Re: Mathematical packages: looking for maintainers

Hi all, thank you Miro for the check of the dependency chain. Jerry, feel free to transfer the ownership to me: python-readthedocs-sphinx-ext -> ksurma python-sphinx_rtd_theme -> ksurma Have a great weekend, Karolina On 2/10/22 19:17, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 09. 02. 22 16:38, Jerry James

Re: report on the "ELF package notes" status

On 11. 02. 22 20:01, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: I did some quick analysis, and the reasons why the notes section is missing differ: ... 61 python packages So... Are the Python packages explicitly opting out? Python itself does not, instead it stores %extension_ldflags rather

Re: report on the "ELF package notes" status

On Fri, 2022-02-11 at 20:01 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > Hi! > > I did some quick'n'dirty statistics of how many ELF files successfully gained > a .package.note section. > > packages: 28742, see [1] for the list (*) > ELF files: 72464, see [2] > ELF files with .package.note:

Re: JasPer 3.0.0 update in Rawhide and F36

On 11. 02. 22 15:20, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 09. 02. 22 17:03, Josef Řídký wrote: Hi, upstream authors of JasPer library have released a new major version. This rebase will introduce .so name bump from version 4 to version 6. I am going to rebase the library in rawhide on Friday February

Re: [Fedocal] Reminder meeting : ELN SIG

On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 7:00 AM wrote: > > Dear all, > > You are kindly invited to the meeting: >ELN SIG on 2022-02-11 from 12:00:00 to 13:00:00 US/Eastern >At fedora-meet...@irc.libera.chat > > The meeting will be about: > Does anyone have a topic for the agenda, or shall we skip this

Re: Action Required: Bugzilla - API Authentication changes

On 01. 02. 22 14:25, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: On Tue, Feb 01, 2022 at 01:41:01PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 01. 02. 22 13:37, Fabio Valentini wrote: Hi Miro, Thanks for forwarding this announcement. Apparently the talk about "improving communication between RHBZ and the Fedora Project"

report on the "ELF package notes" status

Hi! I did some quick'n'dirty statistics of how many ELF files successfully gained a .package.note section. packages: 28742, see [1] for the list (*) ELF files: 72464, see [2] ELF files with .package.note: 47939, see [3] ELF files without: 24525, see [4] It turns out that many of those are

Re: Problems building on F36, F37 caused by vtk?

On 11. 02. 22 20:31, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 11. 02. 22 20:21, Kevin Fenzi wrote: I would be really happy to drop armv7hl for the vtk stack. So, just to clarify and provide more info here: There's a bug/issue with 32bit arm using LPAE kernels and xfs/ext4 where it's overeager with OOM killing

Re: [Fedocal] Reminder meeting : ELN SIG

On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 10:15 AM Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 7:00 AM wrote: > > > > Dear all, > > > > You are kindly invited to the meeting: > >ELN SIG on 2022-02-11 from 12:00:00 to 13:00:00 US/Eastern > >At fedora-meet...@irc.libera.chat > > > > The meeting

Re: What should we do about the "Install only newly recommended packages on upgrades" F36 change?

On 11. 02. 22 13:50, Jaroslav Mracek wrote: > No we didn't and it will make the feature less usable - see reported issues > during testing in original request ( > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1699672#c74

Re: Problems building on F36, F37 caused by vtk?

On 11. 02. 22 20:21, Kevin Fenzi wrote: I would be really happy to drop armv7hl for the vtk stack. So, just to clarify and provide more info here: There's a bug/issue with 32bit arm using LPAE kernels and xfs/ext4 where it's overeager with OOM killing processes. ( rhbz 1920183 ). The issue

Re: Do we have any policy for disabling inactive users

On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 07:12:04AM -0600, Richard Shaw wrote: > Not quoting anyone in particular but I thought I saw it referenced in this > thread (and definitely the previous thread from last year). > > What's wrong with having someone "sign" the CLA every year? At work a > non-disclosure is

Re: Fedora ID and HTTPS

On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 07:16:01AM -0800, Jan Staněk wrote: > Hi list, > > tl;dr: Why is the Fedora ID server using HTTP communication by default? Fedora openid is using http because long ago when we started offering openid users were 'http://username.id.fedoraproject.org' and thus were tied to

Re: Problems building on F36, F37 caused by vtk?

On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 08:33:14PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 11. 02. 22 20:31, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 11. 02. 22 20:21, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > > I would be really happy to drop armv7hl for the vtk stack. > > > So, just to clarify and provide more info here: > > > > > > There's a

Rawhide arm compiler bug?

Forgive me if I'm pointing out a known issue, but I haven't noticed anything on the list about this yet... I keep getting sent rawhide build errors for my project. They only appear to occur on the avmv7hl platform. It builds fine on all other architectures. The errors are like: sha1.cpp:

Re: Fedora 36 Mass Branching

On 09. 02. 22 22:12, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 05:12:16PM +, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On Tue, 8 Feb 2022 at 20:40, Tomas Hrcka wrote: Hi All, Fedora 36 has now been branched, please be sure to do a git pull --rebase to pick up the new branch This part

Re: Do we have any policy for disabling inactive users

On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 11:33:13AM +, Mattia Verga via devel wrote: > Il 11/02/22 12:20, Florian Weimer ha scritto: > > * Mattia Verga via devel: > > > >> Il 11/02/22 10:41, Miro Hrončok ha scritto: > >>> On 11. 02. 22 10:12, Mattia Verga via devel wrote: > Where are those 2543 packagers

Re: Unannounced soname bump: libjasper.so.4 -> libjasper.so.6

Miro Hrončok wrote: > It was actually announced: > > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/FV53ADNJB5STFN3YAEEXEVHMIA6DMXCN/ > > But for reasons I don't understand, it was pushed to rawhide without using > a side tag and without doing rebuilds :( >

Re: What should we do about the "Install only newly recommended packages on upgrades" F36 change?

Miro Hrončok wrote: > Another thing I'd like to understand from your POV is why would packagers > actually *need* exactly-versioned Recommends. Could you please give me an > example use case? I understand why they might *assume they need* it, > because packaging is complex and this might seem like

Re: Rawhide arm compiler bug?

On Fri, 11 Feb 2022 21:37:55 +0100 Florian Weimer wrote: > * David Muse: > > > Forgive me if I'm pointing out a known issue, but I haven't noticed > > anything on the list about this yet... > > > > I keep getting sent rawhide build errors for my project. They only appear > > to occur on the

Re: Rawhide arm compiler bug?

* David Muse: > Forgive me if I'm pointing out a known issue, but I haven't noticed anything > on the list about this yet... > > I keep getting sent rawhide build errors for my project. They only appear to > occur on the avmv7hl platform. It builds fine on all other architectures. > > > The

Re: Unannounced soname bump: libjasper.so.4 -> libjasper.so.6

On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 09:45:53PM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > Miro Hrončok wrote: > > It was actually announced: > > > > > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/FV53ADNJB5STFN3YAEEXEVHMIA6DMXCN/ > > > > But for reasons I don't understand,

Re: Rawhide arm compiler bug?

* David Muse: > Ahh, ok. Should I mark any buzilla bugs that I get as duplicates of > that one? Yes, and rebuild in Koji. Koji has the fixed compiler. Thanks, Florian ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an

Re: What should we do about the "Install only newly recommended packages on upgrades" F36 change?

On 11. 02. 22 21:58, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: Miro Hrončok wrote: Another thing I'd like to understand from your POV is why would packagers actually *need* exactly-versioned Recommends. Could you please give me an example use case? I understand why they might *assume they need* it, because

Re: report on the "ELF package notes" status

On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 08:27:51PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 11. 02. 22 20:01, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > I did some quick analysis, and the reasons why the notes section is > > missing differ: > >... > >61 python packages > > So... Are the Python packages explicitly

Re: Unannounced soname bump: libjasper.so.4 -> libjasper.so.6

On 12. 02. 22 2:42, Miro Hrončok wrote: I've cc'ed them on all rebuild and received no reply. *I've cc'ed them on all my emails. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To

Fedora-Rawhide-20220211.n.3 compose check report

Missing expected images: Minimal raw-xz armhfp Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check! 10 of 43 required tests failed, 4 results missing openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING** below Failed openQA tests: 34/231 (x86_64), 20/161 (aarch64) New failures

Re: Unannounced soname bump: libjasper.so.4 -> libjasper.so.6

On 11. 02. 22 21:45, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: Miro Hrončok wrote: It was actually announced: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/FV53ADNJB5STFN3YAEEXEVHMIA6DMXCN/ But for reasons I don't understand, it was pushed to rawhide without using

Re: Bodhi and "update ejected from the push" errors

On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 12:31:15PM +, Sérgio Basto wrote: > On Sat, 2022-01-29 at 11:12 -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 05:38:42PM +, Mattia Verga via devel > > wrote: > > > Recently we're having some (a lot) of errors about updates stuck in > > > Bodhi with errors

Re: Problems building on F36, F37 caused by vtk?

On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 07:29:56PM -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote: > On 2/10/22 12:21, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 10 2022 at 02:09:32 PM -0500, Steven A. Falco > > wrote: > > > g++: fatal error: Killed signal terminated program cc1plus > > > > This indicates the builder ran out of

Re: How to make fedpkg --release epel9 mockbuild use crb?

On Sunday, February 6, 2022 8:35:15 PM CET Roman Inflianskas via devel wrote: > Sorry, I've forgotten to reply yesterday. > > I've installed these updates, but I still get this error: > mockbuild.exception.ConfigError: Could not find included config file: >

Re: Do we have any policy for disabling inactive users

Dne 11. 02. 22 v 11:38 Björn Persson napsal(a): Gary Buhrmaster wrote: A quick (and likely bad and incomplete) bugzilla search shows over 1000 tickets where there are upstream updates that are still in NEW status in bugzilla and had been (initially) opened over a year ago. I think that

Re: What should we do about the "Install only newly recommended packages on upgrades" F36 change?

Am Freitag, 11. Februar 2022 13:50:57 CET schrieb Jaroslav Mracek: On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 7:30 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek < zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote: Hmm, but why is metadata of repository needed? IIUC, all deps (including rich) are part of the package header, i.e. are in the RPM database

Re: Do we have any policy for disabling inactive users

Not quoting anyone in particular but I thought I saw it referenced in this thread (and definitely the previous thread from last year). What's wrong with having someone "sign" the CLA every year? At work a non-disclosure is only good for two years. Is a CLA a lifetime agreement? Thanks, Richard

Re: Do we have any policy for disabling inactive users

Il 11/02/22 07:54, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ha scritto: > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 11:05:03PM +, Gary Buhrmaster wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 9:58 PM Ben Cotton wrote: >> >>> I have concerns with this approach. I would guess there's a long tail >>> of packagers that maintain relatively

Fedora-Cloud-35-20220211.0 compose check report

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-35-20220210.0): ID: 1125423 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL:

Re: Do we have any policy for disabling inactive users

Mattia Verga via devel writes: > Il 11/02/22 07:54, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ha scritto: >> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 11:05:03PM +, Gary Buhrmaster wrote: >>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 9:58 PM Ben Cotton wrote: >>> I have concerns with this approach. I would guess there's a long tail

Re: How to clone by fedpkg ?

You need to generate an SSH key and upload it to https://accounts.fedoraproject.org Log in, go to Settings and switch to the "SSH & GPG keys". If this isn't the only key you're using, you will also need to edit your ssh config. A.FI. ___ devel mailing

Re: Mathematical packages: looking for maintainers

Hi. Feel free to asing me as a maintainer of python-repoze-sphinx-autointerface. The package has dead upstream so I hope nothing will break soon. Have a nice day. Lumír On 2/10/22 19:17, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 09. 02. 22 16:38, Jerry James wrote: On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 1:20 PM Miro

Re: Mock v2.16 release, mock-core-configs v37

On Wednesday, February 2, 2022 3:28:30 PM CET Pavel Raiskup wrote: > Hello folks. > > I know the current Mock+configs Bodhi updates have not meet stable so far. > > The main problem being resolved is that 'fedpkg mockbuild' on 'epel8' > checked-out branch doesn't work properly ATM. I was

How to clone by fedpkg ?

Hi developer, I want to clone the rpms through fedpkg, but failed log like this: jmiao@fedora36:temp$ fedpkg clone tboot Cloning into 'tboot'... miaojun0...@pkgs.fedoraproject.org: Permission denied (publickey). fatal: Could not read from remote

Re: Do we have any policy for disabling inactive users

On 11. 02. 22 10:12, Mattia Verga via devel wrote: Il 10/02/22 22:57, Ben Cotton ha scritto: On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 1:39 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: since you have the script handy, could you check how many (non-pp) packagers would be reported as inactive pretty please? Maybe with

Re: Do we have any policy for disabling inactive users

Il 11/02/22 10:41, Miro Hrončok ha scritto: > On 11. 02. 22 10:12, Mattia Verga via devel wrote: >> Il 10/02/22 22:57, Ben Cotton ha scritto: >>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 1:39 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek >>> wrote: since you have the script handy, could you check how many (non-pp)

Re: Do we have any policy for disabling inactive users

Il 10/02/22 22:57, Ben Cotton ha scritto: > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 1:39 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > wrote: >> since you have the script handy, could you check how many (non-pp) >> packagers would be reported as inactive pretty please? Maybe with the >> inactivility threshold raised to 1

Fedora-Cloud-34-20220211.0 compose check report

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-34-20220210.0): ID: 1125439 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL:

Re: Do we have any policy for disabling inactive users

On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 10:43 AM Ian McInerney via devel wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 10:39 AM Björn Persson wrote: >> >> Yes, that's a bad search. Till Maas told me eight years ago that the >> release monitoring tickets are supposed to remain open when the >> packages are upgraded. Thus

Re: Do we have any policy for disabling inactive users

On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 11:42:19AM +, Mattia Verga via devel wrote: > I've written down a script [1] to fetch users which belong to packager > group and show no activity in datagrepper in a year. > > It found 104 users [2]. > > [1] >

Re: Do we have any policy for disabling inactive users

Il 11/02/22 13:11, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ha scritto: > On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 11:42:19AM +, Mattia Verga via devel wrote: >> I've written down a script [1] to fetch users which belong to packager >> group and show no activity in datagrepper in a year. >> >> It found 104 users [2]. >> >>

Re: What should we do about the "Install only newly recommended packages on upgrades" F36 change?

On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 7:30 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek < zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 02:30:30PM +0100, Jaroslav Mracek wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 1:56 PM Kevin Kofler via devel < > > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > > > > > Jaroslav Mracek wrote: > > > >

Re: Do we have any policy for disabling inactive users

Ben Cotton wrote: > I would support removing the 113 who don't exist in Koji. If they have been that way for a long time, I suppose. Don't cause additional hurdles for newcomers just because their first review takes a while. Björn Persson pgp11SGC3hJR2.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signatur

Re: Do we have any policy for disabling inactive users

Gary Buhrmaster wrote: > A quick (and likely > bad and incomplete) bugzilla search shows > over 1000 tickets where there are upstream > updates that are still in NEW status in > bugzilla and had been (initially) opened > over a year ago. I think that represents > around 350 unique people. Those

Re: Do we have any policy for disabling inactive users

On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 10:39 AM Björn Persson wrote: > Gary Buhrmaster wrote: > > A quick (and likely > > bad and incomplete) bugzilla search shows > > over 1000 tickets where there are upstream > > updates that are still in NEW status in > > bugzilla and had been (initially) opened > > over a

Re: How to clone by fedpkg ?

Well done. Thanks for you Artur. On 2022/2/11 17:33, Artur Frenszek-Iwicki wrote: You need to generate an SSH key and upload it to https://accounts.fedoraproject.org Log in, go to Settings and switch to the "SSH & GPG keys". If this isn't the only key you're using, you will also need to

Re: Do we have any policy for disabling inactive users

Il 11/02/22 12:20, Florian Weimer ha scritto: > * Mattia Verga via devel: > >> Il 11/02/22 10:41, Miro Hrončok ha scritto: >>> On 11. 02. 22 10:12, Mattia Verga via devel wrote: Where are those 2543 packagers come from? src.fedoraproject.org only shows 1787 users in the packager group:

Re: Do we have any policy for disabling inactive users

I've written down a script [1] to fetch users which belong to packager group and show no activity in datagrepper in a year. It found 104 users [2]. [1] https://mattia.fedorapeople.org/inactive-packagers/find_inactive_packagers.py [2]

Re: Do we have any policy for disabling inactive users

* Mattia Verga via devel: > Il 11/02/22 10:41, Miro Hrončok ha scritto: >> On 11. 02. 22 10:12, Mattia Verga via devel wrote: >>> Where are those 2543 packagers come from? src.fedoraproject.org only >>> shows 1787 users in the packager group: >>> >>>

Re: JasPer 3.0.0 update in Rawhide and F36

Hi, just reminder - a new jasper version is now available in Rawhide. All packages that require jasper, should be rebuilt - in most cases it is all that is needed. In rare occasions more work would be needed - this is valid for packages, which didn't use jasper library in the standard way. Best

Re: JasPer 3.0.0 update in Rawhide and F36

On 09. 02. 22 17:03, Josef Řídký wrote: Hi, upstream authors of JasPer library have released a new major version. This rebase will introduce .so name bump from version 4 to version 6. I am going to rebase the library in rawhide on Friday February 11th. For testing purposes, you may use the

Unannounced soname bump: libjasper.so.4 -> libjasper.so.6

Hello, all: On rawhide (f37) jasper is updated from 2.0.33-2 to 3.0.0-1, which causes unannounced soname bump from libjasper.so.4 to libjasper.so.6. What is strange here is that the committer seems aware of this change:

Re: Unannounced soname bump: libjasper.so.4 -> libjasper.so.6

On 11. 02. 22 15:20, Mamoru TASAKA wrote: Hello, all: On rawhide (f37) jasper is updated from 2.0.33-2 to 3.0.0-1, which causes unannounced soname bump from  libjasper.so.4 to libjasper.so.6. What is strange here is that the committer seems aware of this change:

Re: JasPer 3.0.0 update in Rawhide and F36

Josef Řídký wrote on 2022/02/11 22:55: Hi, just reminder - a new jasper version is now available in Rawhide. All packages that require jasper, should be rebuilt - in most cases it is all that is needed. In rare occasions more work would be needed - this is valid for packages, which didn't use

Re: What should we do about the "Install only newly recommended packages on upgrades" F36 change?

On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 02:05:15PM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > Am Freitag, 11. Februar 2022 13:50:57 CET schrieb Jaroslav Mracek: > > On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 7:30 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek < > > zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote: > > > Hmm, but why is metadata of repository needed? IIUC, all

Re: Unannounced soname bump: libjasper.so.4 -> libjasper.so.6

Miro Hrončok wrote on 2022/02/11 23:29: On 11. 02. 22 15:20, Mamoru TASAKA wrote: Hello, all: On rawhide (f37) jasper is updated from 2.0.33-2 to 3.0.0-1, which causes unannounced soname bump from  libjasper.so.4 to libjasper.so.6. What is strange here is that the committer seems aware of

Re: Unannounced soname bump: libjasper.so.4 -> libjasper.so.6

./find_unblocked_orphans.py --max_deps 1 --skip-orphans jasper Depending on: jasper (30), DevIL (maintained by: jwrdegoede) DevIL-1.7.8-38.fc36.i686 requires libjasper.so.4 DevIL-1.7.8-38.fc36.src requires jasper-devel = 2.0.33-2.fc36 DevIL-1.7.8-38.fc36.x86_64 requires libjasper.so.4()(64bit)

Re: Unannounced soname bump: libjasper.so.4 -> libjasper.so.6

Mamoru TASAKA wrote on 2022/02/11 23:41: Miro Hrončok wrote on 2022/02/11 23:29: On 11. 02. 22 15:20, Mamoru TASAKA wrote: Hello, all: On rawhide (f37) jasper is updated from 2.0.33-2 to 3.0.0-1, which causes unannounced soname bump from  libjasper.so.4 to libjasper.so.6. What is strange

[EPEL-devel] Fedora EPEL 7 updates-testing report

The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing: Age URL 3 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-dadb629ab0 xrdp-0.9.18-5.el7 1 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-f762e66b0d nodejs-16.14.0-2.el7 The following builds have been

[Bug 1543336] please provide missing Fedora 27 Perl modules

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1543336 --- Comment #31 from Paul Howarth --- perl-Net-SSH-Perl for EPEL-9: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-bcd6155d50 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 2053412] New: Unable to install the package

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2053412 Bug ID: 2053412 Summary: Unable to install the package Product: Fedora EPEL Version: epel8 Status: NEW Component: perl-Image-Info Assignee: spo...@gmail.com

[Bug 2053412] Unable to install the package

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2053412 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Doc Type|---

[Bug 2053414] New: Unable to install the package

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2053414 Bug ID: 2053414 Summary: Unable to install the package Product: Fedora EPEL Version: epel8 Status: NEW Component: perl-Email-Sender Assignee: emman...@seyman.fr

[Bug 1787413] Please build perl-IO-stringy for EPEL 8

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1787413 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bugzi...@terrortux.de --- Comment #2

[Bug 2053414] Unable to install the package

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2053414 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |NOTABUG CC|

[Bug 2053474] perl-User-Identity-1.01 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2053474 --- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- Created attachment 1860592 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1860592=edit Update to 1.01 (#2053474) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for

[Bug 2053474] New: perl-User-Identity-1.01 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2053474 Bug ID: 2053474 Summary: perl-User-Identity-1.01 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-User-Identity Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged

[Bug 2053474] perl-User-Identity-1.01 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2053474 --- Comment #2 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- the-new-hotness/release-monitoring.org's scratch build of perl-User-Identity-1.01-1.fc34.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=82677201 -- You

[Bug 2053493] New: perl-Mail-Message-3.012 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2053493 Bug ID: 2053493 Summary: perl-Mail-Message-3.012 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-Mail-Message Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged

[Bug 2053493] perl-Mail-Message-3.012 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2053493 --- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- Created attachment 1860598 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1860598=edit Update to 3.012 (#2053493) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for

[Bug 2053493] perl-Mail-Message-3.012 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2053493 --- Comment #2 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- the-new-hotness/release-monitoring.org's scratch build of perl-Mail-Message-3.012-1.fc34.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=82678041 -- You

pghmcfc pushed to perl-Validation-Class (epel9). "perl dependency renamed to perl-interpreter "

Notification time stamped 2022-02-08 17:01:28 UTC From c123755a1346f47060fa6e457abfba58c484dafc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Petr Písař Date: Jul 12 2017 12:52:00 + Subject: perl dependency renamed to perl-interpreter

pghmcfc pushed to perl-Validation-Class (epel9). "- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_28_Mass_Rebuild (..more)"

Notification time stamped 2022-02-08 17:01:28 UTC From 8db08c7ad815874774563a4dd88a6e5e418fd483 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Fedora Release Engineering Date: Feb 09 2018 02:15:29 + Subject: - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_28_Mass_Rebuild Signed-off-by: Fedora Release

pghmcfc pushed to perl-Validation-Class (epel9). "Perl 5.26 rebuild"

Notification time stamped 2022-02-08 17:01:28 UTC From e4a09f469fa77c077004253813a98142ad236961 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jitka Plesnikova Date: Jun 06 2017 04:13:57 + Subject: Perl 5.26 rebuild --- diff --git a/perl-Validation-Class.spec b/perl-Validation-Class.spec index

pghmcfc pushed to perl-Validation-Class (epel9). "Initial import"

Notification time stamped 2022-02-08 17:01:28 UTC From cffbea28b521659bc3ecee93c23f8102815d17cd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Ralf Corsépius Date: Feb 13 2017 14:00:36 + Subject: Initial import --- diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore index e69de29..1534091 100644 --- a/.gitignore +++

pghmcfc pushed to perl-Validation-Class (epel9). "Perl 5.28 rebuild"

Notification time stamped 2022-02-08 17:01:28 UTC From 9c2ff70f7061e9e25b110309d8d98893fe0269d8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jitka Plesnikova Date: Oct 25 2019 14:27:32 + Subject: Perl 5.28 rebuild --- diff --git a/perl-Validation-Class.spec b/perl-Validation-Class.spec index

pghmcfc pushed to perl-Validation-Class (epel9). "- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_30_Mass_Rebuild (..more)"

Notification time stamped 2022-02-08 17:01:28 UTC From 589a5ba69f29dd108f33eeade654a79355415a16 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Fedora Release Engineering Date: Oct 25 2019 14:27:32 + Subject: - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_30_Mass_Rebuild Signed-off-by: Fedora Release

pghmcfc pushed to perl-Validation-Class (epel9). "- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_31_Mass_Rebuild (..more)"

Notification time stamped 2022-02-08 17:01:28 UTC From d6c63b5421091473bab8bf48d9689c0d732ac198 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Fedora Release Engineering Date: Oct 25 2019 14:27:33 + Subject: - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_31_Mass_Rebuild Signed-off-by: Fedora Release

pghmcfc pushed to perl-Validation-Class (epel9). "Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/f28' into epel8"

Notification time stamped 2022-02-08 17:01:28 UTC From 8b5dd9279a408522fcc6fa9425f677820a42c3cf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Paul Howarth Date: Oct 25 2019 14:26:58 + Subject: Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/f28' into epel8 --- diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore index

pghmcfc pushed to perl-Validation-Class (epel9). "cpan.org addresses moved to MetaCPAN "

Notification time stamped 2022-02-08 17:01:28 UTC From 2e58c751a55a1bccd3b3d9801ea1bc6ab9e3f9c4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Petr Písař Date: Oct 25 2019 14:27:32 + Subject: cpan.org addresses moved to MetaCPAN --- diff

pghmcfc pushed to perl-Validation-Class (epel9). "- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_27_Mass_Rebuild"

Notification time stamped 2022-02-08 17:01:28 UTC From 6557736755ac39f516b02c9eb699f567ec57d40d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Fedora Release Engineering Date: Jul 27 2017 06:58:13 + Subject: - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_27_Mass_Rebuild --- diff --git

pghmcfc pushed to perl-Validation-Class (epel9). ""Adding package.cfg file""

Notification time stamped 2022-02-08 17:01:28 UTC From c0cd51dc586fee71357413eae8820b2b0538d946 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Gwyn Ciesla Date: Oct 25 2019 13:21:10 + Subject: "Adding package.cfg file" --- diff --git a/package.cfg b/package.cfg new file mode 100644 index 000..66ea79d

[Bug 1543336] please provide missing Fedora 27 Perl modules

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1543336 --- Comment #30 from Paul Howarth --- perl-Net-SSH-Perl will be ready in EPEL-9 soon. All of the remaining dependencies are maintained by me so it should be available in testing in the next few days. -- You are receiving this mail because:

pghmcfc pushed to perl-Validation-Class (epel9). "Perl 5.30 rebuild"

Notification time stamped 2022-02-08 17:01:28 UTC From 6b0f575a5b5569ace16f6afadfcd49c3cb79f6e5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jitka Plesnikova Date: Oct 25 2019 14:27:33 + Subject: Perl 5.30 rebuild --- diff --git a/perl-Validation-Class.spec b/perl-Validation-Class.spec index

pghmcfc pushed to perl-Validation-Class (epel9). "- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_29_Mass_Rebuild (..more)"

Notification time stamped 2022-02-08 17:01:28 UTC From a27f84a9d04139d01b3914c6ad8fc8e2aa1040f1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Fedora Release Engineering Date: Oct 25 2019 14:27:32 + Subject: - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_29_Mass_Rebuild Signed-off-by: Fedora Release

pghmcfc pushed to perl-Validation-Class (epel9). "remove package.cfg per new epel-playground policy"

Notification time stamped 2022-02-08 17:01:28 UTC From 22a55cab84549237e5d5f76cd103d1329dd20790 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Troy Dawson Date: Sep 24 2020 17:19:48 + Subject: remove package.cfg per new epel-playground policy --- diff --git a/package.cfg b/package.cfg deleted file mode

pghmcfc pushed to perl-Validation-Class (epel9). "Tweak for EPEL-8 build (..more)"

Notification time stamped 2022-02-08 17:01:28 UTC From 0c55307d118e65ff8bc025d41efbd8838f9a40cb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Paul Howarth Date: Oct 25 2019 14:27:33 + Subject: Tweak for EPEL-8 build - Use %{make_build} and %{make_install} - Fix permissions verbosely - Make %files list

[Bug 2048959] Add perl-GraphViz to EPEL9

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2048959 Xavier Bachelot changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED