Re: Headsup: dbus 1.12.10-1.fc29 is missing systemd dbus.service file, breaking almost everything

2018-09-04 Thread David Herrmann 
Hey

On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 5:30 PM Adam Williamson
 wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-09-03 at 20:09 +0200, Andreas Tunek wrote:
> > The thing is, if people do not test releases they will never be
> > stable. And even if I don't know how to access my F29 installation
> > from a chroot sometimes my testing is valuable to the project. Also, I
> > think that my testing has shown that a lack of root account and boot
> > menu has lead to a much worser user experience in certain cases.
>
> FWIW, I personally would like us to avoid such world-breaking bugs as
> this and the grub2 UEFI bug from reaching Rawhide or Branched as much
> as possible, and I'm frankly unhappy that both of those *did* a) happen
> and b) reach Rawhide and Branched, in 2018 we really ought to be able
> to avoid that. I think people ought to be able to run development
> Fedora and still have at least a reasonable expectation that we won't
> be so bad at making it that obvious disasters like this happen. More
> subtle bugs, sure, but anything this obvious should not make it in.

FWIW, the dbus changes were not intended for F29, but were backmerged
due to miscommunication on our side. Which is unfortunate, because the
bug only appears if you update the dbus package in steps (1.12.8-1 ->
1.12.8-2 -> 1.12.10-2) rather than in one jump (1.12.8-1 ->
1.12.10-2). Sorry for broken package!

Thanks
David
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Reminder: Package Maintainers please fix your security bugs!

2018-09-04 Thread Huzaifa Sidhpurwala 
Hi All,

This is a gentle reminder for package maintainers to fix security bugs
in the packages they maintain. A complete list of open security flaws
against Fedora packages is available at:

https://red.ht/2wJ8kLS

Some documentation about this is also available at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Security:HowtoSecurityBugs

Remember as per the new policy, packages which fail to fix security
bugs, will eventually be removed from the distribution.

Please get back to the security team via the mailing list
(security-t...@lists.fedoraproject.org) or directly to me, if you have
any questions!


-- 
Huzaifa Sidhpurwala / Red Hat Product Security Team
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: New policy for orphaning/retiring packages with open security bugs

2018-09-04 Thread Huzaifa Sidhpurwala 
On 09/04/2018 07:29 PM, Christian Stadelmann wrote:
> How does one mark a bug as CRITICAL or IMPORTANT?
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives: 
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> 

https://access.redhat.com/security/updates/classification contains the
necessary details.

Please let me know if you need more information!


-- 
Huzaifa Sidhpurwala / Red Hat Product Security Team
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Flatpaks in src.fedproject.org - a namespace conumdrum

2018-09-04 Thread Owen Taylor 
On Tue, Sep 4, 2018, 11:54 PM Ray Strode  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 4:00 PM Owen Taylor  wrote:
> I haven't dealt with modularity yet, really, so tell me if i wrong (i'm
> kind of guessing a little bit from briefly snooping around). module
> building is like so, right?
>
> 1) user runs `fedpkg module-build` in a the module git repo
> 2) this gets submitted to a service to build the module
> 3) the service reads a metadata file with a list of rpms to build
> 4) the service submits those builds to koji
> 5) sometime later owner-sync-koji runs and does a massive
> loop over all modules and finds all packages associated
> with each module and tags them all with f29-modular-updates
>

Not quite. First, owner-sync-koji is about adding
packages/containers/modules to a tag - basically allowing a build of the
object to be tagged into that tag. Not actually tagging builds. Second,
what would eventually be tagged here is a complete module build or a
Flatpak container build, not package builds.

>
> so assuming i have the gist of things captured above, my question
> is…why doesn't the service that submits the builds, also do the
> tagging ?  it just seems strange to have the huge loop doing extra
> work.  if the service did the tagging, then it could also do the flatpak
> detecting, and do the additional tagging.  judging from the koji
> command line, it seems koji even allows tagging multiple builds at
> the same time, so i guess the build service could do them all in
> one swoop
>

MBS (that service) does do the actual tagging of the module build.
Component builds don't get tagged into f29-modular-updates.

Anyway, take my suggestions with a grain of salt because i have
> an incomplete understanding of the architecture, MBS, koji, etc.
>

A complete understanding is much rarer :-) I wouldn't claim to have that
either.

Things are especially confusing because support for non-package builds in
Koji is visibly after-the-fact.

Owen
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Flatpaks in src.fedproject.org - a namespace conumdrum

2018-09-04 Thread Ray Strode 
Hi,

On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 4:00 PM Owen Taylor  wrote:
> Each flatpak needs to be tagged into two koji tags:
>
>   f29-modular-updates (this is the destination for the module build)
>   f29-flatpak (this is the destination for the Flatpak container build)
>
> The package list for each koji tag is populated from pagure by the
> owner-sync-pagure script (*). But that script has no way of knowing
> what repositories under modules/ in src.fedoraproject.org are just
> modules and what modules are also Flatpaks, so it has no way to
> populate the f29-flatpak tag package list correctly.
I haven't dealt with modularity yet, really, so tell me if i wrong (i'm
kind of guessing a little bit from briefly snooping around). module
building is like so, right?

1) user runs `fedpkg module-build` in a the module git repo
2) this gets submitted to a service to build the module
3) the service reads a metadata file with a list of rpms to build
4) the service submits those builds to koji
5) sometime later owner-sync-koji runs and does a massive
loop over all modules and finds all packages associated
with each module and tags them all with f29-modular-updates

so assuming i have the gist of things captured above, my question
is…why doesn't the service that submits the builds, also do the
tagging ?  it just seems strange to have the huge loop doing extra
work.  if the service did the tagging, then it could also do the flatpak
detecting, and do the additional tagging.  judging from the koji
command line, it seems koji even allows tagging multiple builds at
the same time, so i guess the build service could do them all in
one swoop.

Anyway, take my suggestions with a grain of salt because i have
an incomplete understanding of the architecture, MBS, koji, etc.

--Ray
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[389-devel] 389 DS nightly 2018-09-05 - 91% PASS

2018-09-04 Thread vashirov 
https://fedorapeople.org/groups/389ds/ci/nightly/2018/09/05/report-389-ds-base-1.4.0.16-20180904gitc64f7fb.fc28.x86_64.html
___
389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 389-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Flatpaks in src.fedproject.org - a namespace conumdrum

2018-09-04 Thread Owen Taylor 
The current idea
=

A Flatpak is a module. The way that the module is deployed is by creating a
Flatpak container from the module. (Other modules might be deployed by
installing by RPMs directly or creating a server container.)

Because Flatpaks are a module, they share the modules/ namespace on
src.fedoraproject.org with other modules.

Flatpaks are also containers - but to keep things simpler, we don't require
a separate git project in the container/ namespace - the container.yaml is
kept in the same git project and OSBS builds the Flatpak container directly
from there.

The problem
==
Each flatpak needs to be tagged into two koji tags:

  f29-modular-updates (this is the destination for the module build)
  f29-flatpak (this is the destination for the Flatpak container build)

The package list for each koji tag is populated from pagure by the
owner-sync-pagure script (*). But that script has no way of knowing what
repositories under modules/ in src.fedoraproject.org are just modules and
what modules are also Flatpaks, so it has no way to populate the
f29-flatpak tag package list correctly.

(*)
https://infrastructure.fedoraproject.org/cgit/ansible.git/tree/roles/bodhi2/backend/templates/owner-sync-pagure.j2

Solution 1 - separate namespace
==
We could put flatpaks into their own namespace in src.fedoraproject.org.
The MBS configuration would have to be changed to also allow building
modules from the flatpaks/ namespace, the Bodhi code that just landed would
need to change, and there are doubtless other places where we'd need to
change things to extend the list of namespaces, but it would mostly be
straightforward.

Upsides: would make the handling of flatpaks in the infrastructure code a
bit more regular, and also make it easy to see a list of all Flatpaks.
Downsides: obscures the relationship between Flatpaks and other modules.

Solution 2 - project tags
===
The owner-sync-koji code could be adapted so that to find the set of
packages for f29-flatpak it looks for projects in modules/ with a project
tag of 'flatpak'.

Upsides: have to change nothing but owner-sync-koji and the fedpkg
request-repo/fedscm_admin code path.
Downsides: obscure. project tags are modifiable by the owner - so things
could get out of sync.

Solution 3 - look at module contents

If a branch under src.fedoraproject.org/modules has a container.yaml file
with a flatpak: key at the toplevel, then we know it's a flatpak module.
owner-sync-koji could potentially just check this.

Upsides: nothing else to worry about beyond what has to be set up for
building Flatpaks.
Downsides: per-branch - not per-repository, would be wrong on initial
repository creation, which is when owner-sync-koji is run.

Solution 4 - 
=
[ your proposal goes here]
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedora-package purpose and future

2018-09-04 Thread Rex Dieter 
Ben Rosser wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 2:59 PM, Rex Dieter  wrote:
>> Vít Ondruch wrote:
>>
>>> This is a bit unfortunate considering this is package
>>> every Fedora packager has to have installed
>>
>> I don't think that's true, can you explain?

> Well, the "join the package collection maintainers" document
> explicitly tells new packagers to install fedora-packager, because it
> will "bring in everything necessary for general packaging work".

Sorry, I was going off the $SUBJECT that referened "fedora-package", which 
didn't exist as far as I could tell.  *fedora-packager*, yes indeed.

-- rex
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedora-package purpose and future

2018-09-04 Thread Alain Vigne 
On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 9:15 PM Ben Rosser  wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 2:59 PM, Rex Dieter  wrote:
> > Vít Ondruch wrote:
> >
> >> This is a bit unfortunate considering this is package
> >> every Fedora packager has to have installed
> >
> > I don't think that's true, can you explain?
> >
> > -- rex
>
> Well, the "join the package collection maintainers" document
> explicitly tells new packagers to install fedora-packager, because it
> will "bring in everything necessary for general packaging work".
>
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Install_the_developer_client_tools
>
> So I would guess that many packagers have followed this advice and
> have it installed on their systems. I certainly do.
>
+1

>
> Ben Rosser
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
>


-- 
Alain V.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedora-package purpose and future

2018-09-04 Thread Ben Rosser 
On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 2:59 PM, Rex Dieter  wrote:
> Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
>> This is a bit unfortunate considering this is package
>> every Fedora packager has to have installed
>
> I don't think that's true, can you explain?
>
> -- rex

Well, the "join the package collection maintainers" document
explicitly tells new packagers to install fedora-packager, because it
will "bring in everything necessary for general packaging work".

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Install_the_developer_client_tools

So I would guess that many packagers have followed this advice and
have it installed on their systems. I certainly do.

Ben Rosser
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: fedora-package purpose and future

2018-09-04 Thread Rex Dieter 
Vít Ondruch wrote:

> This is a bit unfortunate considering this is package
> every Fedora packager has to have installed

I don't think that's true, can you explain?

-- rex
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Fedora 30 System-Wide Change proposal: Remove the Group: Tag From All Packages

2018-09-04 Thread Sérgio Basto 
On Fri, 2018-08-24 at 14:12 -0400, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
> On 08/22/2018 04:28 PM, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffe
> > doraproject.org%2Fwiki%2FChanges%2FRemove_Group_Tagdata=02%7C0
> > 1%7Cprzemek.klosowski%40nist.gov%7C651a81e7675e4b31057b08d6086f1e90
> > %7C2ab5d82fd8fa4797a93e054655c61dec%7C1%7C0%7C636705670673083010
> > p;sdata=xvi9PSYy9IGEIcvyLdwiX9QmyPqLmInm23Np%2Fl%2BJMSc%3Drese
> > rved=0
> > 
> > == Summary ==
> > Remove the Group: tag from over 9000 source packages.
> 
> I noticed that gpg-pubkey packages consistently have the group of
> Public 
> Keys, so at worst it's being used for something, and at best there's
> a 
> template somewhere that includes it when those packages are created.
> 
> Also, as a random data point, here are the Group stats from a system 
> with most (7700+) Fedora 27 packages installed:
> 
>1 Applications/Security
>1 Development/Build Tools
>2 Amusements/Graphics
>2 Development/Java
>3 System/Boot
>6 Amusements/Games
>   10 System Environment/Kernel
>   11 Applications/Editors
>   11 User Interface/X Hardware Support
>   12 Applications/Communications
>   13 Development/Debuggers
>   16 Development/System
>   17 Applications/File
>   19 Applications/Archiving
>   20 Applications/Databases
>   20 Documentation
>   21 Applications/Productivity
>   22 Applications/Emulators
>   26 User Interface/Desktops
>   31 Public Keys
>   33 Applications/Text
>   46 System Environment/Daemons
>   59 Applications/Internet
>   65 User Interface/X
>   93 Applications/Multimedia
>  128 Applications/Engineering
>  157 Applications/System
>  163 Development/Tools
>  201 System Environment/Base
>  230 Development/Languages
>  288 Development/Debug
>  329 Applications/Publishing
>  807 Development/Libraries
>  843 System Environment/Libraries
> 3516 Unspecified

I think you are missing the main point , Groups was deprecated in favor
of comps.xml or appdata (we wrote about it, some time ago in thread
"why the Group tag is obsolete ? " [1] 

"So, (if we want the package have a group ) all packages should be
 enumerated in comps, or not ? . 
Yes (in comps)" 

So are all packages enumerated in comps ? (no) 
Have we a replacement of repoview that group packages without using rpm
group tag ? (no) 
What is the percentage of packages that have appdata ? 
what is the percentage of packages that are registered in comps.xml ? 

Maybe it was more useful have a task force in these 3 points (
repoview, appdata and comps.xml ) 

Final note , as I still use repoview, I think it is a useful tool , it
doesn't make much sense to me remove group tag ...

Best regards,

[1] 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject
.org/message/3QFUZOGMGLGO4WONBDIFEXKBSG3T4OXU/

-- 
Sérgio M. B.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: upgrade tinyproxy for f29?

2018-09-04 Thread Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek 
On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 05:46:55PM +0200, Michael Adam wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 11:54 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <
> zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 09:37:25AM +0200, Michael Adam wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 9:21 AM, Igor Gnatenko <
> > > ignatenkobr...@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 12:29 AM Michael Adam  wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 11:10 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <
> > > >> zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> On Mon, Sep 03, 2018 at 09:38:44PM +0200, Michael Adam wrote:
> > > >>> > On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 7:07 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <
> > > >>> > zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote:
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > > On Mon, Sep 03, 2018 at 06:29:34PM +0200, Michael Adam wrote:
> > > >>> > > > On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 5:23 PM, Peter Robinson <
> > > >>> pbrobin...@gmail.com>
> > > >>> > > wrote:
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > > On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 4:07 PM Michael Adam <
> > ma...@redhat.com>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>> > > > > >
> > > >>> > > > > > Hi all,
> > > >>> > > > > >
> > > >>> > > > > > Tinyproxy just released a new version 1.10 which is has
> > been
> > > >>> overdue
> > > >>> > > > > > and containes 2 CVE fixes apart from several enhancements.
> > > >>> > > > > >
> > > >>> > > > > > I created builds for rawhide already.
> > > >>> > > > > >
> > > >>> > > > > > I was wondering if it is still possible to get tinyproxy to
> > > >>> this
> > > >>> > > > > important
> > > >>> > > > > > update in f29, since no other packages depend on it,
> > afaict.
> > > >>> > > > > >
> > > >>> > > > > > If so, what do I do? Just update the scm branch and bring
> > it in
> > > >>> > > through
> > > >>> > > > > Bodhi?
> > > >>> > > > >
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > Thanks for the swift response!
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > (And apologies for any cluelessness about newer aspects of the
> > > >>> fedora
> > > >>> > > > process - it's been a while since i did these things, and it
> > > >>> worked a
> > > >>> > > little
> > > >>> > > > differently then...)
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > > Sounds like a reasonable course of action. Is it backward
> > > >>> compatible
> > > >>> > > > > in terms of any interface people might use?
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > >
> > > >>> > > > There are a few config file additions.
> > > >>> > > > The location of the binary has changed from /usr/sbin
> > > >>> > > > to /usr/bin . Otherwise no Interfaces i'm aware of.
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>> > > You should create a compat symlink from the old location to the
> > new
> > > >>> > > location, at least in the stable releases, in case somebody
> > calls the
> > > >>> > > binary by path.
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > Good point.
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > - Is there an established way to create such a "compat symlink"?
> > > >>>
> > > >>> ln -s ../bin/NAME %{buildroot}/usr/sbin/NAME
> > > >>>
> > > >>> would be the standard way.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> > - What do you mean by "stable releases"?
> > > >>> >   Does F29 (which is not released yet) qualify as that?
> > > >>> I meant F28 and F27, but since this costs so little, I'd do the same
> > > >>> for F29 too.
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> Hmm, ok. I guess it is not a problem at this point
> > > >> if f29 thereby goes one build ahead of master.
> > > >> If needed later, we can still bump master's release number..
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > This is wrong, rawhide version should be always newer. You can either
> > bump
> > > > release in rawhide and do no changes there or bump release *after*
> > > > %{?dist} in f29/f28.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Ok...
> > >
> > > Can I still downgrade the release from 2.f29 to 1.f29.1 (or so) in f29
> > > (since it's not official yet, only put up in testing for f29)?...
> >
> > You probably could, but I think it's better to just rebuild it in rawhide
> > with the same version. (It's less work for you and less chances of
> > confusion
> > for others.)
> >
> 
> OK. did. Now we have
> 
> 1.10.0-2.fc30
> 1.10.0-2.fc29 (in bodhi)
> 
> That should be sufficient, right?

Yep, looks good.

Zbyszek
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Call for Help: gala + Pantheon DE on fedora 29+

2018-09-04 Thread Fabio Valentini 
Hi everybody,

I am faced with a problem that's due to the update of mutter / GNOME to
version 3.30: The gala window manager - which is used by the Pantheon DE
(primary DE of elementaryOS) - is broken by the API bump from libmutter-2
to libmutter-3.

I reported this "issue" with the fedora mutter package on bugzilla:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1624999

The API changes are quite invasive, and it looks like upstream developers
(who are - rightly - focused on elementaryOS 5.0, based on GNOME 3.28,
right now) will take some time to get around to fixing gala with mutter
3.30:
https://github.com/elementary/gala/issues/303

This results in the unfortunate situation that right now, gala - and by
extension, the Pantheon DE - can't be installed on fedora 29+ due to broken
dependencies, and gala can't be rebuilt, because it's not compatible with
mutter 3.30 yet.

I wrote a blog post with more details on my website:
https://decathorpe.com/2018/09/04/call-for-help-pantheon-on-fedora-29.html

Basically, the gala upstream developers and I need some help from people
who are versed in vala to port gala to the new mutter APIs, or the Pantheon
DE will not be installable on fedora 29 at launch, and will probably be
removed from existing users' fedora installations on upgrading to f29.

Another possible short-to-mid-term solution would be to introduce a
mutter328 compat package on fedora 29 (along with necessary adaptations to
the mutter package), or to bundle mutter 3.28 with gala itself (since it's
the only package using mutter directly, apart from gnome-shell, AFAICT).
However, those paths would probably require quite some changes to mutter
code and build system (autotools).

Any help and / or guidance on how to deal with a situation like this is
greatly appreciated.

Fabio
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

New FDP release: Cassandra, Rust and many more [+statistics]

2018-09-04 Thread Pavel Valena 
Hello,
new Fedora Developer Portal update is out!
Website statistics are on the bottom of this email.

Highlights:
 - New Cassandra page [1]
 by Augusto Mecking Caringi(@caringi)
 - Rust pages reworked [2]
 by @msehnout

[1] https://developer.fedoraproject.org/tech/database/cassandra/about.html
[2] 
https://developer.fedoraproject.org/tech/languages/rust/rust-installation.html


Content Update - 'Refresh':
 - rebase-helper [3]
 by Frank Dana(@ferdnyc)
 - RPM [4]
 by @galoget
 - .NET Installation [5]
 by Radka Janekova(@RheaAyase)
 and Radoslav Cap(@RadoslavCap)
 - MariaDB [6]
 by @FaramosCZ
 - Node.js [7]
 by Zuzana Svetlikova(@kasicka)
 - Multiple Pythons [8]
 by Miro Hroncok(@hroncok)

[3] https://developer.fedoraproject.org/deployment/maintain/rebase-helper.html
[4] https://developer.fedoraproject.org/deployment/rpm/about.html
[5] 
https://developer.fedoraproject.org/tech/languages/csharp/dotnet-installation.html
[6] https://developer.fedoraproject.org/tech/database/mariadb/about.html
[7] https://developer.fedoraproject.org/tech/languages/nodejs/nodejs.html
[8] 
https://developer.fedoraproject.org/tech/languages/python/multiple-pythons.html

  
Feedback is welcome!

Interested in creating / renewing FDP content?
See http://developer-portal.github.io/contributing/

Regards,
Pavel


~~
Statistics
~~

Aug 1, 2018-Aug 31, 2018 Pageviews Unique Pageviews 
 Avg. Time on Page
 =  
 =
Total27,16722,507   
 00:02:05
/1,997(7.35%)  1,558(6.92%) 
 00:01:14
/tools/docker/docker-installation.html   1,418(5.22%)  1,239(5.50%) 
 00:04:49
/tech/languages/python/python-installation.html  1,294(4.76%)  1,107(4.92%) 
 00:03:00
/tech/languages/nodejs/nodejs.html   1,250(4.60%)  1,115(4.95%) 
 00:04:27
/tech/database/mongodb/about.html1,042(3.84%)  920(4.09%)   
 00:07:07
/tech.html   947(3.49%)578(2.57%)   
 00:00:39
/tools.html  821(3.02%)541(2.40%)   
 00:00:33
/start.html  737(2.71%)411(1.83%)   
 00:00:20
/tech/languages/go/go-installation.html  706(2.60%)630(2.80%)   
 00:03:39
/tech/languages/python/multiple-pythons.html 673(2.48%)621(2.76%)   
 00:03:56


Jul 1, 2018-Jul 31, 2018 Pageviews Unique Pageviews 
 Avg. Time on Page
 =  
 =
Total24,25520,271   
 00:02:01
/1,678(6.92%)  1,344(6.63%) 
 00:01:09
/tools/docker/docker-installation.html   1,244(5.13%)  1,079(5.32%) 
 00:04:39
/tech/languages/python/python-installation.html  1,162(4.79%)  1,015(5.01%) 
 00:02:34
/tech/languages/nodejs/nodejs.html   1,115(4.60%)  1,012(4.99%) 
 00:03:47
/tech.html   906(3.74%)531(2.62%)   
 00:00:29
/tech/database/mongodb/about.html906(3.74%)824(4.06%)   
 00:05:52
/tools.html  765(3.15%)532(2.62%)   
 00:00:40
/tech/languages/go/go-installation.html  676(2.79%)596(2.94%)   
 00:04:18
/start.html  659(2.72%)361(1.78%)   
 00:00:23
/tech/languages/python/multiple-pythons.html 634(2.61%)568(2.80%)   
 00:04:00


Jun 1, 2018-Jun 30, 2018 Pageviews Unique Pageviews 
 Avg. Time on Page
 =  
 =
Total22,79918,956   
 00:02:12
/1,554(6.82%)  1,237(6.53%) 
 00:01:08
/tools/docker/docker-installation.html   1,280(5.61%)  1,102(5.81%) 
 00:05:08
/tech/languages/nodejs/nodejs.html   1,074(4.71%)  953(5.03%)   
 00:04:05
/tech/languages/python/python-installation.html  1,066(4.68%)  920(4.85%)   
 00:03:23
/tech/database/mongodb/about.html944(4.14%)831(4.38%)   
 00:06:34
/tech.html   770(3.38%)467(2.46%)   
 00:00:37
/tools.html  654(2.87%)472(2.49%)   
 00:00:28
/tech/languages/go/go-installation.html  643(2.82%)582(3.07%)   
 00:04:04
/tech/languages/python/multiple-pythons.html 543(2.38%)505(2.66%)   
 00:03:11
/tech/languages/ruby/ror-installation.html   523(2.29%)399(2.10%)   
 00:03:04

Re: OpenBLAS: link with which library?

2018-09-04 Thread Dave Love 
Kevin Kofler  writes:

> Jerry James wrote:
>> If I understand correctly, the default is a library that cannot
>> tolerate multiple threads, uses 32-bit integers in the interface, and
>> does not use "a symbol name suffix", whatever that means.
>
> Hmmm, normally, the serial version is not itself parallelized but should 
> tolerate threaded applications. In fact, that is the main advantage over the 
> threaded versions that may interfere with the application's own threading, 
> and the reason why serial is still the default.

Yes, you normally want to parallelize only at the top level.  Blithely
switching on threading of some sort in libraries typically causes
trouble with HPC applications in particular.  Assuming only the public
BLAS(/LAPACK) interface is used, you can change which implementation if
used (including threaded or not) with LD_PRELOAD.

> However, that does not appear to be entirely true, judging from your error 
> message:
>> OpenBLAS : Program will terminate because you tried to start too many
>> threads.
> which leaves me slightly confused.

I don't know where that's coming from, but it's not from libopenblas as
far as I can tell, so it needs debugging.

>> Also, I see this in /usr/include/openblas/openblas_config.h:
>> 
>> #define OPENBLAS_HAVE_SSE3
>> #define OPENBLAS_HAVE_SSSE3
>> 
>> That suggests that SSE3 and SSSE3 instructions have been built into
>> one or more of the openblas libraries, which means that users with
>> machines that do not support those instruction sets will get illegal
>> instruction errors if they try to use anything linked with openblas.
>
> OpenBLAS detects the available instruction set at runtime on x86/x86_64, so 
> SSE3 and SSSE3 instructions should only be used when the hardware actually 
> supports them (though I have not personally verified that this actually 
> works as documented).

OpenBLAS's dynamic selection works fine (for x86 cpuids it recognizes),
but is highly suboptimal on avx512, at least for dgemm.  (You currently
want BLIS for avx512, but the BLIS packaging is waiting for me to sort
out the effect of hardening flags.)  OB doesn't currently dispatch on
micro-architecture for any other architectures as far as I know, but
BLIS does to a limited extent, and I don't think you can optimally use
just one of OB or BLIS everywhere.  However, I don't think there's a
need to use ATLAS anywhere in Fedora now.

Overall, the situation with linear algebra support in Fedora is a mess.
There was a proposal to fix it, which was rejected in committee some
time ago.  (It looked to me as though the committee didn't understand
the issues.)  I wrote something about it and the fiddle I've used at
, which
probably needs some updating.

-- Frustrated of HPC-town
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: upgrade tinyproxy for f29?

2018-09-04 Thread Michael Adam 
On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 11:54 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <
zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 09:37:25AM +0200, Michael Adam wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 9:21 AM, Igor Gnatenko <
> > ignatenkobr...@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 12:29 AM Michael Adam  wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 11:10 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <
> > >> zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On Mon, Sep 03, 2018 at 09:38:44PM +0200, Michael Adam wrote:
> > >>> > On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 7:07 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <
> > >>> > zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote:
> > >>> >
> > >>> > > On Mon, Sep 03, 2018 at 06:29:34PM +0200, Michael Adam wrote:
> > >>> > > > On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 5:23 PM, Peter Robinson <
> > >>> pbrobin...@gmail.com>
> > >>> > > wrote:
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > > On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 4:07 PM Michael Adam <
> ma...@redhat.com>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>> > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > Hi all,
> > >>> > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > Tinyproxy just released a new version 1.10 which is has
> been
> > >>> overdue
> > >>> > > > > > and containes 2 CVE fixes apart from several enhancements.
> > >>> > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > I created builds for rawhide already.
> > >>> > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > I was wondering if it is still possible to get tinyproxy to
> > >>> this
> > >>> > > > > important
> > >>> > > > > > update in f29, since no other packages depend on it,
> afaict.
> > >>> > > > > >
> > >>> > > > > > If so, what do I do? Just update the scm branch and bring
> it in
> > >>> > > through
> > >>> > > > > Bodhi?
> > >>> > > > >
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > Thanks for the swift response!
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > (And apologies for any cluelessness about newer aspects of the
> > >>> fedora
> > >>> > > > process - it's been a while since i did these things, and it
> > >>> worked a
> > >>> > > little
> > >>> > > > differently then...)
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > > Sounds like a reasonable course of action. Is it backward
> > >>> compatible
> > >>> > > > > in terms of any interface people might use?
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > >
> > >>> > > > There are a few config file additions.
> > >>> > > > The location of the binary has changed from /usr/sbin
> > >>> > > > to /usr/bin . Otherwise no Interfaces i'm aware of.
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > You should create a compat symlink from the old location to the
> new
> > >>> > > location, at least in the stable releases, in case somebody
> calls the
> > >>> > > binary by path.
> > >>> > >
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Good point.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > - Is there an established way to create such a "compat symlink"?
> > >>>
> > >>> ln -s ../bin/NAME %{buildroot}/usr/sbin/NAME
> > >>>
> > >>> would be the standard way.
> > >>>
> > >>> > - What do you mean by "stable releases"?
> > >>> >   Does F29 (which is not released yet) qualify as that?
> > >>> I meant F28 and F27, but since this costs so little, I'd do the same
> > >>> for F29 too.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Hmm, ok. I guess it is not a problem at this point
> > >> if f29 thereby goes one build ahead of master.
> > >> If needed later, we can still bump master's release number..
> > >>
> > >
> > > This is wrong, rawhide version should be always newer. You can either
> bump
> > > release in rawhide and do no changes there or bump release *after*
> > > %{?dist} in f29/f28.
> > >
> >
> > Ok...
> >
> > Can I still downgrade the release from 2.f29 to 1.f29.1 (or so) in f29
> > (since it's not official yet, only put up in testing for f29)?...
>
> You probably could, but I think it's better to just rebuild it in rawhide
> with the same version. (It's less work for you and less chances of
> confusion
> for others.)
>

OK. did. Now we have

1.10.0-2.fc30
1.10.0-2.fc29 (in bodhi)

That should be sufficient, right?

Thanks - Michael


>
> Zbyszek
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.
> fedoraproject.org
>
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1625310] New: perl-Mail-Transport-3.003 is available

2018-09-04 Thread bugzilla 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1625310

Bug ID: 1625310
   Summary: perl-Mail-Transport-3.003 is available
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: perl-Mail-Transport
  Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
  Assignee: tcall...@redhat.com
  Reporter: upstream-release-monitor...@fedoraproject.org
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org,
tcall...@redhat.com



Latest upstream release: 3.003
Current version/release in rawhide: 3.002-4.fc29
URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Mail-Transport/

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/13811/

-- 
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
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1625309] New: perl-Mail-Message-3.007 is available

2018-09-04 Thread bugzilla 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1625309

Bug ID: 1625309
   Summary: perl-Mail-Message-3.007 is available
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
 Component: perl-Mail-Message
  Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
  Assignee: tcall...@redhat.com
  Reporter: upstream-release-monitor...@fedoraproject.org
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org,
tcall...@redhat.com



Latest upstream release: 3.007
Current version/release in rawhide: 3.006-5.fc29
URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Mail-Message/

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/13324/

-- 
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
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Headsup: dbus 1.12.10-1.fc29 is missing systemd dbus.service file, breaking almost everything

2018-09-04 Thread Adam Williamson 
On Mon, 2018-09-03 at 20:09 +0200, Andreas Tunek wrote:
> Den mån 3 sep. 2018 kl 12:56 skrev Fabio Valentini :
> > 
> > On Mon, Sep 3, 2018, 09:13 Ron Yorston  wrote:
> > > 
> > > Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 2018-09-02 at 08:58 -0700, stan wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, 2 Sep 2018 09:33:39 +0200
> > > > > Andreas Tunek  wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > There is no root acoount on a default F29 installation. Also, you
> > > > > > can't see the boot menu and I haven't been able to trigger it.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Whoa!  I'm not sure what that buys, but I'll change that as soon as
> > > > > possible when I install it.  That's crazy!  Maybe someone wants to
> > > > > imitate a Mac or something.
> > > > 
> > > > It's a Change that was properly announced and extensively discussed on
> > > > this list.
> > > 
> > > Since some Fedora users may not read this list, I hope that these
> > > changes will be prominently mentioned in the release documentation.
> > > 
> > > Preferably for F30 as well as F29 so that users who only update to every
> > > other release will also receive notification.
> > > 
> > > Ron
> > 
> > 
> > Well, one might argue that users who really want to run pre-beta releases 
> > of fedora are also expected to follow the discussions and announcements 
> > here.
> > fedora 29 really isn't ready for end users yet (as witnessed by this 
> > thread) - it's not even in beta after all - so if you don't (or can't) keep 
> > up with the news and development discussions, you really shouldn't be 
> > running fedora 29 yet IMO.
> > 
> > I know that doesn't help rescue the borked systems, but running 
> > alpha-quality code is bound to lead to problems, and users are expected to 
> > be able to deal with them - otherwise they should stick to stable releases.
> > 
> > Fabio
> > 
> 
> The thing is, if people do not test releases they will never be
> stable. And even if I don't know how to access my F29 installation
> from a chroot sometimes my testing is valuable to the project. Also, I
> think that my testing has shown that a lack of root account and boot
> menu has lead to a much worser user experience in certain cases.

FWIW, I personally would like us to avoid such world-breaking bugs as
this and the grub2 UEFI bug from reaching Rawhide or Branched as much
as possible, and I'm frankly unhappy that both of those *did* a) happen
and b) reach Rawhide and Branched, in 2018 we really ought to be able
to avoid that. I think people ought to be able to run development
Fedora and still have at least a reasonable expectation that we won't
be so bad at making it that obvious disasters like this happen. More
subtle bugs, sure, but anything this obvious should not make it in.

Note that there is an option for running Branched with a little extra
safety: just disable updates-testing . We enable it by default for
Branched because we basically want folks to be testing those packages -
in Branched, the distinction between u-t and 'stable' is mainly about
trying to keep the compose package set less broken and less about user
safety. But you *can* disable it, and thus benefit from testing by
other Branched users, if you want to. If you did that, you'd never have
gotten either the broken grub2 or the broken udev as both were caught
in u-t.

There is no such option for Rawhide, but you *do* at least have the
option of reading test@ / devel@ and making sure no-one's complaining
about their system failing to boot before you update. :)
-- 
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
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Orphaned Packages in rawhide (2018-08-27)

2018-09-04 Thread Dave Love 
I'll take autodocksuite.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Test-Announce] Re: 2018-09-04 (TUESDAY) @ 15:00 UTC - Fedora QA Meeting

2018-09-04 Thread Adam Williamson 
On Sun, 2018-09-02 at 10:07 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> # Fedora Quality Assurance Meeting
> # Date: 2018-09-04 (NOTE: TUESDAY!)
> # Time: 15:00 UTC
> (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto)
> # Location: #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net
> 
> Greetings testers!
> 
> We're getting close to Fedora 29 Beta now, and I think there's
> some stuff we could usefully discuss at a meeting. However, Monday is a
> public holiday in the U.S. and Canada, so I suspect quite a few folks
> wouldn't be available. Given that, I'm proposing we run the meeting on
> *Tuesday* instead. I'm also gonna propose a blocker meeting for the
> same day. If this is especially inconvenient for anyone, please do
> reply and say so.
> 
> If anyone has any other items for the agenda, please reply to this
> email and suggest them! Thanks.
> 
> == Proposed Agenda Topics ==
> 
> 1. Previous meeting follow-up
> 2. Fedora 29 general status
> 3. Fedora 29 Change status
> 4. Test Day update
> 5. Open floor

UPDATE: this meeting is now starting in #fedora-meeting-1 - I forgot to
check if #fedora-meeting is free at this time, and it isn't (KDE SIG is
using it). Sorry for the mistake.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
___
test-announce mailing list -- test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-announce-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Modularity] Working Group IRC meeting minutes (2018-09-04)

2018-09-04 Thread Nils Philippsen 
=
#fedora-meeting-3: Weekly Meeting of the Modularity Working Group
=


Minutes: 
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-3/2018-09-04/modularity_wg.2018-09-04-14.00.html
Minutes (text): 
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-3/2018-09-04/modularity_wg.2018-09-04-14.00.txt
Log: 
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-3/2018-09-04/modularity_wg.2018-09-04-14.00.log.html


Meeting summary
---
* Roll Call  (nils, 14:00:31)

* Agenda  (nils, 14:01:37)
  * Managing module lifecycles  (nils, 14:03:26)
  * AOB  (nils, 14:04:40)

* Managing module lifecycles  (nils, 14:04:49)
  * LINK: https://pagure.io/modularity/issue/107 meeting agenda item
(langdon, 14:05:19)
  * LINK:

https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/K4FUOQHQSRAAI3PUUGXAC6CXEN27Y2JH/
mail thread  (langdon, 14:05:35)
  * needs more discussion, moving back to mailing list  (langdon,
14:22:37)
  * ACTION: asamalik to send out a new, more concise, note about module
lifecycles  (langdon, 14:22:45)

* Open Floor / Any Other Business  (nils, 14:25:54)

Meeting ended at 14:27:57 UTC.




Action Items

* asamalik to send out a new, more concise, note about module lifecycles




Action Items, by person
---
* **UNASSIGNED**
  * asamalik to send out a new, more concise, note about module
lifecycles




People Present (lines said)
---
* nils (42)
* langdon (32)
* contyk (18)
* zodbot (9)
* mikedep333 (0)
* dgilmore_ (0)




Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4

.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot
-- 
Nils Philippsen"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to
Software Engineer   purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither
Red Hat Liberty nor Safety."  --  Benjamin Franklin, 1759
PGP fingerprint:C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F  656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: New policy for orphaning/retiring packages with open security bugs

2018-09-04 Thread Stephen Gallagher 
On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 10:00 AM Christian Stadelmann <
genodeft...@fedoraproject.org> wrote:

> How does one mark a bug as CRITICAL or IMPORTANT?
>


These are CVE classifications and are usually assigned by the security
team.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: New policy for orphaning/retiring packages with open security bugs

2018-09-04 Thread Christian Stadelmann 
How does one mark a bug as CRITICAL or IMPORTANT?
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

New policy for orphaning/retiring packages with open security bugs

2018-09-04 Thread Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek 
FESCo accepted [1] a new policy to handle packages with long-standing
known security bugs in a way similar to FTBFS bugs:

  AGREED: If a CRITICAL or IMPORTANT security issue is currently open
  against a package, or a security issue of lower severity has been
  open for at least 6 months, four weeks before the branch point a
  procedure similar to long-standing FTBFS will be triggered
  immediately, with 8 weeks of weekly notifications to maintainers and
  subsequent orphaning and then subsequent removal from distribution.
  This applies to all packages, not just leaf.

This policy will apply to F30 and later. The branch point is on
2019/02/19, so somewhere around January 22 the procedure should start
with notifications being sent out. Maintainers are of course encouraged
to fix any security issues immediately. See [2] for a list of currently
open security bugs.

[1] https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1935#comment-528180
[2] 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW_status=ASSIGNED=Fedora=SecurityTracking%2C%20_type=allwords_id=9337195=changeddate%2Cpriority%2Cbug_id=Fedora_format=advanced

Zbyszek,
on behalf of FESCo
___
devel-announce mailing list -- devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-announce-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

New policy for orphaning/retiring packages with open security bugs

2018-09-04 Thread Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek 
FESCo accepted [1] a new policy to handle packages with long-standing
known security bugs in a way similar to FTBFS bugs:

  AGREED: If a CRITICAL or IMPORTANT security issue is currently open
  against a package, or a security issue of lower severity has been
  open for at least 6 months, four weeks before the branch point a
  procedure similar to long-standing FTBFS will be triggered
  immediately, with 8 weeks of weekly notifications to maintainers and
  subsequent orphaning and then subsequent removal from distribution.
  This applies to all packages, not just leaf.

This policy will apply to F30 and later. The branch point is on
2019/02/19, so somewhere around January 22 the procedure should start
with notifications being sent out. Maintainers are of course encouraged
to fix any security issues immediately. See [2] for a list of currently
open security bugs.

[1] https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1935#comment-528180
[2] 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW_status=ASSIGNED=Fedora=SecurityTracking%2C%20_type=allwords_id=9337195=changeddate%2Cpriority%2Cbug_id=Fedora_format=advanced

Zbyszek,
on behalf of FESCo
___
devel-announce mailing list -- devel-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-announce-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org

fedora-package purpose and future

2018-09-04 Thread Vít Ondruch 
Hi,

I am wondering what is the purpose of fedora-packager package and what
is its future? It seems to be abandoned upstream as well as in Fedora
[1, 2, 3, 4]. This is a bit unfortunate considering this is package
every Fedora packager has to have installed. Is there a chance to give
that package a bit of love? At minimum remove all the not working
scripts and drop all the unneeded dependencies, make the others just
optional.

Thx


Vít



[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1530703

[2] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fedora-packager/pull-request/2

[3] https://pagure.io/fedora-packager/blob/master/f/src/fedoradev-pkgowners

[4] https://pagure.io/fedora-packager/blob/master/f/src/fedora-hosted.py

___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: upgrade tinyproxy for f29?

2018-09-04 Thread Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek 
On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 09:37:25AM +0200, Michael Adam wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 9:21 AM, Igor Gnatenko <
> ignatenkobr...@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 12:29 AM Michael Adam  wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 11:10 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <
> >> zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, Sep 03, 2018 at 09:38:44PM +0200, Michael Adam wrote:
> >>> > On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 7:07 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <
> >>> > zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > > On Mon, Sep 03, 2018 at 06:29:34PM +0200, Michael Adam wrote:
> >>> > > > On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 5:23 PM, Peter Robinson <
> >>> pbrobin...@gmail.com>
> >>> > > wrote:
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > > On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 4:07 PM Michael Adam 
> >>> wrote:
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > Hi all,
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > Tinyproxy just released a new version 1.10 which is has been
> >>> overdue
> >>> > > > > > and containes 2 CVE fixes apart from several enhancements.
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > I created builds for rawhide already.
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > I was wondering if it is still possible to get tinyproxy to
> >>> this
> >>> > > > > important
> >>> > > > > > update in f29, since no other packages depend on it, afaict.
> >>> > > > > >
> >>> > > > > > If so, what do I do? Just update the scm branch and bring it in
> >>> > > through
> >>> > > > > Bodhi?
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > Thanks for the swift response!
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > (And apologies for any cluelessness about newer aspects of the
> >>> fedora
> >>> > > > process - it's been a while since i did these things, and it
> >>> worked a
> >>> > > little
> >>> > > > differently then...)
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > > Sounds like a reasonable course of action. Is it backward
> >>> compatible
> >>> > > > > in terms of any interface people might use?
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > There are a few config file additions.
> >>> > > > The location of the binary has changed from /usr/sbin
> >>> > > > to /usr/bin . Otherwise no Interfaces i'm aware of.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > You should create a compat symlink from the old location to the new
> >>> > > location, at least in the stable releases, in case somebody calls the
> >>> > > binary by path.
> >>> > >
> >>> >
> >>> > Good point.
> >>> >
> >>> > - Is there an established way to create such a "compat symlink"?
> >>>
> >>> ln -s ../bin/NAME %{buildroot}/usr/sbin/NAME
> >>>
> >>> would be the standard way.
> >>>
> >>> > - What do you mean by "stable releases"?
> >>> >   Does F29 (which is not released yet) qualify as that?
> >>> I meant F28 and F27, but since this costs so little, I'd do the same
> >>> for F29 too.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Hmm, ok. I guess it is not a problem at this point
> >> if f29 thereby goes one build ahead of master.
> >> If needed later, we can still bump master's release number..
> >>
> >
> > This is wrong, rawhide version should be always newer. You can either bump
> > release in rawhide and do no changes there or bump release *after*
> > %{?dist} in f29/f28.
> >
> 
> Ok...
> 
> Can I still downgrade the release from 2.f29 to 1.f29.1 (or so) in f29
> (since it's not official yet, only put up in testing for f29)?...

You probably could, but I think it's better to just rebuild it in rawhide
with the same version. (It's less work for you and less chances of confusion
for others.)

Zbyszek
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Fedora 30 System-Wide Change proposal: Remove glibc-all-langpacks from buildroot

2018-09-04 Thread Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek 
On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 01:53:50PM +0900, Jens-Ulrik Petersen wrote:
> Hi Zbigniew, nice to meet you at Flock.
> 
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 5:30 AM Ben Cotton  wrote:
> 
> >
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Remove_glibc-langpacks-all_from_buildroot
> >
> > == Summary ==
> > glibc-minimal-langpack is added to @Buildsystem group and installed
> > into the minimal buildroot instead of glibc-all-langpacks. Packages
> > which need more locales than plain C/C.UTF-8/POSIX need to pull them
> > in through BuildRequires.
> >
> 
> I think not installing  glibc-all-langpacks by default in the Koji
> buildroot makes good sense but how about replacing it in the first instance
> with glibc-langpack-en?
> 
> A quick grep over spec files reveals:
> > ```
> > $ rg -l 'LC_CTYPE=[^C]' *.spec | wc -l
> > 11
> > $ rg -l 'LC_ALL=[^C]' *.spec | wc -l
> > 42
> > ```
> >
> 
> Also:
> $ grep -l -e LANG=en *.spec | wc -l
> 99

I patched all the spec files with LC_{ALL,CTYPE}= locally, and rebuilt
them, and they all work just fine with C.utf8 (or fail to build for
unrelated reasons). I'll do the same for the ones with LANG=, but I
expect the result to be the same.  glibc-langpack-en is noticeably
larger, so I think that if we're doing it, we might just as well do it
"properly".

Zbyszek
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1624939] Upgrade perl-Config-Model-TkUI to 1.367

2018-09-04 Thread bugzilla 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1624939



--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-Config-Model-TkUI-1.367-1.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora
29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-4e287073e8

-- 
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
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1624947] perl-MooseX-Getopt-0.73 is available

2018-09-04 Thread bugzilla 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1624947

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |MODIFIED



--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-MooseX-Getopt-0.73-1.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-efe4552ee5

-- 
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
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1624939] Upgrade perl-Config-Model-TkUI to 1.367

2018-09-04 Thread bugzilla 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1624939

Jitka Plesnikova  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |MODIFIED
   Fixed In Version||perl-Config-Model-TkUI-1.36
   ||7-1.fc30
   Assignee|david.hanneq...@gmail.com   |jples...@redhat.com



-- 
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
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1624943] perl-Locale-Codes-3.58 is available

2018-09-04 Thread bugzilla 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1624943



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-Locale-Codes-3.58-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-8052ead839

-- 
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
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1624943] perl-Locale-Codes-3.58 is available

2018-09-04 Thread bugzilla 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1624943



--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-Locale-Codes-3.58-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-6b9a6a70b2

-- 
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
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1624943] perl-Locale-Codes-3.58 is available

2018-09-04 Thread bugzilla 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1624943



--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-Locale-Codes-3.58-1.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-7116ce1772

-- 
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
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1624943] perl-Locale-Codes-3.58 is available

2018-09-04 Thread bugzilla 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1624943

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
   Fixed In Version||perl-Locale-Codes-3.58-1.fc
   ||30



--- Comment #1 from Petr Pisar  ---
An enhancement 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
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1624942] perl-File-Path-2.16 is available

2018-09-04 Thread bugzilla 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1624942



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-File-Path-2.16-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-d2f0264871

-- 
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
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1624942] perl-File-Path-2.16 is available

2018-09-04 Thread bugzilla 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1624942



--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-File-Path-2.16-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-221c934152

-- 
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
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1624942] perl-File-Path-2.16 is available

2018-09-04 Thread bugzilla 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1624942



--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-File-Path-2.16-1.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-7dbbf7d62c

-- 
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
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: upgrade tinyproxy for f29?

2018-09-04 Thread Michael Adam 
On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 9:21 AM, Igor Gnatenko <
ignatenkobr...@fedoraproject.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 12:29 AM Michael Adam  wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 11:10 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <
>> zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 03, 2018 at 09:38:44PM +0200, Michael Adam wrote:
>>> > On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 7:07 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <
>>> > zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > On Mon, Sep 03, 2018 at 06:29:34PM +0200, Michael Adam wrote:
>>> > > > On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 5:23 PM, Peter Robinson <
>>> pbrobin...@gmail.com>
>>> > > wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > > On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 4:07 PM Michael Adam 
>>> wrote:
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > Hi all,
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > Tinyproxy just released a new version 1.10 which is has been
>>> overdue
>>> > > > > > and containes 2 CVE fixes apart from several enhancements.
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > I created builds for rawhide already.
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > I was wondering if it is still possible to get tinyproxy to
>>> this
>>> > > > > important
>>> > > > > > update in f29, since no other packages depend on it, afaict.
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > If so, what do I do? Just update the scm branch and bring it in
>>> > > through
>>> > > > > Bodhi?
>>> > > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Thanks for the swift response!
>>> > > >
>>> > > > (And apologies for any cluelessness about newer aspects of the
>>> fedora
>>> > > > process - it's been a while since i did these things, and it
>>> worked a
>>> > > little
>>> > > > differently then...)
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > > Sounds like a reasonable course of action. Is it backward
>>> compatible
>>> > > > > in terms of any interface people might use?
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > There are a few config file additions.
>>> > > > The location of the binary has changed from /usr/sbin
>>> > > > to /usr/bin . Otherwise no Interfaces i'm aware of.
>>> > >
>>> > > You should create a compat symlink from the old location to the new
>>> > > location, at least in the stable releases, in case somebody calls the
>>> > > binary by path.
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > Good point.
>>> >
>>> > - Is there an established way to create such a "compat symlink"?
>>>
>>> ln -s ../bin/NAME %{buildroot}/usr/sbin/NAME
>>>
>>> would be the standard way.
>>>
>>> > - What do you mean by "stable releases"?
>>> >   Does F29 (which is not released yet) qualify as that?
>>> I meant F28 and F27, but since this costs so little, I'd do the same
>>> for F29 too.
>>>
>>
>> Hmm, ok. I guess it is not a problem at this point
>> if f29 thereby goes one build ahead of master.
>> If needed later, we can still bump master's release number..
>>
>
> This is wrong, rawhide version should be always newer. You can either bump
> release in rawhide and do no changes there or bump release *after*
> %{?dist} in f29/f28.
>

Ok...

Can I still downgrade the release from 2.f29 to 1.f29.1 (or so) in f29
(since it's not official yet, only put up in testing for f29)?...

Michael


>
>
>> Thanks - Michael
>>
>>
>>> Zbyszek
>>> ___
>>> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
>>> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
>>> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>>> List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.
>>> org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
>>>
>> ___
>> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
>> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
>> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
>> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>> List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.
>> fedoraproject.org
>>
> --
>
> -Igor Gnatenko
>
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.
> fedoraproject.org
>
>
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1624942] perl-File-Path-2.16 is available

2018-09-04 Thread bugzilla 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1624942

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
   Fixed In Version||perl-File-Path-2.16-1.fc30



--- 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
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1624935] perl-Alien-pkgconf-0.15 is available

2018-09-04 Thread bugzilla 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1624935



--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-Alien-pkgconf-0.15-1.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-404b318615

-- 
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
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: upgrade tinyproxy for f29?

2018-09-04 Thread Igor Gnatenko 
On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 12:29 AM Michael Adam  wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 11:10 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <
> zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 03, 2018 at 09:38:44PM +0200, Michael Adam wrote:
>> > On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 7:07 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <
>> > zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Mon, Sep 03, 2018 at 06:29:34PM +0200, Michael Adam wrote:
>> > > > On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 5:23 PM, Peter Robinson <
>> pbrobin...@gmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 4:07 PM Michael Adam 
>> wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Hi all,
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Tinyproxy just released a new version 1.10 which is has been
>> overdue
>> > > > > > and containes 2 CVE fixes apart from several enhancements.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I created builds for rawhide already.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I was wondering if it is still possible to get tinyproxy to this
>> > > > > important
>> > > > > > update in f29, since no other packages depend on it, afaict.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > If so, what do I do? Just update the scm branch and bring it in
>> > > through
>> > > > > Bodhi?
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Thanks for the swift response!
>> > > >
>> > > > (And apologies for any cluelessness about newer aspects of the
>> fedora
>> > > > process - it's been a while since i did these things, and it worked
>> a
>> > > little
>> > > > differently then...)
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > > Sounds like a reasonable course of action. Is it backward
>> compatible
>> > > > > in terms of any interface people might use?
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > There are a few config file additions.
>> > > > The location of the binary has changed from /usr/sbin
>> > > > to /usr/bin . Otherwise no Interfaces i'm aware of.
>> > >
>> > > You should create a compat symlink from the old location to the new
>> > > location, at least in the stable releases, in case somebody calls the
>> > > binary by path.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Good point.
>> >
>> > - Is there an established way to create such a "compat symlink"?
>>
>> ln -s ../bin/NAME %{buildroot}/usr/sbin/NAME
>>
>> would be the standard way.
>>
>> > - What do you mean by "stable releases"?
>> >   Does F29 (which is not released yet) qualify as that?
>> I meant F28 and F27, but since this costs so little, I'd do the same
>> for F29 too.
>>
>
> Hmm, ok. I guess it is not a problem at this point
> if f29 thereby goes one build ahead of master.
> If needed later, we can still bump master's release number..
>

This is wrong, rawhide version should be always newer. You can either bump
release in rawhide and do no changes there or bump release *after* %{?dist}
in f29/f28.


> Thanks - Michael
>
>
>> Zbyszek
>> ___
>> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
>> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
>> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
>> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>> List Archives:
>> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
>>
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
>
-- 

-Igor Gnatenko
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1624935] perl-Alien-pkgconf-0.15 is available

2018-09-04 Thread bugzilla 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1624935

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
   Fixed In Version||perl-Alien-pkgconf-0.15-1.f
   ||c30



--- Comment #2 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
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org