), The New Hotness just
don't know how to work with it yet. It's planned as an upcoming feature.
Michal
On 09. 12. 21 16:54, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
On Thu, Dec 9 2021 at 03:59:39 PM
If you think this will be a fine feature for The New Hotness, please
feel free to file a ticket in
https://github.com/fedora-infra/the-new-hotness/issues
Michal
On 09. 12. 21 16:49, Jerry James wrote:
On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 8:32 AM Michal Konecny wrote:
The New Hotness uses RPM version
On 09. 12. 21 18:34, Fabio Valentini wrote:
On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 2:57 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
...
The only way I can think of to "ignore" pre-releases is to add a
"Version filter" on release-monitoring.org ...
I've started adding a "alpha;beta;rc;pre" filter (and set the
versioning to
This would create a vast amount of bogus notifications and there are
multiple reasons why:
1) Editing the project in Anitya (this could create a really strange
versions, especially for custom backend)
2) Creating a new project in Anitya (the first check usually retrieves
large amount of new
On 12. 12. 21 23:03, Volker Fröhlich wrote:
> I don't want to be a package maintainer anymore.
>
> All of my packages are up for grabs.
...
* polyclipping
I've taken that one for 3D printing. Co-maintainers welcome.
The following packages I care about require polyclipping-devel:
CuraEngine
On 09. 12. 21 21:15, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 09. 12. 21 18:34, Fabio Valentini wrote:
On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 2:57 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 09. 12. 21 13:54, Michal Konecny wrote:
Hello everyone,
The New Hotness 1.0.0 is now live in Fedora infra production
environment. For
those who
> In Fedora, we use a new package signing key for each Fedora release.
> What key would be used for the fs-verity signatures: the same key,
> a separate key? Edit: I see that the Change page says a dedicated key is used.
Hi all
I'm doing related work in this area. I'll provide some additional
On 13. 12. 21 14:33, Ben Beasley wrote:
I’m happy to co-maintain polyclipping. It’s an indirect dependency for my
low-priority project of packaging https://github.com/googlefonts/gftools.
Thanks.
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 7:12 AM Peter Hutterer wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> libwacom had a soname bump for the upcoming release. I've already rebuilt
> - libinput
> - cinnamon, cinnamon-control-center and cinnamon-settings-daemon
> - mutter, gnome-control-center, gnome-settings-daemon
> -
I’m happy to co-maintain polyclipping. It’s an indirect dependency for
my low-priority project of packaging https://github.com/googlefonts/gftools.
– Ben Beasley (FAS music)
On 12/13/21 05:11, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 12. 12. 21 23:03, Volker Fröhlich wrote:
> I don't want to be a package
There is nothing on the agenda, so I'm cancelling today's meeting.
I'll "chair" the next meeting too.
A when-is-good poll has been opened, so it's possible we'll move the
time to something more pleasant.
= Discussed and Voted in the Ticket =
#2704 F36 Change: ostree native containers / CoreOS
I'll take Zabbix if no one else is interested.
\--
Gwyn Ciesla
she/her/hers
\
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love
\-d. bowie
Sent from ProtonMail mobile
\ Original Message
On Dec 12,
Dne 12. 12. 21 v 12:33 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a):
On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 10:47:52AM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 10. 12. 21 v 0:08 Davide Cavalca via devel napsal(a):
On Fri, 2021-12-03 at 22:08 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
I'm unclear about the threat model - this is an
On 12/12/21 06:21 PM, Scott Talbert wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2021, Steven A. Falco wrote:
I also noticed that python3-wxpython4 appears to require the 3.0 branch, so
that might be what is causing both 3.0 and 3.1 of wxGTK to be dragged in:
$ rpm -q --requires python3-wxpython4
...
I've been thinking a little about how Go is updated in Fedora. I would like
to hear other opinions about the current state of the releases and improve
it.
This is not related to the Fedora proposal that I'm planning to submit
today regarding the update of Go. I do not pretend to change anything
Hi Zbyszek,
On 10. 12. 21 8:34, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
Hi,
heads-up: systemd 250-rc1 has been built in rawhide.
If there are regressions, please file a bug or let me know otherwise.
just a minor thing about systemd cryptsetup plugins, but please take a
look at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Keylime_subpackaging_and_agent_alternatives
== Summary ==
The [https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/keylime keylime] package will
be split into subpackages per role (agent, registrar, verifier, and
admin components), while allowing the alternative agent
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/GHC_parallel_version_installs
== Summary ==
Introduce ghcX.Y packages to Fedora which can be parallel installed,
in addition to the main ghc package.
== Owner ==
* Name: [[User:Petersen|Jens Petersen]]
* Email: peter...@redhat.com
== Detailed Description
On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 11:41 AM Michal Konecny wrote:
>
>
> Do you have an example? Because this is a bug. If the project doesn't
> have some strange versioning scheme the stable should be still
> considered newer than pre-release and the message should be emitted and
> processed by The New
* Volker Fröhlich [12/12/2021 23:03] :
All of my packages are up for grabs.
I de-facto maintain already:
gdal
libgeotiff
librasterlite2
libspatialite
qgis
spatialite-tools
I can also take
freexl
python-OWSLib
python-Rtree
spatialindex
xerces-c
Sandro
On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 02:22:24PM +0100, Alejandro Saez Morollon wrote:
> A hypothetical new release cycle would look like this:
>
>- Fedora N release follows Go upstream as close as we can.
>- Fedora N-1 sticks with the latest major version of Go that was
>available on it until the
On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 03:00:29PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> It's an excercise in minimizing our footprint (for containers,
> embedded devices) , but still providing a rich feature set for those
> who want it, without requiring recompilation, and whith automatic
> upgrading to the full
On Mon, 2021-12-13 at 16:00 +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Would it be possible to document the editing of protected file in the
> change proposal, probably including example of the best way to do it
> (is
> it possible to replace the file by symlink?) Or is there a way to
> temporary enable the
Hello everyone,
Thanks to the work of one of Blender contributors [1], Blender runs on
Wayland with upstream patches yet to land mainline [2]. The method was
enabling "*WITH_GHOST_WAYLAND"*parameter along the patch setting
"BLENDER_WAYLAND" environment when running a Wayland session.
To see
Wim Taymans wrote on Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 09:22:42AM +0100:
> There was a leak in 0.3.40 that could explain this, see
> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/pipewire/pipewire/-/issues/1840
>
> Upcoming 0.3.41 will have this fixed. At least I can't reproduce this
> anymore with the test you posted
On 12/2/21 11:36, Ben Cotton wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FsVerityRPM
== Summary ==
Enable the use of fsverity for installed RPM files validation.
== Owners ==
* Name: [[User:Dcavalca|Davide Cavalca]], [[User:Borisb|Boris
Burkov]], [[User:Filbranden|Filipe Brandenburger]],
We don't have a proof of concept for the LSM module. I agree with you that in
practice it would probably need to implement some kind of "list of files we
care about", but I do not have an intelligent opinion about that.
Based on Roberto's comment in a different sub-thread, there could be some
Hello fellow java package maintainers!
As you know we are buming the JDK from java-11-openjdk to java-17-openjdk for
f36. Please see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Java17
I had updated the:
Sorry this wasn't clear.
The rpm carries just 'c' (as well as some small, fixed-size metadata for
interpreting it, like hash algorithm)
Just to explain that comment which suggested 'a': we have to compute the Merkle
tree at build time in order to get a root hash to sign. The Merkle tree is
On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 07:32:34PM -, Boris Burkov via devel wrote:
> Sorry this wasn't clear.
>
> The rpm carries just 'c' (as well as some small, fixed-size metadata for
> interpreting it, like hash algorithm)
>
> Just to explain that comment which suggested 'a': we have to compute the
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031690
Emmanuel Seyman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Doc Type|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031545
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||p...@city-fan.org
--- Comment #1 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031539
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||p...@city-fan.org
Depends On|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031690
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||2031539
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031690
Bug ID: 2031690
Summary: Please branch and build perl-Test-Needs in epel9
Product: Fedora EPEL
Version: epel9
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Test-Needs
Assignee:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031760
Bug ID: 2031760
Summary: perl-Crypt-URandom for EPEL 9
Product: Fedora EPEL
Version: epel9
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Crypt-URandom
Assignee: ppi...@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031753
Bug ID: 2031753
Summary: perl-Authen-Captcha for EPEL 9
Product: Fedora EPEL
Version: epel9
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Authen-Captcha
Assignee: lkund...@v3.sk
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031752
Bug ID: 2031752
Summary: perl-Apache-Session-Browseable for EPEL 9
Product: Fedora EPEL
Version: epel9
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Apache-Session-Browseable
Assignee:
On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 at 06:21, Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 6:13 AM Troy Dawson wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 11, 2021 at 1:58 AM Frank Crawford
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Folks,
> >>
> >> I'm looking at building a package that currently exists in EPEL8 for
> >> EPEL9. I have a
Hello.
Considering that EPEL 9 Next repo is an **additional** repo to EPEL 9 (is that
still the case?), should EPEL 9 overrides be visible for EPEL 9 Next builds?
They are currently not.
Also, consider 2 different builds of package foo:
- foo-1.0-1.el9.next in stable EPEL 9 Next
-
On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 6:13 AM Troy Dawson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 11, 2021 at 1:58 AM Frank Crawford
> wrote:
>>
>> Folks,
>>
>> I'm looking at building a package that currently exists in EPEL8 for
>> EPEL9. I have a new branch epel9 branch for my package, but when I try
>> to do a mock
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031759
Bug ID: 2031759
Summary: perl-Config-IniFiles for EPEL 9
Product: Fedora EPEL
Version: epel9
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Config-IniFiles
Assignee: spo...@gmail.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031731
Bug ID: 2031731
Summary: Please branch and build perl-ExtUtils-PkgConfig in
epel9
Product: Fedora EPEL
Version: epel9
Status: NEW
Component:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2028913
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|spo...@gmail.com|p...@city-fan.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031731
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||2028913
Referenced Bugs:
On Mon, 2021-12-13 at 06:18 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 6:13 AM Troy Dawson
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 11, 2021 at 1:58 AM Frank Crawford
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Folks,
> > >
> > > I'm looking at building a package that currently exists in EPEL8
> > > for
> >
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031756
Bug ID: 2031756
Summary: perl-Cache-Cache for EPEL 9
Product: Fedora EPEL
Version: epel9
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Cache-Cache
Assignee: p...@city-fan.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031754
Bug ID: 2031754
Summary: perl-Authen-PAM for EPEL 9
Product: Fedora EPEL
Version: epel9
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Authen-PAM
Assignee: jples...@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031755
Bug ID: 2031755
Summary: perl-Authen-Radius for EPEL 9
Product: Fedora EPEL
Version: epel9
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Authen-Radius
Assignee: p...@city-fan.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031440
Emmanuel Seyman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031751
Bug ID: 2031751
Summary: perl-Apache-Session for EPEL 9
Product: Fedora EPEL
Version: epel9
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Apache-Session
Assignee: p...@city-fan.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031757
Bug ID: 2031757
Summary: perl-Cache-Memcached for EPEL 9
Product: Fedora EPEL
Version: epel9
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Cache-Memcached
Assignee: emman...@seyman.fr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031761
Bug ID: 2031761
Summary: perl-DateTime-Format-RFC3339 for EPEL 9
Product: Fedora EPEL
Version: epel9
Status: NEW
Component: perl-DateTime-Format-RFC3339
Assignee:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031796
Bug ID: 2031796
Summary: perl-Email-Sender for EPEL 9
Product: Fedora EPEL
Version: epel9
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Email-Sender
Assignee: emman...@seyman.fr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031799
Bug ID: 2031799
Summary: perl-FCGI-ProcManager for EPEL 9
Product: Fedora EPEL
Version: epel9
Status: NEW
Component: perl-FCGI-ProcManager
Assignee: emman...@seyman.fr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031804
Bug ID: 2031804
Summary: perl-Log-Log4perl for EPEL 9
Product: Fedora EPEL
Version: epel9
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Log-Log4perl
Assignee: jples...@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031801
Bug ID: 2031801
Summary: perl-HTML-Template for EPEL 9
Product: Fedora EPEL
Version: epel9
Status: NEW
Component: perl-HTML-Template
Assignee: spo...@gmail.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031817
Bug ID: 2031817
Summary: perl-Test-LeakTrace for EPEL 9
Product: Fedora EPEL
Version: epel9
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Test-LeakTrace
Assignee: p...@city-fan.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031751
--- Comment #2 from Xavier Bachelot ---
perl-Linux-Pid branch requested:
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/39451
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Hi.
I have two questions regarding epel9:
1) I have requested dozen of epe9 branches for my packages. It was 20+ hours ago. E.g.
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/39402
Is it manual process? Or is the automation broken?
2) It was quite pain to go through all my packages and
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031815
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||2031817
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031755
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031806
Bug ID: 2031806
Summary: perl-Mouse for EPEL 9
Product: Fedora EPEL
Version: epel9
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Mouse
Assignee: p...@city-fan.org
Reporter:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031329
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xav...@bachelot.org
--- Comment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031804
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Doc Type|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031807
Bug ID: 2031807
Summary: perl-Net-OAuth for EPEL 9
Product: Fedora EPEL
Version: epel9
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Net-OAuth
Assignee: san...@hoentjen.eu
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031809
Bug ID: 2031809
Summary: perl-Net-OpenID-Server for EPEL 9
Product: Fedora EPEL
Version: epel9
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Net-OpenID-Server
Assignee:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031812
Bug ID: 2031812
Summary: perl-Plack for EPEL 9
Product: Fedora EPEL
Version: epel9
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Plack
Assignee: rc040...@freenet.de
Reporter:
On 13. 12. 21 15:25, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Hi.
I have two questions regarding epel9:
1) I have requested dozen of epe9 branches for my packages. It was 20+ hours
ago. E.g. https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/39402
Is it manual process? Or is the automation broken?
The
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031539
Bug 2031539 depends on bug 2031544, which changed state.
Bug 2031544 Summary: Please branch and build perl-MIME-Lite in epel9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031544
What|Removed |Added
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031539
Xavier Bachelot changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||2030278
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031816
Bug ID: 2031816
Summary: perl-String-Random for EPEL 9
Product: Fedora EPEL
Version: epel9
Status: NEW
Component: perl-String-Random
Assignee: emman...@seyman.fr
On Mon, 13 Dec 2021 at 09:25, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>
> Hi.
>
> I have two questions regarding epel9:
>
> 1) I have requested dozen of epe9 branches for my packages. It was 20+ hours
> ago. E.g.
> https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/39402
> Is it manual process? Or is the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031806
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031817
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||2031815
Doc Type|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031798
Bug ID: 2031798
Summary: perl-FCGI-Client for EPEL 9
Product: Fedora EPEL
Version: epel9
Status: NEW
Component: perl-FCGI-Client
Assignee: emman...@seyman.fr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031800
Bug ID: 2031800
Summary: perl-GD-SecurityImage for EPEL 9
Product: Fedora EPEL
Version: epel9
Status: NEW
Component: perl-GD-SecurityImage
Assignee: emman...@seyman.fr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031756
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031808
Bug ID: 2031808
Summary: perl-Net-OpenID-Consumer for EPEL 9
Product: Fedora EPEL
Version: epel9
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Net-OpenID-Consumer
Assignee:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031818
Bug ID: 2031818
Summary: perl-Test-MockObject for EPEL 9
Product: Fedora EPEL
Version: epel9
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Test-MockObject
Assignee: lkund...@v3.sk
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2030287
Xavier Bachelot changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||2031544
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031545
Xavier Bachelot changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031751
--- Comment #1 from Paul Howarth ---
Xavier, can you please do perl-Linux-Pid, which will be needed by mod_perl,
which is a dependency of this package?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031829
Bug ID: 2031829
Summary: Please branch and build perl-Redis for EPEL 9
Product: Fedora EPEL
Version: epel9
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Redis
Assignee:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031814
Bug ID: 2031814
Summary: perl-Regexp-Assemble for EPEL 9
Product: Fedora EPEL
Version: epel9
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Regexp-Assemble
Assignee: p...@city-fan.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031815
Bug ID: 2031815
Summary: perl-Regexp-Common for EPEL 9
Product: Fedora EPEL
Version: epel9
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Regexp-Common
Assignee: lxt...@gmail.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031819
Bug ID: 2031819
Summary: perl-Test-Output for EPEL 9
Product: Fedora EPEL
Version: epel9
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Test-Output
Assignee: jples...@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031751
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Depends On|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2030601
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||2031751
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031756
--- Comment #2 from Xavier Bachelot ---
Indeed.
Branch requested:
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/39450
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
On Mon, 2021-12-13 at 22:30 +1100, Frank Crawford wrote:
> On Mon, 2021-12-13 at 06:18 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 13, 2021 at 6:13 AM Troy Dawson
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Dec 11, 2021 at 1:58 AM Frank Crawford
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Folks,
> > > >
> > >
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031814
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||2031862
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031862
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||2031814
Doc Type|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031862
Bug ID: 2031862
Summary: Please branch and build perl-Test-File-Contents for
EPEL 9
Product: Fedora EPEL
Version: epel9
Status: NEW
Component:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031449
Emmanuel Seyman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031878
Bug ID: 2031878
Summary: Please branch and build perl-Test-TCP for EPEL 9
Product: Fedora EPEL
Version: epel9
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Test-TCP
Assignee:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031449
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|p...@city-fan.org |emman...@seyman.fr
1 - 100 of 148 matches
Mail list logo
