Koschei on stable branch and testing repository (QA)

Hi, Please see discussion about using testing package for Koschei to detect possible breakage "before" the update is pushed to stable. https://github.com/msimacek/koschei/issues/194 This may have some infrastructure impact Remi. ___ devel mailing

Re: Pagure roles at Fedora

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 12:04 AM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On 10/11/2017 07:23 PM, Christopher wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Pagure seems to play several roles in the Fedora community, but it's a > bit > > confusing. Perhaps somebody can respond (or write a Wiki article on the > > topic) to

Re: Pagure roles at Fedora

On 10/11/2017 07:23 PM, Christopher wrote: > Hi, > > Pagure seems to play several roles in the Fedora community, but it's a bit > confusing. Perhaps somebody can respond (or write a Wiki article on the > topic) to clear up some confusion. I can try... > For example, I hear/read the term

Re: A less "bloated" KDE spin

> Also, it might be trash for you but for someone else it might be a very useful tool or even his or her favourite programme for a given task. So please, be respectful to others' preferences or needs. Could you guys please stop catching words? Obviously nobody meant any insult by the choice of

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

The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing: Age URL 948 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-1087 dokuwiki-0-0.24.20140929c.el7 710 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-dac7ed832f mcollective-2.8.4-1.el7 292

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

The following Fedora EPEL 6 Security updates need testing: Age URL 826 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-7031 python-virtualenv-12.0.7-1.el6 820 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-7168 rubygem-crack-0.3.2-2.el6 710

Fedora Rawhide-20171011.n.0 compose check report

Missing expected images: Server dvd i386 Workstation live i386 Server boot i386 Kde live i386 Failed openQA tests: 85/128 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm) New failures (same test did not fail in Rawhide-20171010.n.1): ID: 155954 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso install_no_user URL:

Pagure roles at Fedora

Hi, Pagure seems to play several roles in the Fedora community, but it's a bit confusing. Perhaps somebody can respond (or write a Wiki article on the topic) to clear up some confusion. For example, I hear/read the term "dist-git" a lot, but most of the conversation about that seems to focus on

[Fedocal] Reminder meeting : Fedora Modular Server Beta Release Go/No-Go

Dear all, You are kindly invited to the meeting: Fedora Modular Server Beta Release Go/No-Go on 2017-10-12 from 13:00:00 to 15:00:00 US/Eastern At fedora-meetin...@irc.freenode.net The meeting will be about: Before each public release Development, QA and Release Engineering meet to

[Bug 1500794] perl-Term-Table-0.011 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1500794 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA

[Bug 1500439] perl-CPANPLUS-0.9172 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1500439 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 5:36 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 17:13 -0700, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Martin Stransky > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I'm surprised that people use

Re: tnef has unfixed CVEs with patches available for some time

On 10/01/2017 01:41 PM, Christian Stadelmann wrote: > The package tnef [1][2] has unfixed CVEs [3][4]. A fix has been commited and > an update has been released upstream. The fedora version has not seen this > update yet. Can someone please step in? I've built and pushed the update for

Re: 'No More Alphas': wiki revision drafts

On Wed, 2017-08-02 at 17:16 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > Hi, folks! So I've (finally) got ready an initial round of draft > changes to various wiki pages for the purpose of implementing the 'No > More Alphas' Change. You can find all the drafts in the NoMoreAlphas > category: > >

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 17:13 -0700, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Martin Stransky > wrote: > > > > > > > I'm surprised that people use updates-testing for stable/production > > machines, have problem with handling the update and act like newbies.

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Martin Stransky wrote: > > > I'm surprised that people use updates-testing for stable/production > machines, have problem with handling the update and act like newbies. If > you can't handle that, don't use that. Fedora is really a bleeding

Re: Deleting a fork in src.fedoraproject.org?

On 09/08/2017 03:35 PM, Christopher wrote: > I was playing around in the new Pagure https://src.fedoraproject.org/ and I > created a fork of a repo to test. However, I don't need or want this fork. > How do I delete it? There doesn't appear to be an option. Go to the fork page, click on

Fedora Rawhide-20171010.n.1 compose check report

Missing expected images: Server dvd i386 Workstation live i386 Server boot i386 Kde live i386 Failed openQA tests: 88/128 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm) New failures (same test did not fail in Rawhide-20171008.n.0): ID: 155169 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_no_user URL:

Fedora 27-20171011.n.0 compose check report

Missing expected images: Server dvd i386 Workstation live i386 Server boot i386 Kde live i386 Failed openQA tests: 17/128 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm) ID: 155668 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso base_services_start URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/155668 ID: 155684 Test: x86_64

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:07:44PM +0100, James Hogarth wrote: >Yes I saw the commit but that is my very point.  >I was pretty sure that only scratch builds could be carried out from non >release branches but you get something into a compose you needed to merge >to master or a

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 20:58 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > OTOH, let's consider two points: one, FF57 is disruptive, and two, > FF57 will be released as an update in Fedora when Mozilla make the > release, as specified by our policy for FF updates. Uh, what policy is that? AFAICS

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On 2017-10-11, 14:38 GMT, Martin Stransky wrote: > And no, I'm not going to create COPR builds for that - it does > not contain required NSS/NSPR packages and building from git > is broken. I don’t think I want to get immersed into merit of this discussion, but let me just note that: a)

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On 11 Oct 2017 4:48 pm, "Pierre-Yves Chibon" wrote: On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 04:34:52PM +0100, James Hogarth wrote: >On 11 October 2017 at 16:23, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:23 AM, Till Hofmann >

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:52:11PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 15:42 -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > On 11 October 2017 at 15:08, Martin Stransky wrote: > > > On 10/11/2017 07:26 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 15:42 -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On 11 October 2017 at 15:08, Martin Stransky wrote: > > On 10/11/2017 07:26 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Heiko Adams wrote: > > > > > > > Am

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On 11 October 2017 at 15:08, Martin Stransky wrote: > On 10/11/2017 07:26 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: >> >> On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Heiko Adams wrote: >> >>> Am Mittwoch, den 11.10.2017, 07:53 -0700 schrieb Gerald B. Cox: >>> >>> By definition

Re: [atomic-devel] tools and systemtap containers are available in Fedora

De: "Mark Wielaard" >On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 20:36 +0200, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote: >> De: "Frank Ch. Eigler"  > >> > nicolas.mailhot wrote: >> > >> > > [...] >> > > extracting debug info from >> > > /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/golang-github-performancecopilot-speed- >> > >

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On 10/11/2017 07:26 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Heiko Adams wrote: Am Mittwoch, den 11.10.2017, 07:53 -0700 schrieb Gerald B. Cox: By definition BETA software is never intended to be pushed to stable. Fx 57 is BETA. When the STABLE

Re: [atomic-devel] tools and systemtap containers are available in Fedora

On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 20:36 +0200, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote: > De: "Frank Ch. Eigler"  > > > nicolas.mailhot wrote: > > > > > [...] > > > extracting debug info from > > > /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/golang-github-performancecopilot-speed- > > > 2.0.0-1.el7.llt.x86_64/usr/bin/mmvdump > > >

Re: [atomic-devel] tools and systemtap containers are available in Fedora

De: "Frank Ch. Eigler" |nicolas.mailhot wrote: | |> [...] |> extracting debug info from |> /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/golang-github-performancecopilot-speed-2.0.0-1.el7.llt.x86_64/usr/bin/mmvdump |> *** ERROR: No build ID note found in |>

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 1:37 PM Gerald B. Cox wrote: > You need to read my entire statement in context. That is not what I > meant. As I replied to Heiko: > > "My opinion however is common sense dictates that you don't put anything > in updates-testing unless you intend to push

Re: How should we handle gnupg v1.4.X as gpg1?

Hi, On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 09:55:29AM -0700, Brian C. Lane wrote: > The time for change is finally, almost here :) Upstream is talking about > installing the v1.4 series as gpg1. They have already switched the > default install of 2.2 to /usr/bin/gpg, but we currently override this > with the

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 1:05 PM Heiko Adams wrote: > >> Am Mittwoch, den 11.10.2017, 07:53 -0700 schrieb Gerald B. Cox: >> >> By definition BETA software is never intended to be pushed to

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Heiko Adams wrote: > Am Mittwoch, den 11.10.2017, 07:53 -0700 schrieb Gerald B. Cox: > > By definition BETA software is never intended to be pushed to stable. Fx > 57 is BETA. When the STABLE version is released, then it can go into >

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 1:05 PM Heiko Adams wrote: > Am Mittwoch, den 11.10.2017, 07:53 -0700 schrieb Gerald B. Cox: > > By definition BETA software is never intended to be pushed to stable. Fx > 57 is BETA. When the STABLE version is released, then it can go into >

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 07:53 -0700, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > > > Martin, this is what is stated at the very top of the doc you referenced: > > "The *updates-testing* repository > > > It's worth noting that page

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

* Gerald B. Cox [11/10/2017 07:53] : > > By definition BETA software is never intended to be pushed to stable. We've sometimes pushed beta versions of software, usually when that version is more stable than the previous stable release. I'm all for enforcing rules on what goes to the updates and

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

Am Mittwoch, den 11.10.2017, 07:53 -0700 schrieb Gerald B. Cox: > By definition BETA software is never intended to be pushed to > stable. Fx 57 is BETA. When the STABLE version is released, then it > can go into updates-testing. Not before. Again, that is the purpose > of RAWHIDE. > > > >

Re: How should we handle gnupg v1.4.X as gpg1?

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 4:09 AM Tomas Mraz wrote: > On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 05:33 +, Christopher wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 5:44 PM Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski < > > domi...@greysector.net> wrote: > > > > > On Tuesday, 10 October 2017 at 20:57, Christopher wrote: >

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 07:53 -0700, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:00 AM, Martin Stransky > wrote: > > > > >It's *updates*-testing repo and software in it should not be 'planned', > > > but basically 'ready' for Fedora. > > >If you want testing repo

Re: [atomic-devel] tools and systemtap containers are available in Fedora

nicolas.mailhot wrote: > [...] > extracting debug info from > /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/golang-github-performancecopilot-speed-2.0.0-1.el7.llt.x86_64/usr/bin/mmvdump > *** ERROR: No build ID note found in >

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 04:34:52PM +0100, James Hogarth wrote: >On 11 October 2017 at 16:23, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:23 AM, Till Hofmann > wrote: > >The very first sentence of the page you linked above:

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On 11 October 2017 at 16:23, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:23 AM, Till Hofmann > wrote: > >> >> >> The very first sentence of the page you linked above: >> >>> The updates-testing repository, also referred to as Test Updates, >>>

[389-devel] Please review: Merge lib389 to source tree

https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/issue/49363 https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/issue/raw/files/85897f15e4523511c5a01cf20f10dcf05882beaed804ffe666e4e16e28c7d8b3-0001-Ticket-49363-Merge-lib389.patch -- Sincerely, William Brown Software Engineer Red Hat, Australia/Brisbane signature.asc

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:23 AM, Till Hofmann wrote: > > > The very first sentence of the page you linked above: > >> The updates-testing repository, also referred to as Test Updates, >> contains updates scheduled to be released for Branched pre-releases (after >> the

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:00 AM, Martin Stransky wrote: > >It's *updates*-testing repo and software in it should not be 'planned', >> but basically 'ready' for Fedora. >>If you want testing repo for experienced users, use COPR. >> > > I don't see it that way. Is that

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 6:32 AM, Martin Stransky wrote: > On 10/11/2017 03:17 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > >> Was this on purpose? Fx 57 is BETA, and I was under the impression that >> BETA software was for RAWHIDE. >> > > It's going to be stable in one month. Fx 57 release

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On 10/11/2017 03:17 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: Was this on purpose? Fx 57 is BETA, and I was under the impression that BETA software was for RAWHIDE. Yes, I understand there is an annotation NOT to push Fx 57 to stable - but I thought that was the purpose of updates testing... software there is

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20171011.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20171010.n.1 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20171011.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:0 Dropped images: 1 Added packages: 0 Dropped packages:1 Upgraded packages: 24 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 0.00 B Size of dropped packages:1.09

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 10:26 AM Till Hofmann wrote: > > The very first sentence of the page you linked above: > > The updates-testing repository, also referred to as Test Updates, > contains updates scheduled to be released for Branched pre-releases (after > the

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On 10/11/2017 04:00 PM, Martin Stransky wrote: On 10/11/2017 03:52 PM, Tomasz Torcz wrote: On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 03:32:07PM +0200, Martin Stransky wrote: On 10/11/2017 03:17 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: Was this on purpose?  Fx 57 is BETA, and  I was under the impression that BETA software

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Wed, 11 Oct 2017, Martin Stransky wrote: > On 10/11/2017 03:46 PM, Mátyás Selmeci wrote: > > On 10/11/17 08:32, Martin Stransky wrote: > > > On 10/11/2017 03:17 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > > > > Was this on purpose?  Fx 57 is BETA, and I was under the impression that > > > > BETA software was

[Bug 1500805] New: perl-MP3-Info-1.26 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1500805 Bug ID: 1500805 Summary: perl-MP3-Info-1.26 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: perl-MP3-Info Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged Assignee:

[Bug 1500804] New: perl-Net-IPv6Addr-0.91 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1500804 Bug ID: 1500804 Summary: perl-Net-IPv6Addr-0.91 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: perl-Net-IPv6Addr Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged Assignee:

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On 10/11/2017 03:52 PM, Tomasz Torcz wrote: On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 03:32:07PM +0200, Martin Stransky wrote: On 10/11/2017 03:17 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: Was this on purpose? Fx 57 is BETA, and I was under the impression that BETA software was for RAWHIDE. It's going to be stable in one

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On 10/11/2017 03:46 PM, Mátyás Selmeci wrote: On 10/11/17 08:32, Martin Stransky wrote: On 10/11/2017 03:17 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: Was this on purpose?  Fx 57 is BETA, and I was under the impression that BETA software was for RAWHIDE. It's going to be stable in one month. Fx 57 release

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On 10/11/2017 03:46 PM, Mátyás Selmeci wrote: On 10/11/17 08:32, Martin Stransky wrote: On 10/11/2017 03:17 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: Was this on purpose?  Fx 57 is BETA, and I was under the impression that BETA software was for RAWHIDE. It's going to be stable in one month. Fx 57 release

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 03:32:07PM +0200, Martin Stransky wrote: > On 10/11/2017 03:17 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > > Was this on purpose? Fx 57 is BETA, and I was under the impression that > > BETA software was for RAWHIDE. > > It's going to be stable in one month. Fx 57 release date is

[Bug 1500794] perl-Term-Table-0.011 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1500794 --- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Term-Table-0.011-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-2b491ac3f3 -- You are receiving this mail

[Bug 1500794] perl-Term-Table-0.011 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1500794 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On 10/11/17 08:32, Martin Stransky wrote: On 10/11/2017 03:17 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: Was this on purpose?  Fx 57 is BETA, and I was under the impression that BETA software was for RAWHIDE. It's going to be stable in one month. Fx 57 release date is 2017-11-14. Yes, I understand there is an

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On 10/11/2017 03:17 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: Was this on purpose? Fx 57 is BETA, and I was under the impression that BETA software was for RAWHIDE. It's going to be stable in one month. Fx 57 release date is 2017-11-14. Yes, I understand there is an annotation NOT to push Fx 57 to stable -

[Bug 1500794] New: perl-Term-Table-0.011 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1500794 Bug ID: 1500794 Summary: perl-Term-Table-0.011 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: perl-Term-Table Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged Assignee:

Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

Was this on purpose? Fx 57 is BETA, and I was under the impression that BETA software was for RAWHIDE. Yes, I understand there is an annotation NOT to push Fx 57 to stable - but I thought that was the purpose of updates testing... software there is intended to be tested and pushed to stable.

[389-devel] Re: csiphash on Sparc

On (11/10/17 12:42), Carsten Grzemba wrote: > > >On 11.10.17 10:54, William Brown wrote: >> >> On Tue, 2017-10-10 at 16:28 +0200, Carsten Grzemba wrote: >> > >> > On 10.10.17 16:10, William Brown wrote: >> > > >> > > On Fri, 2017-10-06 at 10:21

[Bug 1500439] perl-CPANPLUS-0.9172 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1500439 --- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System --- perl-CPANPLUS-0.917.200-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-fddaee64b9 -- You are receiving this

Re: tools and systemtap containers are available in Fedora

Hi Tomas, On Fri, 2017-10-06 at 20:09 +0200, Tomas Tomecek wrote: > Mark, thanks for feedback! > > I'll be honest that I left gcc and gdb in there by accident. As Dan > said, we are trying to reduce size of that container so it's easier > to use. Who decides what's in it? > This was an internal

[Bug 1500439] perl-CPANPLUS-0.9172 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1500439 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED

[Bug 1500438] perl-Code-TidyAll-0.69 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1500438 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1500691

[389-devel] Re: csiphash on Sparc

On 11.10.17 10:54, William Brown wrote: > > On Tue, 2017-10-10 at 16:28 +0200, Carsten Grzemba wrote: > > > > On 10.10.17 16:10, William Brown wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 2017-10-06 at 10:21 +0200, Carsten Grzemba wrote: > > > > Currently the code

Re: [HEADS UP] libselinux golang bindings will be dropped from Rawhide

On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 05:06:02PM +0200, Zygmunt Krynicki wrote: > > As it's too early to tell which way we'll go with SELinux and golang I > think it's okay to drop this. Once we start to make some progress into > making any policy work in snapd we'll either revive this or use a > maintained

Re: [atomic-devel] tools and systemtap containers are available in Fedora

Hi, BTW since we are talking about debug and future tech, what is the correct way (as of rawhide and EPEL 7) to handle extracting debug info from /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/golang-github-performancecopilot-speed-2.0.0-1.el7.llt.x86_64/usr/bin/mmvdump *** ERROR: No build ID note found in

[389-devel] Re: csiphash on Sparc

On Tue, 2017-10-10 at 16:28 +0200, Carsten Grzemba wrote: > > On 10.10.17 16:10, William Brown wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2017-10-06 at 10:21 +0200, Carsten Grzemba wrote: > > > Currently the code src/libsds/external/csiphash/csiphash.c do not work on > > > Sparc. > > > The

Re: How should we handle gnupg v1.4.X as gpg1?

On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 05:33 +, Christopher wrote: > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 5:44 PM Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski < > domi...@greysector.net> wrote: > > > On Tuesday, 10 October 2017 at 20:57, Christopher wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 1:04 PM Brian C. Lane > > >

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

The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing: Age URL 947 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-1087 dokuwiki-0-0.24.20140929c.el7 709 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-dac7ed832f mcollective-2.8.4-1.el7 291

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

The following Fedora EPEL 6 Security updates need testing: Age URL 825 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-7031 python-virtualenv-12.0.7-1.el6 819 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-7168 rubygem-crack-0.3.2-2.el6 709

[Bug 1494881] perl-PDF-Create-1.43 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1494881 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA

[Bug 1488159] Upgrade perl-HTTP-OAI to 4.06

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1488159 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA