It seems that cmark was rebased to 0.29.0 version changing SONAME from
libcmark.so.0.28.3 to libcmark.so.0.29.0 without any announcemnt. These
packages are affected:
# dnf --quiet repoquery --enablerepo perl --enablerepo f32-build --whatrequires
'libcmark.so.0.28.3()(64bit)' --source
mkvtoolnix-4
On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 11:35 PM Daniel P. Berrangé
wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 03, 2020 at 11:26:46PM +0530, Kaleb Keithley wrote:
> > Coming in Ceph-15 (octopus)
> >
> > From: LGPL-2.1 and CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GPL-2.0 and BSL-1.0 and BSD-3-Clause
> > and MIT
> > To: LGPL-2.1 and LGPL-3.0 and CC-BY-SA-
Dear all,
You are kindly invited to the meeting:
Modularity Team (weekly) on 2020-02-04 from 15:00:00 to 16:00:00 UTC
At fedora-meetin...@irc.freenode.net
The meeting will be about:
Meeting of the Modularity Team.
More information available at: [Modularity Team
Docs](https://docs.pagure.o
On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 9:59 AM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> That needs some investigation. Can you file a releng ticket on it?
>
> We need to sort out why it wasn't built... I do see the commit, but
> oddly no build at all.
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/9220
Thanks, Kevin.
--
Jerry James
http://www.ja
On Fri, 2020-01-31 at 10:35 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> > And talking about the git forge, what is Red Hat using internally as git
> > forge? And then the above questions applies.
> >
>
> It was mentioned in a different part of this thread that Red Hat is
> using pagure internally.
Well, it's
On Mon, Feb 03, 2020 at 11:26:46PM +0530, Kaleb Keithley wrote:
> Coming in Ceph-15 (octopus)
>
> From: LGPL-2.1 and CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GPL-2.0 and BSL-1.0 and BSD-3-Clause
> and MIT
> To: LGPL-2.1 and LGPL-3.0 and CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GPL-2.0 and BSL-1.0 and
> BSD-3-Clause and MIT
Do you have inf
Coming in Ceph-15 (octopus)
From: LGPL-2.1 and CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GPL-2.0 and BSL-1.0 and BSD-3-Clause
and MIT
To: LGPL-2.1 and LGPL-3.0 and CC-BY-SA-3.0 and GPL-2.0 and BSL-1.0 and
BSD-3-Clause and MIT
Note: I'm tentatively planning on landing ceph-15 in rawhide after f32
branch.
--
Kaleb
_
On Sat, Feb 01, 2020 at 11:15:43AM +0100, Dan Čermák wrote:
> Dan Čermák writes:
>
> > Rahul Sundaram writes:
> >
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 10:46 AM Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Welcome to our lives!
> >>> If it was mathematically possible to go above 100% that's ho
On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 01:37:36AM -0500, Elliott Sales de Andrade wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 08:03, Neal Gompa wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 6:40 AM Iñaki Ucar wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 23:23, Leigh Griffin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I suspect that a bulk of our users
> > > Aside from a few stragglers, the mass rebuild is complete.
> >
> > That's great! Thanks for all of your work making this happen, Kevin.
> > I do want to point out that at least one of my packages, GAPDoc, does
> > not seem to have had a build started at all. For this package, it
> > shouldn
On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 10:02:36AM +0100, Petr Pisar wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 06:01:22PM -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > I am with you on open source, but I don't understand the 'self-hosted'
> > requirement. I guess I agree that self hosting should be possible, in
> > case someone wants to f
On Sun, Feb 02, 2020 at 09:04:47PM -0700, Jerry James wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 6:04 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > Aside from a few stragglers, the mass rebuild is complete.
>
> That's great! Thanks for all of your work making this happen, Kevin.
> I do want to point out that at least one of m
Hi,
Would someone mind swapping reviews?
I am building puppet 6 for EPEL 8 and this one[1] is the very first
dependency.
1 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1794229
Thank you!!
- B
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To u
No missing expected images.
Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check!
6 of 43 required tests failed, 17 results missing
openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING**
below
Failed openQA tests: 52/158 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm)
Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-R
On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 11:23:49AM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 at 02:47, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> > Can you provide more info?
> > Was this an irc or email message?
> > or was it in the git push?
>
> It was an email notification.
ok, then likely it was FMN, so a issue at
On Mon, Feb 03, 2020 at 11:11:27AM -0500, David Cantrell wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Changes/OptimizeSquashFS
>
> In today's FESCo meeting (03-Feb-2020), we discussed this change proposal.
> Being the engineering steering committee, we all had our own ideas and
> opinions abou
On 2020-01-30 20:42, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
I fear it's just bad timing + the external rhel8 repo we have only keeps
the newest packages (epel7 repos keep the old packages around too).
koji has no way to know that an external repo updated and needs
regeneration, so it just regenerates it when the bu
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20200202.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20200203.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:3
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 1
Dropped packages:1
Upgraded packages: 158
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 54.97 KiB
Size of dropped packages
(and before someone says "it’s about the iso not the packages", iso
files get downloaded too)
--
Nicolas Mailhot
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of
Le 2020-02-03 17:11, David Cantrell a écrit :
Hi,
We want input from the community on what the main goal should be and
prioritize the rest. For example, is ISO reduction size more important
than
improving installation time, for instance? If so, why?
This is a nonsensical question without
On 03. 02. 20 17:11, David Cantrell wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Changes/OptimizeSquashFS
BTW that page seem to be misplaced as a subcategory of changes on the wiki.
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
___
devel ma
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Changes/OptimizeSquashFS
In today's FESCo meeting (03-Feb-2020), we discussed this change proposal.
Being the engineering steering committee, we all had our own ideas and
opinions about what the problem is and how best to approach it. After
discussion, we
On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 3:41 PM Bill Chatfield via devel
wrote:
>
> I would like to take it, but I am not sponsored yet and I am still trying to
> learn how to build packages. I'm getting close but there is a lot to learn. I
> can see that it is currently not building because of missing dependenc
=
#fedora-meeting-1: FESCo (2020-02-03)
=
Meeting started by decathorpe at 15:06:32 UTC. The full logs are
available at
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2020-02-03/fesco.2020-02-03-15.06.log.html
.
Meetin
I would like to take it, but I am not sponsored yet and I am still trying to
learn how to build packages. I'm getting close but there is a lot to learn. I
can see that it is currently not building because of missing dependencies. What
I don't know how to check is what other packages depend on i
Hi,
Starting with Fedora 32, ini4j can not be built anymore:
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/751/41340751/root.log
This is because one of its dependencies, xmlrpc, has been
orphaned/retired:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/xmlrpc
I no longer use ini4j, so I have no interest i
On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 10:16 AM Dan Čermák
wrote:
> Dan Čermák writes:
>
> > Rahul Sundaram writes:
> >
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 10:46 AM Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Welcome to our lives!
> >>> If it was mathematically possible to go above 100% that's how much
>
The following packages are orphaned and will be retired when they
are orphaned for six weeks, unless someone adopts them. If you know for sure
that the package should be retired, please do so now with a proper reason:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_remove_a_package_at_end_of_life
Note: If
No missing expected images.
Passed openQA tests: 1/1 (x86_64)
--
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.fedorap
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 08:46:55AM -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
> Not replying to anyone in particular but to the thead as a whole...
>
> 1. Nothing in the packager introduction process prepares a packager for
> what to do when they get a CVE filed against one of their packages. I found
> the whole
Hi,
each project is checked for new version once per hour. There is a
service running that is creating a queue from the projects that would be
checked. It was just a coincidence that your project was checked at the
same time you uploaded a new version. But if you are an upstream
maintainer, I
31 matches
Mail list logo
