Fedora Rawhide-20180427.n.1 compose check report

[Fedora compose checker]

No missing expected images.

Failed openQA tests: 36/137 (x86_64), 14/24 (i386), 1/2 (arm)

ID: 230771  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso base_services_start
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/230771
ID: 230784  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/230784
ID: 230785  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_notifications_live
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/230785
ID: 230786  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_default_upload
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/230786
ID: 230800  Test: i386 Workstation-live-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/230800
ID: 230801  Test: i386 Workstation-boot-iso memory_check
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/230801
ID: 230802  Test: i386 Workstation-boot-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/230802
ID: 230805  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso install_no_user
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/230805
ID: 230807  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso base_services_start
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/230807
ID: 230815  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_browser
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/230815
ID: 230817  Test: arm Minimal-raw_xz-raw.xz 
install_arm_image_deployment_upload
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/230817
ID: 230821  Test: x86_64 AtomicWorkstation-dvd_ostree-iso 
install_default_upload
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/230821
ID: 230822  Test: x86_64 AtomicWorkstation-dvd_ostree-iso 
install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/230822
ID: 230824  Test: x86_64 AtomicWorkstation-dvd_ostree-iso install_no_user
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/230824
ID: 230834  Test: x86_64 universal install_blivet_no_swap@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/230834
ID: 230835  Test: x86_64 universal install_repository_http_graphical
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/230835
ID: 230836  Test: x86_64 universal install_mirrorlist_graphical
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/230836
ID: 230841  Test: x86_64 universal install_asian_language
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/230841
ID: 230843  Test: x86_64 universal install_blivet_no_swap
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/230843
ID: 230844  Test: x86_64 universal install_blivet_xfs
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/230844
ID: 230845  Test: x86_64 universal install_blivet_software_raid
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/230845
ID: 230846  Test: x86_64 universal install_blivet_lvmthin
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/230846
ID: 230848  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_desktop_encrypted_64bit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/230848
ID: 230850  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_desktop_64bit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/230850
ID: 230853  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_desktop_encrypted_64bit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/230853
ID: 230857  Test: x86_64 universal install_european_language
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/230857
ID: 230858  Test: x86_64 universal install_cyrillic_language
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/230858
ID: 230859  Test: x86_64 universal install_repository_http_variation
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/230859
ID: 230870  Test: x86_64 universal install_iscsi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/230870
ID: 230871  Test: x86_64 universal install_blivet_ext3
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/230871
ID: 230872  Test: x86_64 universal install_blivet_btrfs
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/230872
ID: 230875  Test: x86_64 universal install_blivet_xfs@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/230875
ID: 230876  Test: x86_64 universal install_blivet_lvmthin@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/230876
ID: 230877  Test: x86_64 universal install_package_set_kde
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/230877
ID: 230882  Test: x86_64 universal install_blivet_ext3@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/230882
ID: 230883  Test: x86_64 universal install_blivet_btrfs@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/230883
ID: 230886  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_desktop_64bit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/230886
ID: 230888  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_server_domain_controller
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/230888
ID: 230891  Test: x86_64 universal install_blivet_software_raid@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/230891
ID: 230892  Test: x86_64 universal install_simple_encrypted@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/230892
ID: 230902  Test: i386 universal install_blivet_xfs
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/230902
ID: 230903  Test: i386 universal install_blivet_software_raid
URL: 

[Bug 1572398] perl-bareword-filehandles-0.006 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1572398



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-bareword-filehandles-0.006-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-8233d5a376

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1572409] perl-multidimensional-0.014 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1572409



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-multidimensional-0.014-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-ddaf936ba9

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Intent to orphan: rubygem-ronn, trac-code-comments-plugin

[Ricky Elrod]

I am orphaning the packages:
- rubygem-ronn
- trac-code-comments-plugin

...as I no longer have a need for them and have been unable to find
the time to properly care for them and update them.

These are mostly easy-to-care-for packages, but they are starting to
accumulate some bugs that need dusting off:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=rubygem-ronn_id=8752968


-Ricky
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1572409] perl-multidimensional-0.014 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1572409

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-multidimensional-0.014-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-02ed6f09f3

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1572398] perl-bareword-filehandles-0.006 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1572398

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-bareword-filehandles-0.006-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-d4f03af3a6

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Fedora Workstation and Third-Party Repositories

[Thomas Gilliard]

I found that

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/Third_Party_Software_Repositories

works in f28 KDE DE also:

'dnf install fedora-workstation-repositories' installs the extra third 
party repositories on the command line and makes the .repo files 
available in /etc/yum.repos.d/.


Chrome browser is installed

satellit
On 04/27/2018 05:39 PM, David Benoit wrote:
Ah, I did not realize the repositories were disabled in the rpm. Would 
it be appropriate for me to update this 
page 
to mention that under the command line installation section?


Additionally, might it be worth adding a provision to the policy that 
new repositories must be disabled?  Perhaps it is redundant since the 
request goes through Legal and FESCo anyway, but it could be helpful 
to users and packagers reading the policy.


Anyway, thanks very much!  I appreciate the clarification. My initial 
concern is completely put to rest.

DB


On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 7:38 PM, Kevin Fenzi > wrote:


On 04/27/2018 02:56 PM, David Benoit wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Regarding the inclusion of the fedora-workstation-repositories
package in
> F28, is there currently a policy in place against including it as a
> dependency? From what I understand from the recent fedora
magazine article
> > and
the policy
> wiki page
>

>,
> the purpose of distributing the third-party repositories an rpm is to
> ensure that a user must enable them explicitly.
>
>
> Is there some some preventative measure in place to protect
users from the
> package being pulled in silently as a dependency?

I don't understand why someone would add such a dep... but even if
they
did, the repos would not be enabled when installed. They are
disabled in
the rpm. The user must explicitly enable them.

> If repository-enabling
> rpms are to become acceptable cases for package submissions, what
> considerations are being taken to ensure such submissions are
tracked and
> handled similarly?

Well, depending on what they are they would need to pass Legal and
FESCo
approval which would be via ticketing, etc.

Open to better ways to word that policy page for them...

kevin



___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

To unsubscribe send an email to
devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org





--

DAVID BENOIT

INTERN, multi-arch qe

Red Hat







___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org


___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Fedora Workstation and Third-Party Repositories

[David Benoit]

Ah, I did not realize the repositories were disabled in the rpm.  Would it
be appropriate for me to update this

 page to mention that under the command line installation section?

Additionally, might it be worth adding a provision to the policy that new
repositories must be disabled?  Perhaps it is redundant since the request
goes through Legal and FESCo anyway, but it could be helpful to users and
packagers reading the policy.

Anyway, thanks very much!  I appreciate the clarification.  My initial
concern is completely put to rest.
DB


On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 7:38 PM, Kevin Fenzi  wrote:

> On 04/27/2018 02:56 PM, David Benoit wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Regarding the inclusion of the fedora-workstation-repositories package
> in
> > F28, is there currently a policy in place against including it as a
> > dependency? From what I understand from the recent fedora magazine
> article
> >  and the
> policy
> > wiki page
> >  software_policies?rd=Workstation/Third_party_software_proposal>,
> > the purpose of distributing the third-party repositories an rpm is to
> > ensure that a user must enable them explicitly.
> >
> >
> > Is there some some preventative measure in place to protect users from
> the
> > package being pulled in silently as a dependency?
>
> I don't understand why someone would add such a dep... but even if they
> did, the repos would not be enabled when installed. They are disabled in
> the rpm. The user must explicitly enable them.
>
> > If repository-enabling
> > rpms are to become acceptable cases for package submissions, what
> > considerations are being taken to ensure such submissions are tracked and
> > handled similarly?
>
> Well, depending on what they are they would need to pass Legal and FESCo
> approval which would be via ticketing, etc.
>
> Open to better ways to word that policy page for them...
>
> kevin
>
>
>
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
>
>


-- 

DAVID BENOIT

INTERN, multi-arch qe

Red Hat



___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1572822] New: perl-Storable-3.11 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1572822

Bug ID: 1572822
   Summary: perl-Storable-3.11 is available
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: perl-Storable
  Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
  Assignee: ppi...@redhat.com
  Reporter: upstream-release-monitor...@fedoraproject.org
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org, ppi...@redhat.com



Latest upstream release: 3.11
Current version/release in rawhide: 3.09-1.fc29
URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Storable/

Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a
stable branch: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy

More information about the service that created this bug can be found at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring

Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging
changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your
responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still
correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added
upstream.

Based on the information from anitya: 
https://release-monitoring.org/project/3338/

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1572818] New: perl-File-ConfigDir-0.019 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1572818

Bug ID: 1572818
   Summary: perl-File-ConfigDir-0.019 is available
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: perl-File-ConfigDir
  Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
  Assignee: dd...@cpan.org
  Reporter: upstream-release-monitor...@fedoraproject.org
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: dd...@cpan.org, perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org



Latest upstream release: 0.019
Current version/release in rawhide: 0.018-4.fc28
URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/File-ConfigDir/

Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a
stable branch: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy

More information about the service that created this bug can be found at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring

Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging
changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your
responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still
correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added
upstream.

Based on the information from anitya: 
https://release-monitoring.org/project/2881/

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Fedora Workstation and Third-Party Repositories

[Kevin Fenzi]

On 04/27/2018 02:56 PM, David Benoit wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Regarding the inclusion of the fedora-workstation-repositories package in
> F28, is there currently a policy in place against including it as a
> dependency? From what I understand from the recent fedora magazine article
>  and the policy
> wiki page
> ,
> the purpose of distributing the third-party repositories an rpm is to
> ensure that a user must enable them explicitly.
> 
> 
> Is there some some preventative measure in place to protect users from the
> package being pulled in silently as a dependency? 

I don't understand why someone would add such a dep... but even if they
did, the repos would not be enabled when installed. They are disabled in
the rpm. The user must explicitly enable them.

> If repository-enabling
> rpms are to become acceptable cases for package submissions, what
> considerations are being taken to ensure such submissions are tracked and
> handled similarly?

Well, depending on what they are they would need to pass Legal and FESCo
approval which would be via ticketing, etc.

Open to better ways to word that policy page for them...

kevin




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Fedora Workstation and Third-Party Repositories

[David Benoit]

Hi all,

Regarding the inclusion of the fedora-workstation-repositories package in
F28, is there currently a policy in place against including it as a
dependency? From what I understand from the recent fedora magazine article
 and the policy
wiki page
,
the purpose of distributing the third-party repositories an rpm is to
ensure that a user must enable them explicitly.


Is there some some preventative measure in place to protect users from the
package being pulled in silently as a dependency? If repository-enabling
rpms are to become acceptable cases for package submissions, what
considerations are being taken to ensure such submissions are tracked and
handled similarly?


Apologies if this has been addressed before, but I haven't been able to
find any documentation on the subject.


Thanks,

DB
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Fedora 28 Final status is GO

[Adam Williamson]

On Thu, 2018-04-26 at 16:54 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 01:02:32PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > *was* an 'official' schedule with an earlier release date than the
> > actual one in each case. If anyone's as sadly nerdy as me, I can
> > provide specific references for each of these releases.
> 
> Um, yes please.

FINE.

AdamW Industries hereby presents The Utterly Comprehensive And
Definitive History Of Fedora Release Delays.

All actual release dates mentioned here are taken from
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/HistoricalSchedules , cross
checked with https://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=fedora .

Fedora Core 1: 
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2003-October/msg01178.html
"We had to respin FC1 today for a non-technical issue...so we have to
slip until after we hear back from them". Thanks to Thomas Moschny
for spotting/remembering that one!

Fedora Core 2: 
https://web.archive.org/web/20040406202016/http://fedora.redhat.com/participate/schedule/
That's the schedule on 2004-04-06 per Wayback Machine, the last
snapshot taken before the actual release. It shows "Release open"
on 2004-05-10. Actual release was 2004-05-18.

Fedora Core 3: 
https://web.archive.org/web/20041014022956/http://fedora.redhat.com/participate/schedule/
That's the schedule on 2004-10-14 per Wayback Machine. It shows
"Release open" on 2004-11-01. By 2004-10-22 that date had been changed
to 2004-11-08, which was the actual final release date. So there was
a one-week slip less than three weeks before release. (This wasn't the
only slip; back in August, for instance, the date was shown as
2004-10-25: 
https://web.archive.org/web/2004081233/http://fedora.redhat.com:80/participate/schedule/
 )

Fedora Core 4: 
https://web.archive.org/web/20050212015551/http://fedora.redhat.com/participate/schedule/
On 2005-02-12, the "Release open" date was 2005-05-16.
https://web.archive.org/web/20050517233132/http://fedora.redhat.com/participate/schedule/
by 2005-05-17, it had changed to 2005-06-06 (which was still the target
at least as late as 2005-05-29). Actual release was 2005-06-13.

Fedora Core 5: 
https://web.archive.org/web/20051211051141/http://fedora.redhat.com:80/About/schedule/
On 2005-12-11, the "Release open" date was 2006-02-27.
https://web.archive.org/web/20060217043822/http://fedora.redhat.com:80/About/schedule/
By 2006-02-17, it had changed to 2006-03-15. Actual release date
was 2006-03-20.

Fedora Core 6: 
https://web.archive.org/web/20060601062428/http://fedoraproject.org:80/wiki/Core/Schedule
On 2006-06-01, GA date (this appears to be when we started calling it
'GA', fact fans!) was 2006-09-27.
https://web.archive.org/web/20061010085518/http://fedoraproject.org:80/wiki/Core/Schedule
by 2006-10-10, it had changed to 2006-10-17. We were still wrong just
a week out, though: it actually was released 2006-10-24.

Fedora 7: I found various references for this, but carrying on using
the Wayback Machine on the wiki seems like a good a plan as any. So:
https://web.archive.org/web/20070319211234/http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/Schedule
On 2007-03-19, GA date was 2007-05-24. It stayed that way till
2007-05-08: 
https://web.archive.org/web/20070508223935/http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/Schedule
Then around 2007-05-10 the date was changed to 2007-05-?? (yes, really)
with a note "Final freeze and GA have slipped by at least a week from
their original dates of May 10 and May 24, respectively. When more firm
dates are determined, this will be updated again.":
https://web.archive.org/web/20070510074633/http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/Schedule
indeed, the release finally happened on 2007-05-31. Note that in the
initial tentative schedule discussed by the Board:
https://lwn.net/Articles/213942/ , release was on 2007-04-24.

Fedora 8: 
https://web.archive.org/web/20170318225502/https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/8/Schedule
On 2007-06-02, GA was scheduled for 2007-10-31 (LWN posted a story
about this on 2007-05-31: https://lwn.net/Articles/236468/), though
note to be fair, the schedule was explicitly marked as a "draft" at
this point. By 2007-06-30, the "draft" note was removed, and the GA
date was set for 2007-11-07:
https://web.archive.org/web/20070630004529/https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/8/Schedule
This is by far the closest we ever came to an 'on time' release before,
because actual release happened just a day later, on 2007-11-08. So
if we discount the 'draft' schedule, F8 was only delayed by one day.

Fedora 9: 
https://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?186443-Fedora-9-Release-Date-Slips-Two-Weeks-to-5-13-08
The forums actually have a thread recording that a two week slip was
officially announced by FESCo around 2008-04-17. This is captured in
the Wayback Machine:
https://web.archive.org/web/20080409211329/https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/9/Schedule
on 2008-04-09, "final release" was listed as 2008-04-29, but by
2008-04-20, that had 

Fedora 28-20180427.n.0 compose check report

[Fedora compose checker]

No missing expected images.

Failed openQA tests: 1/137 (x86_64), 3/24 (i386), 1/2 (arm)

ID: 230555  Test: x86_64 Everything-boot-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/230555
ID: 230574  Test: i386 Workstation-boot-iso memory_check
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/230574
ID: 230575  Test: i386 Workstation-boot-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/230575
ID: 230590  Test: arm Minimal-raw_xz-raw.xz 
install_arm_image_deployment_upload
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/230590
ID: 230681  Test: i386 universal install_simple_encrypted
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/230681

Soft failed openQA tests: 7/137 (x86_64), 2/24 (i386)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)

ID: 230538  Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_realmd_join_kickstart
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/230538
ID: 230552  Test: i386 Server-boot-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/230552
ID: 230553  Test: i386 Server-dvd-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/230553
ID: 230557  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/230557
ID: 230577  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso install_default_upload
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/230577
ID: 230614  Test: x86_64 universal install_asian_language
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/230614
ID: 230643  Test: x86_64 universal install_iscsi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/230643
ID: 230661  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_server_domain_controller
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/230661
ID: 230662  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_realmd_client
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/230662

Passed openQA tests: 129/137 (x86_64), 19/24 (i386)

Skipped openQA tests: 1 of 163
-- 
Mail generated by check-compose:
https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Fedora 28 Final status is GO

[Adam Williamson]

On Fri, 2018-04-27 at 18:29 +0200, Thomas Moschny wrote:
> 2018-04-26 22:02 GMT+02:00 Adam Williamson :
> > On that basis, I'm gonna say FC1 was at least a day late from the
> > schedule in place a week before it came out,
> 
> It even slipped 'officially':
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2003-October/msg01178.html
> :)

Wow, nice find, thank you Thomas! :)
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Fedora 28 compose report: 20180427.n.0 changes

[Fedora Branched Report]

OLD: Fedora-28-20180425.n.0
NEW: Fedora-28-20180427.n.0

= SUMMARY =
Added images:1
Dropped images:  1
Added packages:  0
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages:   0
Downgraded packages: 0

Size of added packages:  0 B
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size of upgraded packages:   0 B
Size of downgraded packages: 0 B

Size change of upgraded packages:   0 B
Size change of downgraded packages: 0 B

= ADDED IMAGES =
Image: Container_Minimal_Base docker s390x
Path: 
Container/s390x/images/Fedora-Container-Minimal-Base-28-20180427.n.0.s390x.tar.xz

= DROPPED IMAGES =
Image: Container_Minimal_Base docker ppc64le
Path: 
Container/ppc64le/images/Fedora-Container-Minimal-Base-28-20180425.n.0.ppc64le.tar.xz

= ADDED PACKAGES =

= DROPPED PACKAGES =

= UPGRADED PACKAGES =

= DOWNGRADED PACKAGES =
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: systemd in non-privileged container

[Pavel Raiskup]

On Friday, April 27, 2018 5:41:19 PM CEST Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Fr, 27.04.18 17:27, Pavel Raiskup (prais...@redhat.com) wrote:
> 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > just wanted to let you know about trivial experiment [1] with systemd in
> > container.  Non-privileged systemd can now pretty fine run in docker
> > container (tested on Fedora 27 box).
> 
> Hmm, IIRC there were at least two isues still, did they get resolved?
> Specifically:
> 
> 1. docker fakes a /dev/console that doesn't behave like a console
>usually works, i.e. if a hangup is seen on it then it will destroy
>the pty behind it, instead of keeping it around...

There't toy work-around to have at least something:
https://github.com/praiskup/systemd-container/blob/master/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/systemd

Pavel

> 2. docker sends SIGTERM to the container's PID 1 when it wants it to
>go down even though SIGTERM to PID 1 on SysV systems generally
>means "please reexecute", and not "please shut down".
> 
> What's the current state on that?
> 
> Lennart
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> 



___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: systemd in non-privileged container

[Daniel Walsh]

On 04/27/2018 11:41 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:

On Fr, 27.04.18 17:27, Pavel Raiskup (prais...@redhat.com) wrote:


Hi all,

just wanted to let you know about trivial experiment [1] with systemd in
container.  Non-privileged systemd can now pretty fine run in docker
container (tested on Fedora 27 box).

Hmm, IIRC there were at least two isues still, did they get resolved?
Specifically:

1. docker fakes a /dev/console that doesn't behave like a console
usually works, i.e. if a hangup is seen on it then it will destroy
the pty behind it, instead of keeping it around...
First off this is not a Docker issue, it is a runc and OCI Runtime 
issue.  I am not sure if this is fixed or not at this point.

2. docker sends SIGTERM to the container's PID 1 when it wants it to
go down even though SIGTERM to PID 1 on SysV systems generally
means "please reexecute", and not "please shut down".
The container runtimes can specify a stop signal, so as long as you 
specify the correct stop signal when creating your systemd based image, 
everything should work properly.


NOTE you need to have oci-systemd-hook installed, and the container 
runtime needs to be able support OCI Runtime hooks.


podman, CRI-O and ProjectAtomic/Docker all support them.  Upstream 
Docker does NOT.



What's the current state on that?

Lennart
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org


___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Fedora 28 Final status is GO

[Thomas Moschny]

2018-04-26 22:02 GMT+02:00 Adam Williamson :
> On that basis, I'm gonna say FC1 was at least a day late from the
> schedule in place a week before it came out,

It even slipped 'officially':
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2003-October/msg01178.html
:)

- Thomas
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2018-04-27)

[Jared K. Smith]

Minutes: 
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2018-04-27/fesco.2018-04-27-15.02.html
Minutes (text):
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2018-04-27/fesco.2018-04-27-15.02.txt
Log: 
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2018-04-27/fesco.2018-04-27-15.02.log.html

===
#fedora-meeting: FESCO (2018-04-27)
===


Meeting started by jsmith at 15:02:08 UTC. The full logs are available
athttps://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2018-04-27/fesco.2018-04-27-15.02.log.html
.



Meeting summary
---
* init process  (jsmith, 15:02:09)

* #1883 Request for rebase of libdnf/dnf after Fedora 28 GA  (jsmith,
  15:03:12)
  * LINK: https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1883   (jsmith, 15:03:13)

* #1882 F28 Self Contained Change: java-openjdk 10 - rolling release for
  Short Term Support releases of OpenJDK  (jsmith, 15:04:20)
  * LINK: https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1882   (jsmith, 15:04:20)

* #1877 large number of packages FTBFS in F28  (jsmith, 15:05:17)
  * LINK: https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1877   (jsmith, 15:05:17)
  * LINK: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/6859 is also
related.  (zbyszek, 15:10:17)
  * AGREED: #1877 Wait two weeks, as tyll (perhaps with help from
others) will follow up on this (+1:6,+0:0,-1:0)  (jsmith, 15:10:44)
  * Infra ticket 6859 is likely related  (zbyszek, 15:11:26)

* #1872 Disable Test Gating requirements until more UI is enabled
  (jsmith, 15:11:46)
  * LINK: https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1872   (jsmith, 15:11:46)
  * AGREED: #1872 Wait a week or two for Bodhi release 3.7.0 to get the
improvements outlined by bowlofeggs (+1:6,+0:0,-1:0)  (jsmith,
15:20:06)

* #1858 Proposed Fedora 29 schedule  (jsmith, 15:20:18)
  * LINK: https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1858   (jsmith, 15:20:18)
  * AGREED: #1858 Use sgallagh's proposal of having AppStream data
freeze one day after Final Freeze (+1:6, +0:0, -1:0)  (jsmith,
15:26:23)

* #1884 provenpackager request for itamarjp  (jsmith, 15:27:30)
  * LINK: https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1884   (jsmith, 15:27:30)
  * AGREED: itamarjp is approved as a Proven Packager  (jsmith,
15:30:54)

* Next week's chair  (jsmith, 15:31:00)
  * ACTION: bowlofeggs to chair the next meeting  (jsmith, 15:31:50)

* #1767 F28 Self Contained Changes  (jsmith, 15:32:17)

* Open Floor  (jsmith, 15:34:50)
  * Congratulations on shipping F28!  (sgallagh, 15:53:49)

Meeting ended at 15:58:29 UTC.




Action Items

* bowlofeggs to chair the next meeting




Action Items, by person
---
* bowlofeggs
  * bowlofeggs to chair the next meeting
* **UNASSIGNED**
  * (none)




People Present (lines said)
---
* jsmith (96)
* bowlofeggs (77)
* sgallagh (65)
* zbyszek (42)
* nirik (24)
* tyll (22)
* zodbot (20)
* maxamillion (12)
* dgilmore (9)
* tyll_ (1)
* jwb (1)
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: systemd in non-privileged container

[Lennart Poettering]

On Fr, 27.04.18 17:27, Pavel Raiskup (prais...@redhat.com) wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> just wanted to let you know about trivial experiment [1] with systemd in
> container.  Non-privileged systemd can now pretty fine run in docker
> container (tested on Fedora 27 box).

Hmm, IIRC there were at least two isues still, did they get resolved?
Specifically:

1. docker fakes a /dev/console that doesn't behave like a console
   usually works, i.e. if a hangup is seen on it then it will destroy
   the pty behind it, instead of keeping it around...

2. docker sends SIGTERM to the container's PID 1 when it wants it to
   go down even though SIGTERM to PID 1 on SysV systems generally
   means "please reexecute", and not "please shut down".

What's the current state on that?

Lennart
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

systemd in non-privileged container

[Pavel Raiskup]

Hi all,

just wanted to let you know about trivial experiment [1] with systemd in
container.  Non-privileged systemd can now pretty fine run in docker
container (tested on Fedora 27 box).

Could we support this under fedora-kickstarts, or as a layered image?

[1] https://github.com/praiskup/systemd-container

Pavel


___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Fedora 28 Final status is GO

[Mohan Boddu]

Wow, that is some serious digging, and good to know that we are on time :)

Hope we continue it for future releases.

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 4:03 PM Adam Williamson 
wrote:

> On Thu, 2018-04-26 at 20:41 +0200, Jan Kurik wrote:
> > The Fedora_28_RC_1.1 compose [1] is considered as GOLD and it is going
> > to be shipped on 2018-May-01 as Fedora 28 Final release.
> >
> > For more information please check the meeting minutes [2] from the
> > Go/No-Go meeting.
>
> For the record, I have determined to at least my own satisfaction that
> this is the first *ever* on-time Fedora release. Go team!
>
> For releases from 11 onwards it's easy to demonstrate that they
> slipped: the original dates were kept in their wiki schedule pages with
> a strike-through each time they slipped, so you just go to each
> release's page and verify it has some strikethroughs for the 'Final
> release" date.
>
> For releases from 7 to 10 this wasn't done - the 'official' schedule
> page was just silently edited when the schedule slipped, and as the
> wiki at that point in history was MoinMoin not Mediawiki, we don't have
> the edit histories any more. However, I've found references to earlier
> schedules around the place (meeting logs, mailing list archives, forum
> posts, sometimes John Poelstra's blog) that sufficiently indicate there
> *was* an 'official' schedule with an earlier release date than the
> actual one in each case. If anyone's as sadly nerdy as me, I can
> provide specific references for each of these releases.
>
> For releases from FC2 to FC6 you can find the schedules in the Wayback
> Machine archives for http://fedora.redhat.com/participate/schedule/ :
>
>
> https://web.archive.org/web/2003070100*/http://fedora.redhat.com/participate/schedule/
>
> For these releases, the schedule was never claimed to be 'official', it
> was always referred to as a 'draft'. But I came up with a pretty
> conservative definition of 'delayed': I looked at the page approx. 3
> weeks before the *actual* release date for each of these releases. In
> each case, the Final release date that was scheduled 3 weeks before the
> *actual* release date didn't match, it was earlier. I think it's
> reasonable to consider this as a 'slip' in each case - if we didn't
> even meet the schedule we had planned less than a month before release,
> it's pretty hard to argue that's not a 'slip'.
>
> FC1 is the trickiest. I don't think any FC1 development schedule was
> ever really made public. So for that one I got creative. There's an
> article on LWN - written by Joe Brockmeier no less! - around the time
> of the release:
>
> https://lwn.net/Articles/56036/
>
> It was written on Wednesday 2018-10-29, and states in part:
>
> "With the first stable release of the Fedora Core scheduled for early
> next week..."
>
> Now, the release actually happened on 2018-11-05. Which *is* 'next
> week' from 2018-10-29, but it's also Wednesday of the next week. I am
> going to hold that no-one can reasonably claim Wednesday is "early" in
> a given week. Surely only Monday and Tuesday (and Sunday, depending on
> what day you think a week starts on) can plausibly claim to be "early".
> On that basis, I'm gonna say FC1 was at least a day late from the
> schedule in place a week before it came out, and on that basis...every
> release from FC1 to F27 was at least a day late. And F28 is the first
> one that's ever been on time.
>
> :P
> --
> Adam Williamson
> Fedora QA Community Monkey
> IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
> http://www.happyassassin.net
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
>
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Fedora 28 Final status is GO

[Björn Persson]

Chris Adams  wrote:
> Once upon a time, Adam Williamson  said:
> > For the record, I have determined to at least my own satisfaction that
> > this is the first *ever* on-time Fedora release. Go team!  
> 
> Ehh, release schedules are more like guidelines anyway... :)

In Fedora "guidelines" usually means "strict regulations". :-Þ

Björn Persson


pgphM5zEOKLsN.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signatur
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1572412] perl-PPIx-Regexp-0.058 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1572412

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
   Fixed In Version||perl-PPIx-Regexp-0.058-1.fc
   ||29
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2018-04-27 05:14:08



--- Comment #1 from Petr Pisar  ---
A bug-fix release suitable for Fedora ≥ 29.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1572409] perl-multidimensional-0.014 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1572409



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-multidimensional-0.014-1.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora
26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-657ddc

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1572409] perl-multidimensional-0.014 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1572409



--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-multidimensional-0.014-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora
27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-02ed6f09f3

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1572409] perl-multidimensional-0.014 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1572409



--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-multidimensional-0.014-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora
28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-ddaf936ba9

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1572409] perl-multidimensional-0.014 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1572409

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
   Fixed In Version||perl-multidimensional-0.014
   ||-1.fc29



--- Comment #1 from Petr Pisar  ---
A bug-fix release suitable for all Fedoras.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1572398] perl-bareword-filehandles-0.006 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1572398



--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-bareword-filehandles-0.006-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to
Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-8233d5a376

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1572398] perl-bareword-filehandles-0.006 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1572398



--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-bareword-filehandles-0.006-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to
Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-d4f03af3a6

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1572398] perl-bareword-filehandles-0.006 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1572398



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-bareword-filehandles-0.006-1.fc26 has been submitted as an update to
Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-f150cc029d

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: SELinux Policy Modules Packaging Draft

[Lukas Vrabec]

On 04/27/2018 10:23 AM, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> Hi all, any plan to ratify the Draft? [1]
> 
> I'm thinking whether it is good time already to add '*-selinux' subpackage
> to generally selinux-covered services (by selinux-policy-targeted), like
> e.g. 'httpd' or 'postgresql-server'.
> 
> Any experiences?
> 
> [1]  
> https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SELinux_Policy_Modules_Packaging_Draft
> 
> Thanks,
> Pavel
> 
> 
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> 

Hi Pavel,

I'm in touch with packaging committee, to include following Draft[2] to
official rpm package guidelines. Here is the thread about it [3].

If you would like to have ship own SELinux policy, please follow these
guidelines[2].

[2]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/SELinux_Independent_Policy

[3] https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/726

Lukas.

-- 
Lukas Vrabec
Software Engineer, Security Technologies
Red Hat, Inc.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

SELinux Policy Modules Packaging Draft

[Pavel Raiskup]

Hi all, any plan to ratify the Draft? [1]

I'm thinking whether it is good time already to add '*-selinux' subpackage
to generally selinux-covered services (by selinux-policy-targeted), like
e.g. 'httpd' or 'postgresql-server'.

Any experiences?

[1]  
https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SELinux_Policy_Modules_Packaging_Draft

Thanks,
Pavel


___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1572398] perl-bareword-filehandles-0.006 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1572398

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
   Fixed In Version||perl-bareword-filehandles-0
   ||.006-1.fc29



--- Comment #1 from Petr Pisar  ---
A bug-fix release suitable for all Fedoras.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1572206] perl-Module-CPANfile-1.1004 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1572206

Jitka Plesnikova  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
   Fixed In Version||perl-Module-CPANfile-1.1004
   ||-1.fc29
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2018-04-27 02:48:47



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

how to become maintainer or co-maintainer of vdr-epgfixer

[Martin Gansser]

Hi,

i have a question regarding this package:
https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/vdr-epgfixer
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1566972] perl-Verilog-Perl-3.452 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1566972

Jitka Plesnikova  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed|2018-04-13 05:08:39 |2018-04-27 02:11:34



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1566767] perl-Code-TidyAll-0.70 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1566767

Jitka Plesnikova  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2018-04-27 02:11:34



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1564935] perl-version-0.9920 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1564935

Jitka Plesnikova  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2018-04-27 02:11:34



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1551252] perl-SNMP-Info-3.54 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1551252

Jitka Plesnikova  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2018-04-27 02:11:34



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1567564] perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-3.54 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1567564

Jitka Plesnikova  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2018-04-27 02:11:34



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1551668] perl-Verilog-Perl-3.448-1.fc29 FTBFS: t/ 35_sigparser.t crashes

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1551668

Jitka Plesnikova  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed|2018-04-13 08:27:21 |2018-04-27 02:11:34



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1566497] perl-version-0.9921 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1566497

Jitka Plesnikova  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2018-04-27 02:11:34



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1567466] perl-version-0.9923 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1567466

Jitka Plesnikova  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2018-04-27 02:11:34



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1570005] perl-version-0.9924 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1570005

Jitka Plesnikova  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2018-04-27 02:11:34



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1569753] perl-App-cpanminus-1.7044 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1569753

Jitka Plesnikova  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2018-04-27 02:11:34



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to perl-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org