On 04/04/2023 07:52, Otto Liljalaakso wrote:
Perhaps new package requests could more often be handled in a way where
an existing packager assumes the maintainer position with the agreement
that the submitter keeps the packager updated and in good condition,
through pull requests.
We have a
On 4/3/23 08:04, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Florian Festi:
>
>> On 3/31/23 15:40, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 3:42 PM Ben Cotton wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RPM-4.19
>>>
== Detailed Description ==
RPM 4.19 contains various
On Sun, Apr 02, 2023 at 09:54:04PM +0200, Dan Čermák wrote:
> The only benchmark that *I* am aware of is this one done by Martin
> Jambor: https://jamborm.github.io/spec-2022-07-29-levels/
This is very … underwhelming. x86-64-v2 is essentially identical to x86-64-v1.
x86-64-v3 is better. It even
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:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_remove_a_package_at_end_of_life
Note: If
On 4/4/23 08:52, Otto Liljalaakso wrote:
> Benson Muite kirjoitti 4.4.2023 klo 7.02:
>> May
>> also want to automatically track unofficial reviews by prospective
>> packagers, perhaps even requiring a certain number of unofficial reviews
>> for the sponsorship process to start.
>
> Yes, I think
On 04/04/2023 09:36, Kalev Lember wrote:
That's not exactly true. Yes, non-packagers can't upload files to the
lookaside cache, but they can update the 'sources' and '.gitignore'
files in git.
GitHub has stated[1] that they no longer guarantee hash stability
between archive downloads.
We
Hi,
httpd 2.4.56 fixes CVE-2023-25690 (crit 9.8) and CVE-2023-27522 (high
7.5) but Fedora packages do not name those fixes in the rpm changelog.
These kind of infos are important for admins to know, so it would be
wise to always add them and not just write "new version".
Of course, this kind
On 04/04/2023 02:59, Jakub Kadlcik wrote:
I get the same impression and I would agree with Otto's proposal to
get rid of the FE-NEEDSPONSOR entirely.
Looks good for me too. Opening a new Pagure ticket would be better, IMO.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 9:22 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel <
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On 04/04/2023 07:52, Otto Liljalaakso wrote:
> > Perhaps new package requests could more often be handled in a way where
> > an existing packager assumes the maintainer position with the agreement
>
On 4/4/23 10:14, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> On 04/04/2023 02:59, Jakub Kadlcik wrote:
>> I get the same impression and I would agree with Otto's proposal to
>> get rid of the FE-NEEDSPONSOR entirely.
>
> Looks good for me too. Opening a new Pagure ticket would be better, IMO.
>
This is
On 01. 04. 23 23:14, Jakub Kadlčík wrote:
What do you think? Would you be okay with a system like this?
Please forward to sponsors that you know, if there is no strong
disagreement, I'll proceed with the implementation.
I myself am very careful about who do I sponsor. For instance, I only pick
On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 6:00 AM wrote:
>
> You are kindly invited to the meeting:
>Prioritized bugs and issues on 2023-04-05 from 10:00:00 to 11:00:00
> America/Indiana/Indianapolis
>At fedora-meetin...@irc.libera.chat
>
> More information available at:
>
Hi all.
We are ready to upgrade multiple libraries:
Scotch-7.0.3
PETSc-3.18.5
Sundials-6.5.1
Bout++-5.0.0
In one week at least, these libraries + related dependencies + a new
Python package (python-zoidberg, needed by bout++) will be built in a
f39 side-tag
Best Regards
--
---
Antonio
On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 10:00:20AM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> On 04/04/2023 09:36, Kalev Lember wrote:
> > That's not exactly true. Yes, non-packagers can't upload files to the
> > lookaside cache, but they can update the 'sources' and '.gitignore'
> > files in git.
>
> GitHub has
Jakub Kadlcik wrote:
> > From this thread I get
> > the opposite impression, that Pagure tickets are processed quickly and
> > FE-NEEDSPONSOR blockers are not looked at. If so, I propose the policy
> > is updated to ask for a Pagure ticket in every case.
>
> I get the same impression and I
Hi all,
Today, 2023-04-04, is an important day on the Fedora Linux 38
schedule [1], with significant cut-offs.
Today we have the Final Freeze [2] which starts at 14:00 UTC. This
means that only packages which fix accepted blocker or freeze
exception bugs [3][4][5] will be marked as 'stable' and
Thanks Pavel, and thankyou to the previous maintainer for their efforts.
On Tuesday, 4 April 2023 at 09:18:32 pm AEST, Major Hayden via devel
wrote:
On Mon, Apr 3, 2023, at 18:32, Pavel Solovev wrote:
> I'm packaging required go dependencies and I'll grab it.
Thank you, Pavel! ;)
--
On 4/3/23 12:53, Blaise Pabon wrote:
Hi Mukundan, Jonathan,
I have been working on becoming a fedora maintainer and I would love
to help.
When I followed the links to the build logs I got a 404.
Blaise
Hi Blaise,
I will be happy to help you with becoming a packager. I am also happy to
Kalev Lember kirjoitti 4.4.2023 klo 10.36:
On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 9:22 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel <
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
On 04/04/2023 07:52, Otto Liljalaakso wrote:
Perhaps new package requests could more often be handled in a way where
an existing packager assumes the
Benson Muite kirjoitti 4.4.2023 klo 10.43:
Response times to pull requests can vary. Most people who want to be
packagers are submitting something new. The above would work well for
SIGS which package related software. In particular, if a package can be
adopted by a SIG, then the person
On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 5:58 AM wrote:
>
> On 2023-04-03 21:13, Steven A. Falco wrote:
> > I'm confused by the Requires for redhat-lsb-core.
> >
> > According to "dnf repoquery --requires redhat-lsb-core" there is no
> > requirement for esmtp. But according to "dnf repoquery --whatrequires
> >
V Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 08:20:07PM -0500, Richard Shaw napsal(a):
> While no matter what we do, there are maintainers that are not going to
> proactively update their packages, until we unify the tools and
> documentation to "do the right thing", we're pissing in the wind.
>
What surprised me is
On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 11:02:53AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek:
>
> > And -Ofast is not something that can be enabled as a default build flag,
> > because it leads to surprising and unpredictable behaviour in some
> > cases. (*)
>
> I assume (*) refers to the the
On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 1:45 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>
> Dne 04. 04. 23 v 3:20 Richard Shaw napsal(a):
>
> WARNING: This is a small rant...
>
> np :)
>
> I decided to look up my packages on src.fedoraproject.org (I'm still not sure
> if it's showing me all packages I'm admin of, or just main
On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 3:38 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
>
> On Sun, Apr 02, 2023 at 09:54:04PM +0200, Dan Čermák wrote:
> > The only benchmark that *I* am aware of is this one done by Martin
> > Jambor: https://jamborm.github.io/spec-2022-07-29-levels/
>
> This is very … underwhelming.
On 03-04-2023 14:38, Steve Cossette wrote:
I had a strange experience with Timeshift last week. For those that
don't know, Timeshift is a software that allows you to make a backup
of your system (As a snapshot) and restore it in case you need to.
I installed it a couple weeks ago and made a
* Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek:
> And -Ofast is not something that can be enabled as a default build flag,
> because it leads to surprising and unpredictable behaviour in some
> cases. (*)
I assume (*) refers to the the strange-action-at-distance issue. It was
recently fixed in GCC:
V Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 07:37:59AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a):
> Yeah, I think that's the way to go. I think we should identify 100
> shared libraries which would be positively impacted by x86-64-v3
> and provide a -v3 subrpm for them. This would be a nice feature for
> F40.
>
On 2023-04-03 21:13, Steven A. Falco wrote:
I'm confused by the Requires for redhat-lsb-core.
According to "dnf repoquery --requires redhat-lsb-core" there is no
requirement for esmtp. But according to "dnf repoquery --whatrequires
esmtp", redhat-lsb-core does require esmtp.
Perhaps there is
On 04-04-2023 09:45, Miro Hrončok wrote:
libunibreak orphan 3 weeks ago
I've taken libunibreak since coolreader depends on it. Will update to
latest release as time permits.
-- Sandro
___
devel
On Mon, Apr 3, 2023, at 18:32, Pavel Solovev wrote:
> I'm packaging required go dependencies and I'll grab it.
Thank you, Pavel! ;)
--
Major Hayden
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 07:37:59AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 02, 2023 at 09:54:04PM +0200, Dan Čermák wrote:
> > The only benchmark that *I* am aware of is this one done by Martin
> > Jambor: https://jamborm.github.io/spec-2022-07-29-levels/
>
> This is very …
On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 12:45 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Dne 04. 04. 23 v 3:20 Richard Shaw napsal(a):
>
> I have updated my licensecount script which summarises the licenses in a
> source and uses licensecheck to output SPDX licenses instead, but they
> output the "short" form as far as I can
On 04. 04. 23 7:44, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
AFAIK both tool has been already migrated and will complain when you use short
format.
At least rpmlint will not complain for old license identifiers.
rpmlint-fedora-license-data contains both
- /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml and
-
OLD: Fedora-38-20230403.n.0
NEW: Fedora-38-20230404.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 2
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 89
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 3.05 MiB
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 at 05:18, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 3:38 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 02, 2023 at 09:54:04PM +0200, Dan Čermák wrote:
> > > The only benchmark that *I* am aware of is this one done by Martin
> > > Jambor:
Once upon a time, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek said:
> On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 11:17:50AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > Why a subrpm? Should be possible to just arrange for one src.rpm to
> > build the library twice and install the x86-64-v3 into
> > /usr/lib64/glibc-hwcaps/x86-64-v3/
> >
On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 8:35 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
>
> On 04/04/2023 11:17, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > It seems that moving to -O3 would provide more gains than x86_64-v3.
>
> AVX2 can significantly boost the performance of modern processors in
> SIMD operations.
>
Yes, provided they are
On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 09:05:43AM -0400, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 at 08:52, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 11:17:50AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 07:37:59AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> > wrote:
> > > >
On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 11:17:50AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 07:37:59AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 02, 2023 at 09:54:04PM +0200, Dan Čermák wrote:
> > > The only benchmark that *I* am aware of is this one done by Martin
> > > Jambor:
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20230403.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20230404.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:1
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 14
Dropped packages:5
Upgraded packages: 95
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 1.27 MiB
Size of dropped packages
On 4/4/23 05:58 AM, ser...@serjux.com wrote:
On 2023-04-03 21:13, Steven A. Falco wrote:
I'm confused by the Requires for redhat-lsb-core.
According to "dnf repoquery --requires redhat-lsb-core" there is no
requirement for esmtp. But according to "dnf repoquery --whatrequires
esmtp",
On 04/04/2023 11:17, Neal Gompa wrote:
It seems that moving to -O3 would provide more gains than x86_64-v3.
AVX2 can significantly boost the performance of modern processors in
SIMD operations.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 at 08:52, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 11:17:50AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 07:37:59AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> wrote:
> > > On Sun, Apr 02, 2023 at 09:54:04PM +0200, Dan Čermák wrote:
> > > > The only
On Thu, 2023-03-16 at 11:19 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 1:16 PM Jerry James
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 11:09 AM Jerry James
> > wrote:
> > > I see the same with a couple of my packages. A look at
> > > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/nodejs
On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 9:49 AM Steven A. Falco wrote:
>
> On 4/4/23 05:58 AM, ser...@serjux.com wrote:
> > On 2023-04-03 21:13, Steven A. Falco wrote:
> >> I'm confused by the Requires for redhat-lsb-core.
> >>
> >> According to "dnf repoquery --requires redhat-lsb-core" there is no
> >>
On 4/4/23 09:56 AM, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 9:49 AM Steven A. Falco wrote:
On 4/4/23 05:58 AM, ser...@serjux.com wrote:
On 2023-04-03 21:13, Steven A. Falco wrote:
I'm confused by the Requires for redhat-lsb-core.
According to "dnf repoquery --requires redhat-lsb-core"
On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 9:45 AM Sérgio Basto wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2023-03-16 at 11:19 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 1:16 PM Jerry James
...
> I found a problem related with yarnpkg rpm, the macro % __find_requires
> finds that yarn scripts uses and needs /usr/bin/node
Steven A. Falco wrote on 2023/04/04 5:13:
I'm confused by the Requires for redhat-lsb-core.
According to "dnf repoquery --requires redhat-lsb-core" there is no requirement for
esmtp. But according to "dnf repoquery --whatrequires esmtp", redhat-lsb-core does
require esmtp.
Well, somebody
Chris Adams writes:
> Once upon a time, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek said:
>> On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 11:17:50AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> > Why a subrpm? Should be possible to just arrange for one src.rpm to
>> > build the library twice and install the x86-64-v3 into
>> >
On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 10:19:56AM -0400, Steven A. Falco wrote:
On 4/4/23 09:56 AM, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 9:49 AM Steven A. Falco wrote:
On 4/4/23 05:58 AM, ser...@serjux.com wrote:
Please open a bug report , I'm reviewing redhat-lsb [1] , this package is so
old that
On Tue, 2023-04-04 at 10:23 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 9:45 AM Sérgio Basto
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 2023-03-16 at 11:19 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 1:16 PM Jerry James
> > >
> ...
> > I found a problem related with yarnpkg rpm,
On 04/04/2023 15:15, Neal Gompa wrote:
But overall? I don't think so.
Web browsers, game engines, audio/video editing software.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To
On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 10:32 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
>
> On 04/04/2023 15:15, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > But overall? I don't think so.
>
> Web browsers, game engines, audio/video editing software.
>
Portions of web browsers and game engines (multimedia bits and physics
libraries, which we
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2184301
Bug ID: 2184301
Summary: perl-Syntax-Feature-Loop-1.8.0-18.fc39 FTBFS:
t/01_basic.t and 3more test fail
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165567
--- Comment #5 from Ralf Corsepius ---
AFAIU, Sub-Exporter-Lexical-1.000 requires
perl(Lexical::Sub) (rsp. perl-Lexical-Var) >= 0.10
or perl >= v5.37.2
ATM, no Fedora release provides such a perl and only rawhide provides
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165567
Ralf Corsepius changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||2184280
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2184280
Ralf Corsepius changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||2165567
Doc Type|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2165567
Ralf Corsepius changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|rawhide |38
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2184301
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|perl-Syntax-Feature-Loop-1. |perl-Syntax-Feature-Loop-1.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2184280
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #1 from
Notification time stamped 2023-04-04 06:04:37 UTC
From 3393c3b42012152b7334d82abf22f9d75b660364 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Ralf Corsépius
Date: Apr 04 2023 06:04:20 +
Subject: Update to 1.000.
---
diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore
index ed20de1..9edd9d5 100644
--- a/.gitignore
+++
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2184280
Bug ID: 2184280
Summary: Please upgrade perl-Lexical-Var to >= 0.010
Product: Fedora
Version: 38
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Lexical-Var
Assignee: jples...@redhat.com
Hi all,
Today, 2023-04-04, is an important day on the Fedora Linux 38
schedule [1], with significant cut-offs.
Today we have the Final Freeze [2] which starts at 14:00 UTC. This
means that only packages which fix accepted blocker or freeze
exception bugs [3][4][5] will be marked as 'stable' and
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2183882
Emmanuel Seyman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|NOTABUG |---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178064
Bug 2178064 depends on bug 2183882, which changed state.
Bug 2183882 Summary: Adding perl-Time-Duration-Parse to EPEL9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2183882
What|Removed |Added
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2183882
Emmanuel Seyman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|rc040...@freenet.de |emman...@seyman.fr
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2183882
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--- Comment #2 from
The change has now been implemented.
We'll have to wait for a package to be affected before we see it, but I
*think* it should look like what we have there.
Note: It is still doing everything as separate steps. So package
maintainers will still get several emails.
I got to see the code, and I
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2184492
Bug ID: 2184492
Summary: perl-DBD-Pg-3.16.2 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-DBD-Pg
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2181856
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Fixed In
The following Fedora EPEL 8 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
19 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-1e00c3d01e
cutter-re-2.2.0-1.el8 rizin-0.5.1-1.el8
3 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-95d6efd5d6
seamonkey-2.53.16-1.el8
0
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2184492
Upstream Release Monitoring
changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|perl-DBD-Pg-3.16.2 is |perl-DBD-Pg-3.16.3 is
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2183882
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #3 from
The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
4 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-e0ec985df4
chromium-111.0.5563.146-1.el7
4 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-7be8f2df20
seamonkey-2.53.16-1.el7
0
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2184385
--- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
Scratch build failed. Details below:
GenericError: File upload failed:
cli-build/1680616138.1874707.GCSoXVPK/perl-Date-ICal-2.680-1.fc36.src.rpm
Traceback:
File
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:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_remove_a_package_at_end_of_life
Note: If
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2184385
Bug ID: 2184385
Summary: perl-Date-ICal-2.680 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Date-ICal
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-SNMP_Session` that
you are following:
``
Fix ipv6
``
To reply, visit the link below
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-SNMP_Session/pull-request/1
___
perl-devel mailing list --
Dear all,
You are kindly invited to the meeting:
EPEL Steering Committee on 2023-04-05 from 16:00:00 to 17:00:00 US/Eastern
At fedora-meet...@irc.libera.chat
The meeting will be about:
This is the weekly EPEL Steering Committee Meeting.
A general agenda is the following:
#topic aloha
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2178064
Bug 2178064 depends on bug 2183882, which changed state.
Bug 2183882 Summary: Adding perl-Time-Duration-Parse to EPEL9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2183882
What|Removed |Added
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2183882
Ralf Corsepius changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Doc Type|---
82 matches
Mail list logo
