Re: Koji problems

[Pavel Zhukov]

27.11.2015, 19:55, "Kevin Fenzi" :
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 17:26:15 +0100
> Pavel Zhukov  wrote:
>
>>  Hi.
>>
>>  I've opened koji after some time and found new features:
>>  - It's not possible to download scratch built packages (You don't
>>  have permission to
>>  access /work/tasks/9935/11629935/nanomsg-0.7-0.1.beta.fc24.src.rpm on
>>  this server)
>
> This was a scratch build done on Oct 29th.
> Scratch builds are only kept for 1 week and then deleted.
> You will need to make a new one.
Before I didn't see links to deleted files at all and it was fine. Now there 
are links and misleading message.
>
>>  - src.rpm is hidden somewhere under first (and only first) subtask
>>  (in my case it's arm). Is it expected to not have src.rpm link under
>>  x86 subtasks?
>
> Yes. The src.rpm is made only once then builds are doing for each arch
> using that one.
Any reason to not put it under main task or put link to every task? Link only 
not duplicate file.  
>
> kevin
> ,--
> devel mailing list
> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

-- 
Pavel
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

rawhide report: 20151128 changes

[Fedora Rawhide Report]

Compose started at Sat Nov 28 05:15:02 UTC 2015
Broken deps for i386
--
[3Depict]
3Depict-0.0.18-2.fc23.i686 requires libmgl.so.7.3.0
[IQmol]
IQmol-2.3.0-9.fc24.i686 requires libboost_serialization.so.1.58.0
IQmol-2.3.0-9.fc24.i686 requires libboost_iostreams.so.1.58.0
IQmol-2.3.0-9.fc24.i686 requires libOpenMeshCore.so.3.2
[alliance]
alliance-5.0-40.20090901snap.fc22.i686 requires libXm.so.2
[ardour]
ardour-2.8.16-15.fc23.i686 requires libaubio.so.2
[ardour2]
ardour2-2.8.16-18.fc24.i686 requires libaubio.so.2
[eclipse-jbosstools]
eclipse-jbosstools-as-4.2.2-1.fc22.noarch requires 
osgi(org.eclipse.tm.terminal)
[fawkes]
fawkes-core-0.5.0-26.fc24.i686 requires libmicrohttpd.so.10
fawkes-plugin-player-0.5.0-26.fc24.i686 requires libgeos-3.4.2.so
fawkes-plugin-xmlrpc-0.5.0-26.fc24.i686 requires libmicrohttpd.so.10
[fedfind]
fedfind-1.6.2-2.fc24.noarch requires python2-cached_property
[gnash]
1:gnash-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires libboost_thread.so.1.58.0
1:gnash-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires libboost_system.so.1.58.0
1:gnash-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires libboost_serialization.so.1.58.0
1:gnash-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires libboost_program_options.so.1.58.0
1:gnash-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires libboost_iostreams.so.1.58.0
1:gnash-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires libboost_date_time.so.1.58.0
1:gnash-cygnal-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires libboost_thread.so.1.58.0
1:gnash-cygnal-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires libboost_system.so.1.58.0
1:gnash-cygnal-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires 
libboost_serialization.so.1.58.0
1:gnash-cygnal-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires 
libboost_program_options.so.1.58.0
1:gnash-cygnal-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires libboost_iostreams.so.1.58.0
1:gnash-cygnal-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires libboost_date_time.so.1.58.0
1:gnash-extension-dejagnu-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires 
libboost_thread.so.1.58.0
1:gnash-extension-dejagnu-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires 
libboost_system.so.1.58.0
1:gnash-extension-dejagnu-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires 
libboost_program_options.so.1.58.0
1:gnash-extension-dejagnu-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires 
libboost_iostreams.so.1.58.0
1:gnash-extension-fileio-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires 
libboost_thread.so.1.58.0
1:gnash-extension-fileio-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires 
libboost_system.so.1.58.0
1:gnash-extension-fileio-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires 
libboost_program_options.so.1.58.0
1:gnash-extension-fileio-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires 
libboost_iostreams.so.1.58.0
1:gnash-extension-lirc-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires 
libboost_thread.so.1.58.0
1:gnash-extension-lirc-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires 
libboost_system.so.1.58.0
1:gnash-extension-lirc-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires 
libboost_program_options.so.1.58.0
1:gnash-extension-lirc-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires 
libboost_iostreams.so.1.58.0
1:gnash-extension-mysql-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires 
libboost_thread.so.1.58.0
1:gnash-extension-mysql-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires 
libboost_system.so.1.58.0
1:gnash-extension-mysql-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires 
libboost_program_options.so.1.58.0
1:gnash-extension-mysql-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires 
libboost_iostreams.so.1.58.0
1:gnash-klash-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires libboost_system.so.1.58.0
1:gnash-klash-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires 
libboost_program_options.so.1.58.0
1:gnash-plugin-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires libboost_iostreams.so.1.58.0
1:python-gnash-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires libboost_thread.so.1.58.0
1:python-gnash-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires libboost_system.so.1.58.0
1:python-gnash-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires 
libboost_program_options.so.1.58.0
1:python-gnash-0.8.10-19.fc24.i686 requires libboost_iostreams.so.1.58.0
[golang-github-kraman-libcontainer]
golang-github-kraman-libcontainer-devel-0-0.4.gitd700e5b.fc24.noarch 
requires golang(github.com/docker/docker/pkg/netlink)
[golang-github-kubernetes-heapster]
golang-github-kubernetes-heapster-devel-0.16.1-1.fc24.noarch requires 
golang(github.com/google/cadvisor/info/v1)
golang-github-kubernetes-heapster-devel-0.16.1-1.fc24.noarch requires 
golang(github.com/google/cadvisor/client)
golang-github-kubernetes-heapster-devel-0.16.1-1.fc24.noarch requires 
golang(github.com/coreos/fleet/schema)
golang-github-kubernetes-heapster-devel-0.16.1-1.fc24.noarch requires 
golang(github.com/coreos/fleet/registry)
golang-github-kubernetes-heapster-devel-0.16.1-1.fc24.noarch requires 
golang(github.com/coreos/fleet/pkg)
golang-github-kubernetes-heapster-devel-0.16.1-1.fc24.noarch requires 
golang(github.com/coreos/fleet/machine)

jbig2dec version bump in f23/el6

[Pavel Zhukov]

$subj-
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208077
-- 
Pavel
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Freerdp update with bundle in guacamole-server

[Pavel Alexeev]

Hi!

I'm sorry for too late answer.

Simone thank you for the update. As I do not use guacamole and it is ok 
just drop rdp support there it just most easy way off course.


And yes, as current version of Remmina has much errors in Fedora 23 I 
want update it to 1.2.0-rcgit.5 in that branch too.


24.11.2015 16:54, Simone Caronni пишет:

Hello,

as you've said, after continuous issues, the Guacamole developers are 
not willing to update to unreleased versions/tarballs.


I've briefly talked with David Woodhouse offlist a few days ago and 
I've pushed a 15th november 2015 build of both FreeRDP [1] and Remmina 
[2] at the same time in rawhide (f24). For the moment I've basically 
ignored guacamole-server at all and I'm waiting on the (promised) 2.0 
snapshot of FreeRDP before updating it.


@Pavel, I suppose you are refferring to update directly in Fedora 23 
and you were not referring to rawhide. I would be more than happy to 
push an update to Fedora 23 considering the amount of crashes that 
Remmina has, but I would wait for the tarball and the Guacamole patch. 
Otherwise disabled RDP support in Guacamole means chunking away a big 
part of its features; and I would like to avoid it.


Regards,
--Simone

[1] http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=699433
[2] http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=699494



On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 7:27 PM, Pavel Alexeev > wrote:


Thanks Neal.

Simone, what you think? I really want move forward and find way.
Remmina have many bugs which should be fixed upstream, but I still
can't update.


14.11.2015 22:20, Neal Gompa wrote:

I am not the maintainer of guacamole-server. That is Simone
Caronni
(who I cc'd to this email) according to PkgDB[0]. Simone is
the one
you want to ask, really.

[0]:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/guacamole-server/

On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Pavel Alexeev
> wrote:

Hello Neal.
If I right understand you are maintainer of guacamole? Do
you wish proceed
with freerdp-compat package only?

09.11.2015 13 :11, Pavel Alexeev пишет:

08.11.2015 23 :38, Neal Gompa пишет:

On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Pavel Alexeev
> wrote:

Hello.

More than half year in the past freerdp was updated
and then reverted
version to current present [1], mostly to allow built
guacamole-server [2].

As I see it still stick with that version.
Meantime freerdp move forward. Remmina, which require
fresh versions of
freerdp also can't be updated.

Recently our bundling policy changed [3].

 From freerdp depends:
$ dnf repoquery --source --alldeps --whatrequires
freerdp-libs
...
freerdp-1.2.0-0.9.git.24a752a.fc23.src.rpm
guacamole-server-0.9.7-1.fc23.src.rpm
medusa-2.2-0.rc1.2.fc23.1.src.rpm
remmina-1.2.0-0.8.git.b3237e8.fc23.src.rpm
vinagre-3.18.1-1.fc23.src.rpm
vlc-2.2.2-0.1.fc23.src.rpm (rpmfusion.org
)
weston-1.9.0-1.fc23.src.rpm

$ dnf repoquery --source --alldeps --whatrequires freerdp
...
krdc-15.04.2-2.fc23.src.rpm

Today I have try build freerdp [4] from master and all
dependencies
against it.

And again, *only* guacamole-server fails to build with:
In file included from rdp_stream.h:29:0,
  from rdp_fs.c:27:
rdp_svc.h:28:38: fatal error:
freerdp/utils/svc_plugin.h: No such file or
directory
compilation terminated.

It relied on old svc_plugin which has been rid in 2013
year [5].

Main question. Is it a good reason to bundle copy of
current version
freerdp into guacamole-server (at least until someone
do not willing port
it) and update it for rest of Fedora?

I have not tried to do such bundle yet, but if no one
argue I could try do
that with update freerdp and rebuild all other deps too.

[1]

https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2015-March/209140.html
[2]

https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2015-March/209181.html
 

Review swap request

[Mattia Verga]

This is a quite simple review:
kpmcore https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285042

I can take another package to swap reviews, but I'm not a sponsor.
Thanks

Mattia
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1286363] New: bigint.pm missing from standard install

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1286363

Bug ID: 1286363
   Summary: bigint.pm missing from standard install
   Product: Fedora
   Version: 23
 Component: perl
  Assignee: jples...@redhat.com
  Reporter: cb-rhb...@fishzet.co.uk
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: cw...@alumni.drew.edu, iarn...@gmail.com,
jples...@redhat.com, ka...@ucw.cz,
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org, ppi...@redhat.com,
psab...@redhat.com, rc040...@freenet.de,
tcall...@redhat.com



Description of problem:
Perl package no longer includes bigint.pm

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
perl-5.22.0-349.fc23.x86_64

How reproducible:
100%

Steps to Reproduce:
Run this command at a prompt
perl -Mbigint -e 'print 1->as_hex()."\n"'


Actual results:
Can't locate bigint.pm in @INC (you may need to install the bigint module)
(@INC contains: /usr/local/lib64/perl5 /usr/local/share/perl5
/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl /usr/lib64/perl5
/usr/share/perl5 .).


Expected results:
0x1

Additional info:
It seems that bigint.pm is now contained in perl-bignum, which is not installed
by default. This results in breakage when scripts are run on Fedora 23. Since
this is a standard feature of perl, it seems reasonable to expect such scripts
to run in a standard install of Fedora 23. This is a regression since Fedora
22.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Fedora Rawhide 20151128 compose check report

[Fedora compose checker]

Missing expected images:

Cloud disk raw i386
Cloud disk raw x86_64
Cloud_atomic disk raw x86_64
Workstation live i386
Workstation live x86_64

No images in this compose but not Rawhide 20151127

No images in Rawhide 20151127 but not this.

Failed openQA tests: 48 of 49

ID: 9173Test: i386 kde_live default_install
ID: 9172Test: x86_64 kde_live default_install
ID: 9171Test: i386 generic_boot default_install
ID: 9170Test: x86_64 generic_boot default_install@uefi
ID: 9169Test: x86_64 generic_boot default_install
ID: 9168Test: i386 universal upgrade_desktop_32bit
ID: 9167Test: i386 universal server_lvmthin
ID: 9166Test: i386 universal server_ext3
ID: 9165Test: i386 universal server_btrfs
ID: 9164Test: i386 universal server_software_raid
ID: 9163Test: i386 universal server_simple_encrypted
ID: 9162Test: i386 universal server_repository_http_graphical
ID: 9161Test: i386 universal server_scsi_updates_img
ID: 9160Test: i386 universal package_set_minimal
ID: 9159Test: x86_64 universal server_no_swap@uefi
ID: 9158Test: x86_64 universal server_lvmthin@uefi
ID: 9157Test: x86_64 universal server_ext3@uefi
ID: 9156Test: x86_64 universal server_btrfs@uefi
ID: 9155Test: x86_64 universal server_software_raid@uefi
ID: 9154Test: x86_64 universal server_multi_empty@uefi
ID: 9153Test: x86_64 universal server_simple_free_space@uefi
ID: 9152Test: x86_64 universal server_simple_encrypted@uefi
ID: 9151Test: x86_64 universal server_delete_partial@uefi
ID: 9150Test: x86_64 universal server_delete_pata@uefi
ID: 9149Test: x86_64 universal server_sata_multi@uefi
ID: 9148Test: x86_64 universal european_language_install
ID: 9147Test: x86_64 universal server_shrink_ntfs
ID: 9146Test: x86_64 universal server_shrink_ext4
ID: 9145Test: x86_64 universal server_updates_img_local
ID: 9144Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_desktop_64bit
ID: 9142Test: x86_64 universal server_kickstart_hdd
ID: 9141Test: x86_64 universal server_no_swap
ID: 9140Test: x86_64 universal server_lvmthin
ID: 9139Test: x86_64 universal server_ext3
ID: 9138Test: x86_64 universal server_btrfs
ID: 9137Test: x86_64 universal server_software_raid
ID: 9136Test: x86_64 universal server_multi_empty
ID: 9135Test: x86_64 universal server_simple_free_space
ID: 9134Test: x86_64 universal server_simple_encrypted
ID: 9133Test: x86_64 universal server_delete_partial
ID: 9132Test: x86_64 universal server_repository_http_variation
ID: 9131Test: x86_64 universal server_repository_http_graphical
ID: 9130Test: x86_64 universal server_mirrorlist_graphical
ID: 9129Test: x86_64 universal server_delete_pata
ID: 9128Test: x86_64 universal server_kickstart_user_creation
ID: 9127Test: x86_64 universal server_scsi_updates_img
ID: 9126Test: x86_64 universal server_sata_multi
ID: 9125Test: x86_64 universal package_set_minimal

Passed openQA tests: 1 of 49
-- 
Mail generated by check-compose:
https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/fedora-qa.git/tree/check-compose
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Review swap request

[Tom Hughes]

On 28/11/15 17:12, Mattia Verga wrote:


This is a quite simple review:
kpmcore https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285042

I can take another package to swap reviews, but I'm not a sponsor.


I've taken it, if you wouldn't mind looking at 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1231460 for me in return.


Thanks,

Tom

--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[RAWHIDE] broken lapack/scipy

[Igor Gnatenko]

Hi all,

if someone of you (provenpackagers) have few minutes to commit patch and
build lapack and then rebuild scipy in Rawhide -- would be great.

Bug with patch: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1286349
-- 

-Igor Gnatenko
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Koji problems

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Sat, 28 Nov 2015 10:19:06 +0100
Pavel Zhukov  wrote:

> Before I didn't see links to deleted files at all and it was fine.
> Now there are links and misleading message.

Theres an issue around one of the files mock/koji now outputs not being
removed by garbage collection, so the directory it's in (which is the
same as the others) still shows up after it's been removed. 

I think I filed this upstream already, but I can check into it more...

> > Yes. The src.rpm is made only once then builds are doing for each
> > arch using that one.  
> Any reason to not put it under main task or put link to every task?
> Link only not duplicate file.  

Feel free to file a RFE on koji, but I think there's good reason the
output looks the way it does now. 

kevin


pgpnJbZlTTJlz.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Package review skipped and straight to repos?

[Alexander Ploumistos]

How come datagrepper lists FAF reports for the package from 2015-07-20,
when it hadn't been included yet?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Package review skipped and straight to repos?

[Till Maas]

On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 12:10:07AM +0200, Alexander Ploumistos wrote:
> How come datagrepper lists FAF reports for the package from 2015-07-20,
> when it hadn't been included yet?

Who said it was not included? It was until now. It will be gone from the
mirrors after the next update push.

Regards
Till
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Package review skipped and straight to repos?

[Till Maas]

On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 09:11:48 +, James Hogarth wrote:

> I was flicking through package review requests to see if anything jumped
> out as interesting when I saw this:
> 
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1280422
> 
> Thought I'd take a look as I hadn't had time to review it when it first
> appeared and the requester had fixed the github breaking fedora-review
> issue ...
> 
> I was very surprised to see :
> 
> Package request has been approved:
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpg
> 
> Given that there is no assignee, no review and no flags on the bug was
> there just a mistake in an automated process or has policy changed on
> actually needing a review?

It looks like a mistake to me, therefore I retired rpg for now.

Regards
Till
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Package review skipped and straight to repos?

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Sat, 28 Nov 2015 21:11:48 +
James Hogarth  wrote:

> I was flicking through package review requests to see if anything
> jumped out as interesting when I saw this:
> 
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1280422
> 
> Thought I'd take a look as I hadn't had time to review it when it
> first appeared and the requester had fixed the github breaking
> fedora-review issue ...
> 
> I was very surprised to see :
> 
> Package request has been approved:
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpg
> 
> Given that there is no assignee, no review and no flags on the bug was
> there just a mistake in an automated process or has policy changed on
> actually needing a review?

No, there's no policy change. Looks like some kind of mistake in
processing. 

I added a comment on the bug.

It would be best if it got reviewed and approved and then imported, but
if not, I will go and remove it. It should not be in the collection
without a review. 

kevin


pgpQzGM6MOlsg.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Package review skipped and straight to repos?

[Alexander Ploumistos]

On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 12:21 AM, Till Maas  wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 12:10:07AM +0200, Alexander Ploumistos wrote:
>> How come datagrepper lists FAF reports for the package from 2015-07-20,
>> when it hadn't been included yet?
>
> Who said it was not included? It was until now. It will be gone from the
> mirrors after the next update push.

The package is first mentioned in the package db on the 20th of November (2015):
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpg/timeline

However, datagrepper has FAF reports for rpg that were filed in July and August:
https://apps.fedoraproject.org/datagrepper/raw?package=rpg=org.fedoraproject.prod.faf.report.threshold1

How is that possible? Was it included in the past and got retired
before it was picked up in November?
Or am I completely misunderstanding something?

Regards
Alex
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Package review skipped and straight to repos?

[James Hogarth]

I was flicking through package review requests to see if anything jumped
out as interesting when I saw this:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1280422

Thought I'd take a look as I hadn't had time to review it when it first
appeared and the requester had fixed the github breaking fedora-review
issue ...

I was very surprised to see :

Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpg

Given that there is no assignee, no review and no flags on the bug was
there just a mistake in an automated process or has policy changed on
actually needing a review?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Planned Outage: fedorainfracloud.org / copr - 2015-12-01 00:00 UTC

[Kevin Fenzi]

 Planned Outage: fedorainfracloud.org / copr - 2015-12-01 00:00 UTC

There will be an outage starting at 2015-12-01 00:00 UTC, which will
last approximately 1 hour.

To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto or run:

date -d '2015-12-01 00:00 UTC'

Reason for outage:

We will be diagnosing and fixing issues in our openstack cloud. This
will result in downtime for any cloud related instances, in particular
copr will be unavailable.

Affected Services:

fedorainfracloud.org copr.fedoraproject.org fedoramagazine.org
taiga.fedorainfracloud.org testdays.fedorainfracloud.org
jenkins.fedorainfracloud.org

various development instances

Contact Information:

Ticket
Link: ​​​https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/5001

Please join #fedora-admin or #fedora-noc on irc.freenode.net or add
comments to the ticket for this outage above.


pgpiFVppAQkzE.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
devel-announce mailing list
devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Can Koji handle a soname change and a self-dependency?

[Björn Persson]

Is there a way to deal with the following situation in Koji?

· Build tool B has a build-time dependency on itself.
· B is linked to library L version 1.
· L gets upgraded to version 2, which changes its soname.

B needs to be rebuilt to link to libL.so.2, but building B requires a
working B, which requires libL.so.1 because it hasn't been rebuilt yet.

As I understand it, when the L-2 package goes into the buildroot it
immediately replaces L-1. Is there a way to keep L-1 available until B
has been rebuilt?

Is the answer to link B statically?

Björn Persson


pgpJFe0_PJnPK.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signatur
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: F24 System Wide Change: Fedora 24 Boost 1.60 uplift

[Richard W.M. Jones]

On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 09:24:21AM +0100, Jan Kurik wrote:
> = System Wide Change: Fedora 24 Boost 1.60 uplift =

Does this mean "upgrade" or "update"?

Rich.

-- 
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com
libguestfs lets you edit virtual machines.  Supports shell scripting,
bindings from many languages.  http://libguestfs.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 430177] clamd.d/amavisd.conf configuration directives require boolean arguments

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=430177

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
   Fixed In Version||amavisd-new-2.5.2-3.el5
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2015-11-28 22:24:00



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 430177] clamd.d/amavisd.conf configuration directives require boolean arguments

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=430177



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
amavisd-new-2.5.2-3.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Package review skipped and straight to repos?

[Parag Nemade]

Hi,

On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 3:27 AM, Till Maas  wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 09:11:48 +, James Hogarth wrote:
>
>> I was flicking through package review requests to see if anything jumped
>> out as interesting when I saw this:
>>
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1280422
>>
>> Thought I'd take a look as I hadn't had time to review it when it first
>> appeared and the requester had fixed the github breaking fedora-review
>> issue ...
>>
>> I was very surprised to see :
>>
>> Package request has been approved:
>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpg
>>
>> Given that there is no assignee, no review and no flags on the bug was
>> there just a mistake in an automated process or has policy changed on
>> actually needing a review?
>
> It looks like a mistake to me, therefore I retired rpg for now.

Is that because of missing validation check for fedora-review+ flag?
Good to add code to check if requested package review bug has
fedora-review+ flag set.

Regards,
Parag.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1284131] perl-Term-Size: please add epel7 branch

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1284131

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-Term-Size-0.207-11.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update perl-Term-Size'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-dd7f9c9b27

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[EPEL-devel]Fedora EPEL 6 updates-testing report

[updates]

The following Fedora EPEL 6 Security updates need testing:
 Age  URL
 161  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-6828   
chicken-4.9.0.1-4.el6
 143  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-7031   
python-virtualenv-12.0.7-1.el6
 137  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-7168   
rubygem-crack-0.3.2-2.el6
  69  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-8148   
optipng-0.7.5-5.el6
  69  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-8156   
nagios-4.0.8-1.el6
  57  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-68a2c2db36   
python-pymongo-3.0.3-1.el6
  27  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-e2b4b5b2fb   
mcollective-2.8.4-1.el6
  27  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-28606b6d1d   
perl-HTML-Scrubber-0.15-1.el6.1
  19  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-b4ebe76583   
putty-0.63-5.el6
  17  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-20cb365c26   
zarafa-7.1.14-1.el6
  15  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-260d131310   
libpng10-1.0.64-1.el6
  14  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-8161a5151b   
ProDy-1.7.1-1.el6
  13  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-b76c1e5912   
potrace-1.13-2.el6
  12  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-2fad2e45f6   
monitorix-3.8.1-1.el6
   9  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-49101d6eb9   
imapsync-1.644-2.el6
   3  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-7e6c3ce778   
knot-1.6.6-1.el6


The following builds have been pushed to Fedora EPEL 6 updates-testing

perl-Term-Size-0.207-11.el6

Details about builds:



 perl-Term-Size-0.207-11.el6 (FEDORA-EPEL-2015-dd7f9c9b27)
 Simple way to get terminal size

Update Information:

- Unretire existing el6 branch - Add new epel7 branch  ---  0.207 2008-08-16
Term-Size  - the original code for retrieving terminal size via XS ioctl is back
-- and this dist is again Unix-centric - use Term::Size::Any for platform
independency

References:

  [ 1 ] Bug #1284131 - perl-Term-Size: please add epel7 branch
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1284131

___
epel-devel mailing list
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1284131] perl-Term-Size: please add epel7 branch

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1284131



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-Term-Size-0.207-11.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update perl-Term-Size'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-1e7e3560ec

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org