Fedora rawhide compose report: 20180914.n.0 changes

[Fedora Rawhide Report]

OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20180913.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20180914.n.0

= SUMMARY =
Added images:2
Dropped images:  0
Added packages:  5
Dropped packages:6
Upgraded packages:   121
Downgraded packages: 0

Size of added packages:  2.20 MiB
Size of dropped packages:3.86 MiB
Size of upgraded packages:   4.35 GiB
Size of downgraded packages: 0 B

Size change of upgraded packages:   6.87 MiB
Size change of downgraded packages: 0 B

= ADDED IMAGES =
Image: Container_Base docker s390x
Path: 
Container/s390x/images/Fedora-Container-Base-Rawhide-20180914.n.0.s390x.tar.xz
Image: Container_Minimal_Base docker s390x
Path: 
Container/s390x/images/Fedora-Container-Minimal-Base-Rawhide-20180914.n.0.s390x.tar.xz

= DROPPED IMAGES =

= ADDED PACKAGES =
Package: lua-cqueues-20171014-0.fc30
Summary: Stackable Continuation Queues for the Lua Programming Language
RPMs:lua-cqueues lua-cqueues-compat lua-cqueues-doc
Size:1.93 MiB

Package: python-curio-0.9-1.fc30
Summary: Building blocks for performing concurrent I/O
RPMs:python3-curio
Size:134.98 KiB

Package: python-h11-0.8.1-1.fc30
Summary: A pure-Python, bring-your-own-I/O implementation of HTTP/1.1
RPMs:python3-h11
Size:93.73 KiB

Package: python-j1m.sphinxautozconfig-0.1.0-3.fc30
Summary: Sphinx support for ZConfig
RPMs:python2-j1m.sphinxautozconfig python3-j1m.sphinxautozconfig
Size:26.93 KiB

Package: python-sniffio-1.0.0-1.fc30
Summary: Sniff out which async library your code is running under
RPMs:python3-sniffio
Size:20.25 KiB


= DROPPED PACKAGES =
Package: collectd-ceilometer-plugin-1.0.1-7.fc29
Summary: OpenStack Ceilometer plugin for collectd
RPMs:python-collectd-ceilometer-plugin-doc 
python2-collectd-ceilometer-plugin python3-collectd-ceilometer-plugin
Size:274.21 KiB

Package: gnome-python2-desktop-2.32.0-33.fc29
Summary: The sources for additional PyGNOME Python extension modules
RPMs:gnome-python2-desktop gnome-python2-gnomedesktop 
gnome-python2-gnomekeyring gnome-python2-libgtop2 gnome-python2-libwnck 
gnome-python2-rsvg gnome-python2-totem
Size:857.09 KiB

Package: pymunk-1.0.0-17.fc29
Summary: Python wrapper for the chipmunk 2D physics engine
RPMs:pymunk
Size:132.87 KiB

Package: python-flatland-0.0.2-16.fc29
Summary: HTML form management and validation
RPMs:python2-flatland
Size:125.20 KiB

Package: python-imdb-5.1-9.fc29
Summary: Retrieve and manage the data of the IMDb movie database
RPMs:python2-imdb
Size:2.26 MiB

Package: python-wokkel-0.7.1-13.fc29
Summary: Enhancements to the Twisted XMPP protocol implementation
RPMs:python2-wokkel
Size:253.57 KiB


= UPGRADED PACKAGES =
Package:  IQmol-2.11.0-1.fc30
Old package:  IQmol-2.10.0-2.fc29
Summary:  A free open-source molecular editor and visualization package
RPMs: IQmol IQmol-samples
Size: 35.43 MiB
Size change:  -667.96 KiB
Changelog:
  * Thu Sep 13 2018 Susi Lehtola  - 2.11.0-1
  - Update to 2.11.0.


Package:  OpenMolcas-18.0-5.o180813.1752.fc30
Old package:  OpenMolcas-18.0-4.o180813.1752.fc30
Summary:  A multiconfigurational quantum chemistry software package
RPMs: OpenMolcas
Size: 112.98 MiB
Size change:  174.69 KiB
Changelog:
  * Wed Sep 12 2018 Susi Lehtola  - 
18.0-5.o180813.1752
  - Add missing python modules and wrapper.


Package:  SuperLU-5.2.1-5.fc30
Old package:  SuperLU-5.2.1-4.fc29
Summary:  Subroutines to solve sparse linear systems
RPMs: SuperLU SuperLU-devel SuperLU-doc
Size: 7.15 MiB
Size change:  -29.76 KiB
Changelog:
  * Fri Sep 14 2018 Antonio Trande  - 5.2.1-5
  - Remove gcc-gfortran as required package


Package:  aom-1.0.0-4.fc30
Old package:  aom-1.0.0-3.fc30
Summary:  Royalty-free next-generation video format
RPMs: aom aom-extra-tools libaom libaom-devel
Added RPMs:   aom-extra-tools libaom libaom-devel
Dropped RPMs: aom-devel
Size: 9.71 MiB
Size change:  631.34 KiB
Changelog:
  * Thu Sep 13 2018 Robert-Andr?? Mauchin  - 1.0.0-4
  - Split the package into libs/tools


Package:  authselect-1.0-3.fc30
Old package:  authselect-1.0-2.fc30
Summary:  Configures authentication and identity sources from supported 
profiles
RPMs: authselect authselect-compat authselect-devel authselect-libs
Size: 1.11 MiB
Size change:  7.35 KiB
Changelog:
  * Fri Sep 14 2018 Pavel B??ezina  - 1.0-3
  - Scriptlets should no produce any error messages (RHBZ #1622272)
  - Provide fix for pwquality configuration (RHBZ #1618865)


Package:  brial-1.2.4-1.fc30
Old package:  brial-1.2.3-3.fc29
Summary:  Framework for Boolean Rings
RPMs: brial brial-devel python2-brial python3-brial
Size: 6.50 MiB
Size change:  -32.22 KiB
Changelog:
  * Thu Sep 13 2018 Jerry James  - 1.2.4-1
  - New upstream version


Package:  cassandra-3.11.1-7.fc30
Old package:  cassandra-3.11.1-6.fc30
Summary:  Client utilities

[389-devel] 389 DS nightly 2018-09-15 - 90% PASS

[vashirov]

https://fedorapeople.org/groups/389ds/ci/nightly/2018/09/15/report-389-ds-base-1.4.0.16-20180914git4881826.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

[Test-Announce] 2018-09-17 @ 16:00 UTC - Fedora 29 Blocker Review Meeting

[Adam Williamson]

# F29 Blocker Review meeting
# Date: 2018-09-17
# Time: 16:00 UTC
# Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net

Hi folks! We have 2 proposed Beta blockers, 6 proposed Beta freeze
exceptions and 8 proposed Final blockers to review, so let's have a
review meeting on Monday (those numbers may change over the weekend).

If you have time this weekend, you can take a look at the proposed or
accepted blockers before the meeting -  the full lists can be found
here: https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/ .

We'll be evaluating these bugs to see if they violate any of the 
Release Criteria and warrant the blocking of a release if they're not 
fixed. Information on the release criteria for F29 can be found on the 
wiki [0].

For more information about the Blocker and Freeze exception process, 
check out these links:
 - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_blocker_bug_process
 - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_freeze_exception_bug_process

And for those of you who are curious how a Blocker Review Meeting 
works - or how it's supposed to go and you want to run one - check out 
the SOP on the wiki:
 - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:SOP_Blocker_Bug_Meeting

Have a good weekend and see you Monday!

[0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Release_Criteria
-- 
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

[Test-Announce] Proposal to CANCEL: 2018-09-17 Fedora QA Meeting

[Adam Williamson]

Hi folks! I'm proposing we cancel the QA meeting tomorrow. We're still
focused on F29 Beta at the moment, though please do take a minute to
look at the firmware RAID criterion proposal. There will be a blocker
review meeting at 16:00 UTC, please come to that if you can.

If you're aware of anything important we have to discuss this week,
please do reply to this mail and we can go ahead and run the meeting.
Thanks!
-- 
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

[Bug 1628550] perl-BSON-v1.8.0 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1628550



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-BSON-1.8.0-1.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-2018-1dd17c8f0a

-- 
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 1624362] perl-re-engine-PCRE2-0.14-5.fc30 FTBFS: t/perl/ regexp.t fails with pcre2-10.32

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1624362



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
pcre2-10.32-1.fc28, perl-re-engine-PCRE2-0.14-4.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-2018-8217a06c3a

-- 
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 1624362] perl-re-engine-PCRE2-0.14-5.fc30 FTBFS: t/perl/ regexp.t fails with pcre2-10.32

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1624362

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
pcre2-10.32-1.fc29, perl-re-engine-PCRE2-0.14-6.fc29 has been pushed to the
Fedora 29 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-2018-4fb5569365

-- 
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 1628550] perl-BSON-v1.8.0 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1628550

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-BSON-1.8.0-1.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 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-ea062d971d

-- 
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

Fedora 29-20180912.n.0 compose check report

[Fedora compose checker]

Missing expected images:

Atomichost qcow2 x86_64
Atomichost raw-xz x86_64

Failed openQA tests: 3/132 (x86_64), 1/24 (i386), 1/2 (arm)

ID: 279984  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso 
desktop_notifications_postinstall
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/279984
ID: 279991  Test: i386 Workstation-boot-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/279991
ID: 28  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_notifications_postinstall
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/28
ID: 280006  Test: arm Minimal-raw_xz-raw.xz 
install_arm_image_deployment_upload
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/280006
ID: 280078  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_desktop_encrypted_64bit
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/280078

Soft failed openQA tests: 10/132 (x86_64), 3/24 (i386)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)

ID: 279942  Test: x86_64 Server-boot-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/279942
ID: 279943  Test: x86_64 Server-boot-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/279943
ID: 279968  Test: i386 Server-boot-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/279968
ID: 279969  Test: i386 Server-dvd-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/279969
ID: 279970  Test: x86_64 Everything-boot-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/279970
ID: 279971  Test: x86_64 Everything-boot-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/279971
ID: 279972  Test: i386 Everything-boot-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/279972
ID: 279974  Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_default_upload
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/279974
ID: 279993  Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/279993
ID: 280044  Test: x86_64 universal install_mirrorlist_graphical
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/280044
ID: 280047  Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_server_domain_controller
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/280047
ID: 280048  Test: x86_64 universal install_kickstart_firewall_configured
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/280048
ID: 280081  Test: x86_64 universal install_kickstart_nfs
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/280081

Passed openQA tests: 119/132 (x86_64), 20/24 (i386)

Skipped openQA tests: 1 of 158
-- 
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
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: Testing / feedback request: DNF 3 crashes

[Adam Williamson]

On Fri, 2018-09-14 at 14:41 +, Samuel Rakitničan wrote:
> The following bug have not been updated since report. I would say it is a big 
> issue since an upgrade will break dnf,
> 
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1598590

I've closed it as a dupe of the bug we're using as the main report for
this. I agree it's a significant issue for those who hit it; it's
currently proposed as a Final blocker, I'll mark it CommonBugs so we
document the workaround (wipe history) for Beta, and if a fix comes
soon, we can consider a freeze exception to get it into Beta.

Thanks!
-- 
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: Proposal to modify release criteria for fwraid

[Randy Barlow]

On 09/14/2018 10:22 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> I'd like to propose that we make the following change to
> the criteria going forward:
> 
> "The blocking criterion for successful installation atop a firmware
> RAID array is moved to the GA release criteria."

+1



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 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: Am I allowed to package this?

[Simo Sorce]

On Fri, 2018-09-14 at 19:37 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 09/13/2018 07:59 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > On Thu, 2018-09-13 at 16:07 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > On 10-09-18 14:40, Abhiram Kuchibhotla wrote:
> > > > According to the LICENSE file in their git repo, the code in the repo 
> > > > seems to be gplv2. Not sure if that proves anything. I'll do the 
> > > > licensecheck -r later and update you guys.
> > > > 
> > > > On Mon 10 Sep, 2018, 6:08 PM Richard Shaw,  > > > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > >  On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 7:27 AM Rex Dieter  > > > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > >  Jan Rybar wrote:
> > > > 
> > > >   > Hi Abhiram,
> > > >   >
> > > >   > you can make COPR. No one asks, no harm done, everyone's 
> > > > happy.
> > > > 
> > > >  I don't think copr is appropriate either,
> > > >  https://docs.pagure.org/copr.copr/user_documentation.html#faq
> > > > 
> > > >  To me, makes it pretty clear that if it can't be in fedora, it 
> > > > can't be in
> > > >  copr either.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >  You need to go through the code (maybe use licensecheck -r to 
> > > > help) to see if all the code is acceptable. If so I'll defer to Neal on 
> > > > the COPR acceptability. Another alternative is until formal support is 
> > > > added to the kernel you can look at packaging it in RPM Fusion. If it's 
> > > > truly FOSS but just not acceptable because it's a kernel module it can 
> > > > go in the Free repository. If it's using proprietary code (even if the 
> > > > project is GPL licensed) then as long as it's redistributable, it can 
> > > > go in the Non-Free repository.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > This looks like a standard realtek driver which realtek creates for 
> > > Android devices
> > > or some such. The code is not pretty (I really wish realtek would start 
> > > contributing
> > > proper drivers to the mainline kernel) but it usually is all GPL 
> > > licensed, except
> > > for the firmware for the NIC. I don't see firmware in the git repo, so 
> > > the code
> > > may need to be adjusted to use the kernels firmware-load mechanism (I 
> > > assume
> > > it has the firmware embedded atm).
> > > 
> > > The firmware files themselves may be distributed under this license:
> > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/firmware/linux-firmware.git/tree/LICENCE.rtlwifi_firmware.txt
> > > 
> > > Note I did not check the files in the git repo, I just took a quick peek
> > > that it is a "standard" out of tree realtek driver.
> > > 
> > > Also IANAL and TINLA.
> > 
> > I also have to use this driver for a USB dongle that works very well
> > ... when I remember to check dkms didn't fail to build on kernel
> > upgrade ...
> > 
> > There is no firmware needed apparently, but my dongle doesn't work with
> > driver 5.2 which is the latest, so maybe a firmware is needed but the
> > driver itself doesn't load it ?
> > 
> > It would be really nice to have this driver in the kernel though as a
> > huge amount of cheap dongles use this chipset family, what would be the
> > process to get it in ?
> 
> You can submit it for inclusion into drivers/staging, there are already
> some realtek drivers for other chipsets there for similar reasons.
> 
> Real inclusion would require a complete rewrite of the driver mostly.

Sigh, and I guess there is no party (beyond Realtek) with enough
interest/time to do that ...

Simo.

-- 
Simo Sorce
Sr. Principal Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc
___
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: Am I allowed to package this?

[Hans de Goede]

Hi,

On 09/13/2018 07:59 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:

On Thu, 2018-09-13 at 16:07 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:

Hi,

On 10-09-18 14:40, Abhiram Kuchibhotla wrote:

According to the LICENSE file in their git repo, the code in the repo seems to 
be gplv2. Not sure if that proves anything. I'll do the licensecheck -r later 
and update you guys.

On Mon 10 Sep, 2018, 6:08 PM Richard Shaw, mailto:hobbes1...@gmail.com>> wrote:

 On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 7:27 AM Rex Dieter mailto:rdie...@math.unl.edu>> wrote:

 Jan Rybar wrote:

  > Hi Abhiram,
  >
  > you can make COPR. No one asks, no harm done, everyone's happy.

 I don't think copr is appropriate either,
 https://docs.pagure.org/copr.copr/user_documentation.html#faq

 To me, makes it pretty clear that if it can't be in fedora, it can't 
be in
 copr either.


 You need to go through the code (maybe use licensecheck -r to help) to see 
if all the code is acceptable. If so I'll defer to Neal on the COPR 
acceptability. Another alternative is until formal support is added to the 
kernel you can look at packaging it in RPM Fusion. If it's truly FOSS but just 
not acceptable because it's a kernel module it can go in the Free repository. 
If it's using proprietary code (even if the project is GPL licensed) then as 
long as it's redistributable, it can go in the Non-Free repository.



This looks like a standard realtek driver which realtek creates for Android 
devices
or some such. The code is not pretty (I really wish realtek would start 
contributing
proper drivers to the mainline kernel) but it usually is all GPL licensed, 
except
for the firmware for the NIC. I don't see firmware in the git repo, so the code
may need to be adjusted to use the kernels firmware-load mechanism (I assume
it has the firmware embedded atm).

The firmware files themselves may be distributed under this license:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/firmware/linux-firmware.git/tree/LICENCE.rtlwifi_firmware.txt

Note I did not check the files in the git repo, I just took a quick peek
that it is a "standard" out of tree realtek driver.

Also IANAL and TINLA.


I also have to use this driver for a USB dongle that works very well
... when I remember to check dkms didn't fail to build on kernel
upgrade ...

There is no firmware needed apparently, but my dongle doesn't work with
driver 5.2 which is the latest, so maybe a firmware is needed but the
driver itself doesn't load it ?

It would be really nice to have this driver in the kernel though as a
huge amount of cheap dongles use this chipset family, what would be the
process to get it in ?


You can submit it for inclusion into drivers/staging, there are already
some realtek drivers for other chipsets there for similar reasons.

Real inclusion would require a complete rewrite of the driver mostly.

Regards,

Hans
___
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

Fedora 29 compose report: 20180912.n.0 changes

[Fedora Branched Report]

OLD: Fedora-29-20180911.n.0
NEW: Fedora-29-20180912.n.0

= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images:  3
Added packages:  3
Dropped packages:1
Upgraded packages:   103
Downgraded packages: 0

Size of added packages:  90.43 MiB
Size of dropped packages:134.08 KiB
Size of upgraded packages:   1.18 GiB
Size of downgraded packages: 0 B

Size change of upgraded packages:   -6.27 MiB
Size change of downgraded packages: 0 B

= ADDED IMAGES =

= DROPPED IMAGES =
Image: AtomicHost qcow2 x86_64
Path: AtomicHost/x86_64/images/Fedora-AtomicHost-29-20180911.n.0.x86_64.qcow2
Image: Scientific_KDE live x86_64
Path: Labs/x86_64/iso/Fedora-Scientific_KDE-Live-x86_64-29-20180911.n.0.iso
Image: AtomicHost raw-xz x86_64
Path: AtomicHost/x86_64/images/Fedora-AtomicHost-29-20180911.n.0.x86_64.raw.xz

= ADDED PACKAGES =
Package: amtk-5.0.0-2.fc29
Summary: Actions, Menus and Toolbars Kit for GTK+ applications
RPMs:amtk amtk-devel amtk-tests
Size:738.22 KiB

Package: gtksourceview4-4.0.3-2.fc29
Summary: Source code editing widget
RPMs:gtksourceview4 gtksourceview4-devel gtksourceview4-tests
Size:9.83 MiB

Package: mozjs60-60.1.0-1.fc29
Summary: SpiderMonkey JavaScript library
RPMs:mozjs60 mozjs60-devel
Size:79.89 MiB


= DROPPED PACKAGES =
Package: python-pypubsub3.3.0-3.3.0-2.fc29
Summary: Python Publish-Subscribe Package
RPMs:python2-pypubsub
Size:134.08 KiB


= UPGRADED PACKAGES =
Package:  abattis-cantarell-fonts-0.111-1.fc29
Old package:  abattis-cantarell-fonts-0.101-2.fc29
Summary:  Humanist sans serif font
RPMs: abattis-cantarell-fonts
Size: 242.34 KiB
Size change:  43.89 KiB
Changelog:
  * Fri Sep 07 2018 Kalev Lember  - 0.111-1
  - Update to 0.111


Package:  adwaita-icon-theme-3.30.0-1.fc29
Old package:  adwaita-icon-theme-3.29.90-1.fc29
Summary:  Adwaita icon theme
RPMs: adwaita-cursor-theme adwaita-icon-theme adwaita-icon-theme-devel
Size: 12.07 MiB
Size change:  3.32 KiB
Changelog:
  * Thu Sep 06 2018 Kalev Lember  - 3.30.0-1
  - Update to 3.30.0


Package:  aisleriot-1:3.22.6-1.fc29
Old package:  aisleriot-1:3.22.5-2.fc29
Summary:  A collection of card games
RPMs: aisleriot
Size: 35.35 MiB
Size change:  -41.36 KiB
Changelog:
  * Tue Sep 04 2018 Kalev Lember  - 1:3.22.6-1
  - Update to 3.22.6


Package:  anjuta-1:3.28.0-7.fc29
Old package:  anjuta-1:3.28.0-5.fc29
Summary:  GNOME IDE for various programming languages (including C/C++, 
Python, Vala and JavaScript)
RPMs: anjuta anjuta-devel
Size: 34.43 MiB
Size change:  2.82 KiB
Changelog:
  * Fri Sep 07 2018 Kalev Lember  - 1:3.28.0-6
  - Rebuilt for libdevhelp soname bump

  * Fri Sep 07 2018 Kalev Lember  - 1:3.28.0-7
  - Rebuilt against fixed atk (#1626575)


Package:  at-spi2-atk-2.30.0-1.fc29
Old package:  at-spi2-atk-2.26.2-2.fc29
Summary:  A GTK+ module that bridges ATK to D-Bus at-spi
RPMs: at-spi2-atk at-spi2-atk-devel
Size: 517.38 KiB
Size change:  -16.25 KiB
Changelog:
  * Thu Sep 06 2018 Kalev Lember  - 2.30.0-1
  - Update to 2.30.0
  - Switch to the meson build system
  - Remove ldconfig scriptlets


Package:  at-spi2-core-2.30.0-2.fc29
Old package:  at-spi2-core-2.28.0-4.fc29
Summary:  Protocol definitions and daemon for D-Bus at-spi
RPMs: at-spi2-core at-spi2-core-devel
Size: 1.69 MiB
Size change:  12.71 KiB
Changelog:
  * Thu Sep 06 2018 Kalev Lember  - 2.30.0-1
  - Update to 2.30.0

  * Fri Sep 07 2018 Kalev Lember  - 2.30.0-2
  - Rebuilt against fixed atk (#1626575)


Package:  atk-2.30.0-1.fc29
Old package:  atk-2.28.1-2.fc29
Summary:  Interfaces for accessibility support
RPMs: atk atk-devel
Size: 2.54 MiB
Size change:  -4.54 KiB
Changelog:
  * Thu Sep 06 2018 Kalev Lember  - 2.29.92-1
  - Update to 2.29.92
  - Switch to the meson build system
  - Remove ldconfig scriptlets

  * Fri Sep 07 2018 Kalev Lember  - 2.29.92-2
  - Revert a commit that broke introspection (#1626575)

  * Mon Sep 10 2018 Kalev Lember  - 2.30.0-1
  - Update to 2.30.0


Package:  atomix-3.30.0.1-1.fc29
Old package:  atomix-3.22.0-7.fc29
Summary:  Puzzle game: Build molecules out of isolated atoms
RPMs: atomix
Size: 2.83 MiB
Size change:  -3.33 KiB
Changelog:
  * Fri Sep 07 2018 Kalev Lember  - 3.30.0.1-1
  - Update to 3.30.0.1
  - Switch to the meson build system


Package:  baobab-3.30.0-1.fc29
Old package:  baobab-3.28.0-3.fc29
Summary:  A graphical directory tree analyzer
RPMs: baobab
Size: 2.31 MiB
Size change:  -68.89 KiB
Changelog:
  * Fri Sep 07 2018 Kalev Lember  - 3.30.0-1
  - Update to 3.30.0


Package:  bijiben-3.30.0-1.fc29
Old package:  bijiben-3.29.90-1.fc29
Summary:  Simple Note Viewer
RPMs: bijiben
Size: 3.32 MiB
Size change:  31.19 KiB
Changelog:
  * Thu Sep 06 2018 Kalev Lember  - 3.30.0-1
  - Update to 3.30.0

Re: [modularity] Recommended platform: [] and version 2 format

[Jun Aruga]

Thanks for explaining about it!
I found the part of "platform: []" in the document you shared.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/modularity/making-modules/defining-modules/#_modular_dependencies

Jun


On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 11:07 AM, Adam Samalik  wrote:
> That's right!
>
> This and more is documented in the Modularity section of Fedora Docs:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/modularity/making-modules/defining-modules/
>
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 10:56 AM Jun Aruga  wrote:
>>
>> Just sharing information.
>>
>> When talking with a person in modularity team, I have told that for a
>> module config yaml file's below elements, the empty array "[]" was
>> recommended on Fedora.
>>
>> /data/dependencies/buildrequires/platform
>> /data/dependencies/requires/platform
>>
>> Because when platform is  "[]", the module is built on current
>> supported platforms (right now f28, f29, and f30). The binary of the
>> module are prepared for each platform.
>> I hope the document is updated including this recommended setting as a
>> best practice.
>>
>> ```
>> diff --git a/ruby.yaml b/ruby.yaml
>>  tracker: https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
>>  dependencies:
>>  - buildrequires:
>> -platform: [f29]
>> +platform: []
>>requires:
>> -platform: [f29]
>> +platform: []
>>  components:
>>  # SRPMs
>>  rpms:
>> ```
>>
>> Also seeing several modules' config YAML files, some config files are
>> still version 1.
>> I like to share that we can use the version 2, changing the /version
>> element from 1 to 2.
>>
>> Version 2 spec:
>> https://github.com/fedora-modularity/libmodulemd/blob/master/spec.v2.yaml
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> --
>> Jun Aruga jar...@redhat.com
>> ___
>> 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
>
>
>
> --
>
> Adam Šamalík
> ---
> Software Engineer
> Red Hat
>
> ___
> 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
>



-- 
Jun Aruga jar...@redhat.com
IRC: jaruga, Office: TPB(Technology Park Brno) Building C 1F, Brno,
Czech Republic
___
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

Retiring pgtune

[Miroslav Suchý]

I want to retire pgtune
  https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pgtune

The original upstream is dead and python2 only:
  https://github.com/gregs1104/pgtune

There is a new upstream based on the original version:
  https://github.com/le0pard/pgtune

But it is far of being simple. It is made in ruby and node.js. And I do not 
want to maintain it.
Additionally is is no more command line tool, but web service, which is 
available online as well:
https://pgtune.leopard.in.ua/#/

If you want to take over take this package - not sure why - then please contact 
me. Otherwise I will retire this package.

Miroslav
___
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 1628413] ctstream-29 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1628413



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
ctstream-29-1.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-2018-7f2b1bc3e5

-- 
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

[389-devel] please review: PR 49952 - PassSync not setting pwdLastSet attribute in Active Directory after Pw update from LDAP sync for normal user

[Mark Reynolds]

https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/pull-request/49952
___
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

Re: Proposal to modify release criteria for fwraid

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 10:22:12AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> At yesterday's F29 Go/No-Go meeting, we discussed the blocker status
> of BZ #1628192 - Fedora 29 installation cannot see a firmware RAID
> device. While the blocker criteria clearly states that this should be
> a blocker for Beta, many of the people present at the meeting
> disagreed, for a variety of reasons.
> 
> * Hardware supporting fwraid is considerably less pervasive than it
> was when the criterion was written
> 
> * Testing this criterion can only be done with install media, which
> limits our testing pool to the very dedicated members of Fedora QA.
> Yes, anyone *can* download a nightly compose and try it, but in
> practice this tends to be limited to the core testers. The majority of
> testing that this feature will get will tend to happen as people try
> out the Beta release.
> 
> To that end, I'd like to propose that we make the following change to
> the criteria going forward:
> 
> "The blocking criterion for successful installation atop a firmware
> RAID array is moved to the GA release criteria."

+1

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: Testing / feedback request: DNF 3 crashes

[Samuel Rakitničan]

The following bug have not been updated since report. I would say it is a big 
issue since an upgrade will break dnf,

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1598590
___
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

Proposal to modify release criteria for fwraid

[Stephen Gallagher]

At yesterday's F29 Go/No-Go meeting, we discussed the blocker status
of BZ #1628192 - Fedora 29 installation cannot see a firmware RAID
device. While the blocker criteria clearly states that this should be
a blocker for Beta, many of the people present at the meeting
disagreed, for a variety of reasons.

* Hardware supporting fwraid is considerably less pervasive than it
was when the criterion was written

* Testing this criterion can only be done with install media, which
limits our testing pool to the very dedicated members of Fedora QA.
Yes, anyone *can* download a nightly compose and try it, but in
practice this tends to be limited to the core testers. The majority of
testing that this feature will get will tend to happen as people try
out the Beta release.

To that end, I'd like to propose that we make the following change to
the criteria going forward:

"The blocking criterion for successful installation atop a firmware
RAID array is moved to the GA release criteria."
___
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] Fedora 29 Beta status is No-Go

[Ben Cotton]

Due to in-progress RC2 for the F29 Beta release and presence of
blocker bugs, the decision is “No Go”. The Beta release slips for one
week to “Target #1” date (September 25th)[1]. We are not going to slip
the Final GA yet.

For more information please check the minutes from the F29 Beta
Go/No-Go meeting [2].

The next Go/No-Go meeting will be held Thursday, 2018-09-20 at 1700
UTC in #fedora-meeting-1.

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/29/Schedule
[2] 
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2018-09-13/f29-beta-go_no_go-meeting.2018-09-13-17.00.html

-- 
Ben Cotton
Fedora Program Manager
TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis
___
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

Re: Call for participation: Fedora Flatpaks

[Bastien Nocera]

Urgh, unfinished trains of thought.

- Original Message -
> > * Benefit to Fedora contributors: they can make their packaging work
> > available across distributions and distribution versions.
> 
> Most likely duplicating upstream work on getting that same

...on getting that same application into end-users hands. What do you think 
would
happen to the opt-in creation of Fedora Flatpaks if you get none of the benefits
of being able to empower upstream with maintaining that package?

> > * Benefit to upstream: if they already have a good relationship with Fedora
> > and their application is well maintained there, they can point users on all
> > distributions to a Fedora Flatpak.
> > * Benefit to Red Hat: We build infrastructure technology and content that
> > we
> > can take into the RHEL context and make runtimes and Flatpaks available to
> > our customers with the type of guarantees that we are already providing for
> > RPM content.
> 
> That doesn't seem to require

That doesn't seem to require the Flatpaks to be build from binary RPMs, or RPMs
at all. The Fedora/RHEL runtime is part of the OS, so no duplication of work,
but packaging application-supporting libraries would be.
___
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 1262772] perl-SOAP-Lite-1.10-1.el7.noarch requires perl(Class:: Inspector)

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262772

Jaskaran Singh Narula  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||janar...@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

Re: Call for participation: Fedora Flatpaks

[Bastien Nocera]

- Original Message -
> Hi Bastien,
> 
> Here are some of the benefits I see of this effort as compared to simply
> telling users to consume Flatpaks from Flathub or independent repositories:

Sorry it took a couple of days to get back to you.

If the end-goal is shipping Flatpaks, and that those Flatpaks need to be built
on Fedora infrastructure to be distributable, then we have some other options.

> * Benefit to Flaptak users on all distributions: more applications are
> available more quickly. Some applications will be much easier to create
> Flatpaks of this way because of their build dependencies. For lightly
> maintained, older applications, building a Flatpak of an RPM within Fedora
> is simple and avoids creating another independent place that someone has to
> keep an eye on.

For older, mature or not well-maintained, applications, I would think that
having them available through an upstream Flatpak would be more viable, sharing
maintenance with other distributions.

> * Benefit to Flatpak users on all distributions: this works towards having a
> runtime (whether Fedora or RHEL/CentOS based) that has a long lifetime and
> strong security update guarantees

Having a long lifetime and strong security update guarantees is also a goal
of the Flatpak Freedesktop SDK and runtime.

> * Benefit to Fedora users: they can get Flatpaks and runtimes from a source
> they already have trust in.

OK.

> * Benefit to Fedora users: this is a repository of Flaptaks we can enable by
> default (there are ongoing discussions of splitting up Flathub, but
> currently it combines both content that Fedora can point users to, and
> content that is problematical from a legal or Free Software point of view,
> all mixed together.)

Seems that this problem is being worked on then.

> * Benefit to Fedora contributors: they can work within the community and
> infrastructure they are already familiar with to fill gaps in the set of
> available Flatpaks.

Sure, it avoids creating more accounts, but the tooling is so different that
I don't think that it's going to help much.

> * Benefit to Fedora contributors: they can make their packaging work
> available across distributions and distribution versions.

Most likely duplicating upstream work on getting that same 

> * Benefit to upstream: if they already have a good relationship with Fedora
> and their application is well maintained there, they can point users on all
> distributions to a Fedora Flatpak.
> * Benefit to Red Hat: We build infrastructure technology and content that we
> can take into the RHEL context and make runtimes and Flatpaks available to
> our customers with the type of guarantees that we are already providing for
> RPM content.

That doesn't seem to require 

> LIke many things we do in Fedora, the benefit to RHEL is a big reason that
> we've been doing this work, and was an influence in some of decisions about
> how things were implemented, but I think the work does stand on its own as
> useful to the Fedora and Flatpak communities.

In summary, I think that building Flatpaks from Fedora binary RPMs in Fedora
infrastructure is not the right path forward:
- long-term supported runtime and SDK is a good thing, no questions, and that
  can probably be generated on Fedora infrastructure, as it shares so much
  with the Fedora OS itself
- Building Flatpak from binary RPMs is a bad idea. In Flatpak, you'd want the
  app dependencies (the ones that aren't part of the runeimt) to be as closely
  configured to what the application needs as necessary. That means that one
  applications might disable 99% of a library just to have the one plugin it
  needs to run, that wouldn't be possible when building from a binary RPM. That
  also means that the application is impacted by changes in those libraries, 
when
  the point of Flatpak is that the runtime is API and ABI stable, and all the
  rest is under the application's control. Think of every time you saw a mass
  change on the fedora-devel list, that's every time your application might 
break
  even though you didn't make a single change to it.

What I'd rather see would be:
- the tools working on source RPMs, rather than binary RPMs, and would generate
  flatpak-builder manifests. Those manifests can be then be used in Flathub,
  or by the upstream developers in their own repository, or used in the upstream
  project's CI to generate nightlies
- Because it has a global view of library usage, and compilation options, Fedora
  can make headway on de-duplicating those particular bits for inclusion in the
  runtime, or as shared build modules, similar to 
https://github.com/flathub/shared-modules
- the Fedora infrastructure can then use those upstream manifests, with little
  modification, to build against the Fedora SDK, on Fedora infrastructure, with
  Fedora signing keys, so that the chain of trust is not broken, whether with
  end-users or contributors
- those upstream maintained Flatpak manifests make it 

Re: F29 DNF can't find gnome 3.30 packages

[Kalev Lember]

On 09/14/2018 01:02 PM, Vascom wrote:
I and some other users just upgraded from F28 to F29 see that dnf can't 
find Gnome 3.30 packages.

That's because there hasn't been a successful F29 compose since GNOME
3.30.0 got pushed to stable. Just have to wait for releng to sort this out.

--
Kalev
___
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

F29 DNF can't find gnome 3.30 packages

[Vascom]

Hi all.

I and some other users just upgraded from F28 to F29 see that dnf can't
find Gnome 3.30 packages. For example nautilus:

LANG=C sudo dnf list all nautilus --refresh
Available Packages
nautilus.i6863.28.1-2.fc29  fedora
nautilus.x86_64   3.28.1-2.fc29  fedora

LANG=C sudo dnf repolist
Last metadata expiration check: 0:02:20 ago on Fri Sep 14 13:54:50 2018.
repo id  repo name   status
*fedora  Fedora 29 - x86_64 57929
*updatesFedora 29 - x86_64 - Updates0
*updates-testingFedora 29 - x86_64 - Test Updates2919

I update dnf to dnf-3.5.1-1.fc29.noarch but it not helped.
What I need do to solve problem?
___
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 1624362] perl-re-engine-PCRE2-0.14-5.fc30 FTBFS: t/perl/ regexp.t fails with pcre2-10.32

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1624362



--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System  ---
pcre2-10.32-1.fc28 perl-re-engine-PCRE2-0.14-4.fc28 has been submitted as an
update to Fedora 28.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-8217a06c3a

-- 
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 1624362] perl-re-engine-PCRE2-0.14-5.fc30 FTBFS: t/perl/ regexp.t fails with pcre2-10.32

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1624362



--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System  ---
pcre2-10.32-1.fc29 perl-re-engine-PCRE2-0.14-6.fc29 has been submitted as an
update to Fedora 29.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-4fb5569365

-- 
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 1624362] perl-re-engine-PCRE2-0.14-5.fc30 FTBFS: t/perl/ regexp.t fails with pcre2-10.32

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1624362

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
   Fixed In Version||perl-re-engine-PCRE2-0.14-6
   ||.fc30



-- 
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 1624362] perl-re-engine-PCRE2-0.14-5.fc30 FTBFS: t/perl/ regexp.t fails with pcre2-10.32

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1624362



--- Comment #1 from Petr Pisar  ---
Two of the failures were fixed in 10.32. Another two failures are not bug in
PCRE2. re-engine-PCRE2 upstream adjusted tests.

-- 
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: Testing / feedback request: DNF 3 crashes

[Alessio Ciregia]

On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 9:26 PM Adam Williamson
 wrote:
> Can anyone who is still struggling with DNF crashes on *basic*
> operations on F29 or Rawhide please reply, and provide a few details on
> what you're seeing and any workarounds or fixes you've found?


FWIW, I never hit such problem.
The only way to get in troubles consists in hammering the history.sqlite file:
echo 1 > /var/lib/dnf/history.sqlite

Now almost all dnf operations fails (except dnf search):

dnf update
...
RuntimeError: C++ std::exception: Exec failed: file is not a database

And in the journal:
Sep 14 10:20:11 hostname python3[8830]: detected unhandled Python
exception in '/usr/bin/dnf'
Sep 14 10:20:11 hostname abrt-notification[8856]: Process 8830 (dnf)
of user 0 encountered an uncaught RuntimeError exception
-- Subject: ABRT has detected an uncaught RuntimeError exception in dnf
...

Deleting the "corrupted" history.sqlite, it restores the normal situation.

Ciao,
A.
___
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 1628550] perl-BSON-v1.8.0 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1628550



--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-BSON-1.8.0-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-1dd17c8f0a

-- 
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 1628550] perl-BSON-v1.8.0 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1628550



--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System  ---
perl-BSON-1.8.0-1.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-ea062d971d

-- 
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 1628550] perl-BSON-v1.8.0 is available

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1628550

Petr Pisar  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
   Fixed In Version||perl-BSON-1.8.0-1.fc30



--- Comment #1 from Petr Pisar  ---
An enhancement release suitable for Fedora ≥ 28.

-- 
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