On Wed, 2020-04-08 at 21:18 +0200, Dominic Hopf via devel wrote:
> ```
> %if 0%{?rhel}
> BuildRequires: webkitgtk4-devel
> %else
> BuildRequires: webkit2gtk3-devel
> %endif
> ```
Hi,
this is an off topic for this thread, but maybe you'll find it useful.
You can use this (pick the one,
On 4/9/20 6:22 AM, Jerry James wrote:
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 9:57 PM Sérgio Basto wrote:
I'm having the same problem
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=43144692
Me, too. Two packages, both failing on the 32-bit architectures due
to segfaults in find, grep, or xargs in the
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 7:18 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
> > I personally considered it quite clear that the intended meaning was that
> > they are not giving the data away to anyone external deliberately. Your
> > responses will be read and understood by a very small group of people and
> > not
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 12:46 AM Tim Flink wrote:
> I'm working on something that looks for certain results in resultsdb
> and I'm getting some strange results. I'm hoping someone here can point
> out what I'm doing wrong.
>
> I'm hitting an issue where the data I'm getting back from resultsdb
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 9:57 PM Sérgio Basto wrote:
> I'm having the same problem
>
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=43144692
Me, too. Two packages, both failing on the 32-bit architectures due
to segfaults in find, grep, or xargs in the alt-ergo case (it's hard
to tell) and
On Wed, 2020-04-08 at 19:40 -0700, Kevin Buettner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm seeing some build failures for i386 and armv7hl when attempting a
> scratch build of the gdb package. These problems don't appear to be
> at all related to the problem that I was fixing. In each case, a
> segfault
> occurs
https://fedorapeople.org/groups/389ds/ci/nightly/2020/04/09/report-389-ds-base-1.4.3.5-20200408git36c593d.fc31.x86_64.html
___
389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020, at 9:20 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> There does not appear to be an explicit conflict policy for EPEL8:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/FAQ#Does_EPEL_replace_packages_provided_within_Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux_or_layered_products.3F
>
> I got a report against
Hi,
I'm seeing some build failures for i386 and armv7hl when attempting a
scratch build of the gdb package. These problems don't appear to be
at all related to the problem that I was fixing. In each case, a segfault
occurs when running "make".
The koji task is here:
On 4/8/20 7:20 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
There does not appear to be an explicit conflict policy for EPEL8:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/FAQ#Does_EPEL_replace_packages_provided_within_Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux_or_layered_products.3F
I got a report against python3-s3transfer and
There does not appear to be an explicit conflict policy for EPEL8:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/FAQ#Does_EPEL_replace_packages_provided_within_Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux_or_layered_products.3F
I got a report against python3-s3transfer and python3-botocore
conflicting with the CentOS 8
On 4/7/20 12:51 PM, Antonio Trande wrote:
On 06/04/20 16:19, David Schwörer wrote:
On 4/5/20 6:06 PM, Antonio Trande wrote:
On 04/04/20 19:23, David S wrote:
On 4/4/20 4:38 PM, Antonio Trande wrote:
Hi all.
`MUMPS-5.3.0` [1] `PETSc-3.13.0` [2] and `Sundials-5.2.0` [3] are coming
on Rawhide;
I'm working on something that looks for certain results in resultsdb
and I'm getting some strange results. I'm hoping someone here can point
out what I'm doing wrong.
I'm hitting an issue where the data I'm getting back from resultsdb via
the api isn't matching what I see in the frontend. The
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822329
--- Comment #3 from Emmanuel Seyman ---
In CentOS, it's defined in /etc/yum.repos.d/CentOS-PowerTools.repo which is
provided by the centos-repos package. I've no idea what provides it in RHEL.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822398
Bug ID: 1822398
Summary: Request for perl-Net-OpenSSH for EPEL8
Product: Fedora EPEL
Version: epel8
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Net-OpenSSH
Assignee:
Thanks very much for pointing that out!
I'm not sure if it's really a big problem if the whole geany-plugins stuff
will not be available on aarch64 and s390x, though.
Unfortunately I was unable to apply that %ifnarch properly off the cuff. I
guess I will have to dive even deeper into that topic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1819677
--- Comment #7 from Emmanuel Seyman ---
Testing this on my F31 machine, I noticed the problem is a little more complex
than that. The lines in /proc/diskstats have 15 fields on RHEL/CentOS 8 but 17
on F31+ so the patch needs to be adapted for
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/perl5.32
== Summary ==
A new ''perl 5.32'' version brings a lot of changes done over a year
of development. Perl 5.32 will be released in May 2020. See
[https://metacpan.org/pod/release/XSAWYERX/perl-5.31.10/pod/perldelta.pod
5.31.10 perldelta] for more
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/perl5.32
== Summary ==
A new ''perl 5.32'' version brings a lot of changes done over a year
of development. Perl 5.32 will be released in May 2020. See
[https://metacpan.org/pod/release/XSAWYERX/perl-5.31.10/pod/perldelta.pod
5.31.10 perldelta] for more
On Wed, 8 Apr 2020, Dominic Hopf via devel wrote:
Thanks very much for your help Scott and Michael!
I now did both, changed the requirement to webkit2gtk3-devel and as this one
is also not available on the mentioned architectures,
excluded those architectures using ExcludeArch for this specific
Thanks very much for your help Scott and Michael!
I now did both, changed the requirement to webkit2gtk3-devel and as
this one is also not available on the mentioned architectures,
excluded those architectures using ExcludeArch for this specific subpackage.
The package built fine now without any
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC
meeting Thursday at 2020-04-09 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on
irc.freenode.net.
Local time information (via. uitime):
= Day: Thursday ==
2020-04-09 09:00 PDT US/Pacific
2020-04-09
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 9:18 pm, Dominic Hopf via devel
wrote:
```
%if 0%{?rhel}
BuildRequires: webkitgtk4-devel
%else
BuildRequires: webkit2gtk3-devel
%endif
```
FYI: this package was renamed for RHEL 8. webkitgtk4 is the RHEL 7
package. webkit2gtk3 is the equivalent RHEL 8 package. Exact
What are you using to check for your STACK_PROT
This is annocheck
Alternate:
-
$ readelf --segments ./the_app
Program Headers:
Type Offset VirtAddr PhysAddr
FileSizMemSiz Flags Align
GNU_STACK
On Wed, 8 Apr 2020, Dominic Hopf via devel wrote:
Greetings,
I'm trying to build Geany and the Geany Plugins for EPEL8 currently and
stumble over an issue which seems to be
quite special in some kind for aarch64 and s390x:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=43133907
Greetings,
I'm trying to build Geany and the Geany Plugins for EPEL8 currently and
stumble over an issue which seems to be
quite special in some kind for aarch64 and s390x:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=43133907
Basically I merged the epel7 branch into the epel8 branch
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020, 21:26 clime, wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 at 17:52, Leigh Griffin wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 4:25 PM Adam Williamson <
> adamw...@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 2020-04-06 at 15:35 +0100, Leigh Griffin wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Does it mean you
On 4/8/20 3:42 AM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 01:41:48PM -0500, Brandon Nielsen wrote:
It doesn't make much sense to me for this to default to on if we still
"trust" the DNS servers provided over DHCP.
What is the issue with using untrusted DNS servers here? An NTS client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822329
--- Comment #2 from wrobl...@uchicago.edu ---
Where does that repo come from? I cannot enable it on RHEL 8. This returns when
trying to enable it: Error: No matching repo to modify: PowerTools.
Red Hat CodeReady Linux Builder for RHEL 8
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822329
Emmanuel Seyman changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||emman...@seyman.fr
Doc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822329
Bug ID: 1822329
Summary: Unable to install perl-XML-RSS on RHEL 8.1
Product: Fedora EPEL
Version: epel8
Status: NEW
Component: perl-XML-RSS
Assignee: tcall...@redhat.com
Updated.
Thanks both of you for the suggestion.
Dne 08. 04. 20 v 19:59 Adam Williamson napsal(a):
On Wed, 2020-04-08 at 13:47 -0400, Alex Scheel wrote:
Hey Daniel, do you mind updating the GDPR compliance tag to include
Google?
Right, this is all I intended in the first place :) A simple:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1821879
Stefan Cornelius changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||1822320, 1822321
--
You are
On Wed, 2020-04-08 at 13:47 -0400, Alex Scheel wrote:
> Hey Daniel, do you mind updating the GDPR compliance tag to include
> Google?
Right, this is all I intended in the first place :) A simple:
-The raw data will not be provided to anyone else at Red Hat or any 3rd parties
+The raw data will
Hey Daniel, do you mind updating the GDPR compliance tag to include
Google?
Thanks!
- Original Message -
> From: "Adam Williamson"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 1:22:27 PM
> Subject: Re: Modularity Survey
>
> On Wed, 2020-04-08
On Wed, 2020-04-08 at 08:41 -0400, Alex Scheel wrote:
>
> There's a marketing piece from 2017 that alleges that none of gsuite
> (including their gmail for gsuite!) gets scanned for ads:
>
>
On Wed, 2020-04-08 at 10:25 +0200, Kamil Paral wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 7:22 PM Adam Williamson
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2020-04-07 at 13:12 -0400, Alex Scheel wrote:
> > > I'm sure we can trust that Red Hat did its
> > >
> > > due diligence and Google isn't using responses to a customer's
For what it's worth, Jeremy, Randy, and others: I absolutely value your
contributions both now and in the past. Members of the the Fedora
Engineering team and CPE in all previous and current names and incarnations
have done and continue to do amazing things which have beeen *essentially*
valuable
On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 11:11:36 AM EDT David Cantrell wrote:
> >Just wanted to share with everyone the results of a data collection on
> >various metrics of ELF files when installing just @Core group.
> >
> >http://people.redhat.com/sgrubb/analysis/f32-analysis.slides.html#/
> >
> >I
Thanks Matt!
KD0SMQ
Geoff Marr
IRC: coremodule
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 8:57 AM Matt Domsch wrote:
> CubicSDR provides a panadapter experience, showing the RF spectrum for the
> band you have selected. I use it with my Yaesu FTDX3000D radio frequently,
> along with an inexpensive RTL-SDR
OLD: Fedora-32-20200407.n.0
NEW: Fedora-32-20200408.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:1
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 8
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 45
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 24.49 MiB
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size
On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 12:03:46PM -0400, Steve Grubb wrote:
Just wanted to share with everyone the results of a data collection on
various metrics of ELF files when installing just @Core group.
http://people.redhat.com/sgrubb/analysis/f32-analysis.slides.html#/
I recommend clicking on the
On Wed, 2020-04-08 at 10:38 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 07. 04. 20 23:31, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > * Proposal owners: Provide a compat-openssl11 package, identify
> > dependent packages, provide the rebased openssl package, work with
> > dependent package owners on rebuilds.
>
> Thanks for doing
CubicSDR provides a panadapter experience, showing the RF spectrum for the
band you have selected. I use it with my Yaesu FTDX3000D radio frequently,
along with an inexpensive RTL-SDR adapter.
I've prepared CubicSDR to be unretired from Fedora rawhide (F33), now that
wxGTK 3.1 is available in
Missing expected images:
Iot dvd aarch64
Iot dvd x86_64
Passed openQA tests: 8/8 (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
On Wed, 8 Apr 2020, Petr Pisar wrote:
Is there a recommended way for detecting when a package is being
built under mock? I have a package where some tests fail due to
various things not being present in a mock container, e.g, /dev/log
doesn't exist. I can just disable these tests downstream,
On 4/7/20 1:27 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
The other piece of it is that there's a UX/psychological piece to it.
If we call it .eln9.1.0, people are quite likely to skim over the 'n'
and confuse themselves into thinking it's a RHEL 9.1.0 package. That
way lies a support nightmare. We absolutely
Il 07/04/20 16:52, Mattia Verga ha scritto:
> Il 07/04/20 16:01, Ankur Sinha ha scritto:
>> The list says that there aren't any trivial tickets, but easyfix does
>> show one (only one):
>> https://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/trivial.html
>> vs
>> https://fedoraproject.org/easyfix/
>>
>>
On 08. 04. 20 14:52, Nicolas Mailhot via devel wrote:
Then use .el.9.dev. That should still order mostly fine
.el9~dev would sort even better.
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
___
devel mailing list --
Le mardi 07 avril 2020 à 14:27 -0400, Stephen Gallagher a écrit :
>
> The other piece of it is that there's a UX/psychological piece to it.
> If we call it .eln9.1.0, people are quite likely to skim over the 'n'
> and confuse themselves into thinking it's a RHEL 9.1.0 package.
Then use
Il 07/04/20 17:31, Till Hofmann ha scritto:
>
> It looks like 1821497 [1] is displayed incorrectly (currently at the
> bottom of the page), maybe bccause of the unusual title ("Review
> Request: - ")?
>
> [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1821497
Thanks, I've just pushed the fix
(I had several replies to Adam, but I ultimately got stuck finding
supporting URLs until I revisited it this morning.)
IANAL.
- Original Message -
> From: "Kamil Paral"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 4:25:55 AM
> Subject: Re:
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 8:14 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 05:31:39PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/OpenSSL3.0
>
> There was a plan to make the licensing more permissive in 3.0.
> Did this happen in the end?
>
OpenSSL is
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64)
Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-IoT-32-20200407.0):
ID: 570254 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso base_services_start
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/570254
Passed openQA tests: 7/8 (x86_64)
--
Mail generated
Oh actually it's just started being pushed to stable. Thanks all.
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com
virt-builder quickly builds VMs from scratch
On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 05:31:39PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/OpenSSL3.0
There was a plan to make the licensing more permissive in 3.0.
Did this happen in the end?
Zbyszek
___
devel mailing list --
On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 01:43:37PM +0200, Clement Verna wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 13:15, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 11:57:27AM +0200, Clement Verna wrote:
> > > >> > > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d120de33c5
> koji untag
On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 01:41:23PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 11:58 AM Clement Verna
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 11:38, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Apr 8, 2020, 11:27 Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at
On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 13:42, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 11:58 AM Clement Verna
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 11:38, Fabio Valentini
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Apr 8, 2020, 11:27 Richard W.M. Jones
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 05:36:44PM
On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 13:15, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 11:57:27AM +0200, Clement Verna wrote:
> > >> > > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d120de33c5
> > You need to edit the update and remove these builds. You can click on the
> > "edit" button on the
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 11:58 AM Clement Verna wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 11:38, Fabio Valentini wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 8, 2020, 11:27 Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 05:36:44PM -0400, Mohan Boddu wrote:
>>> > On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 2:56 AM Richard W.M.
Nice job, Miro!
Thanks a lot for working on this.
On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 8:45 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> Hello Python packagers.
>
> I have just updated python-rpm-generators to python-rpm-generators-11-1.fc33
> in
> Rawhide. It uses some fresh stuff from RPM 4.16 and will not be backported to
On 07. 04. 20 12:27, Miro Hrončok wrote:
When you use %python_provide and when you build the package with the new
generator, the provides are listed twice:
$ rpm -qp --provides python3-double-provides-0-0.fc33.noarch.rpm
python-double-provides = 0-0.fc33
python-double-provides = 0-0.fc33
On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 11:57:27AM +0200, Clement Verna wrote:
> >> > > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d120de33c5
> You need to edit the update and remove these builds. You can click on the
> "edit" button on the left side of the update status, then you will have a
> list
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
On 08. 04. 20 12:26, Ernestas Kulik wrote:
As someone who also maintains the code for multiple packages, I say
tough luck. The workflow for keeping upstream changes buildable (and
having the ability to test the changes) and downstream package
specification in sync with said changes could not be
On Wed, 2020-04-08 at 11:39 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 08. 04. 20 11:33, Tomas Tomecek wrote:
> > > My questions are
> > > * How to manage a RPM spec file on the upstream repository,
> > > synchronizing it with Fedora rawhide's one.
> > Ideally, you'd maintain the spec upstream and packit
On 4/6/20 1:14 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
Installation fails like this:
Running transaction
Preparing: 1/1
Installing : perf-debuginfo-5.5.15-200.fc31.x86_64 1/1
Error unpacking rpm package
On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 11:56:01AM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 17. 03. 20 14:45, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> > > > If you are logged in and on a package where you have admin rights,
> > > > there should
> > > > be an "update" button underneath, clicking it makes a pop-up (a modal)
> > > >
On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 11:29, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 08:53:38AM +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> > I agree, if this would not happen then everything would just blow up.
>
> Wouldn't the lower NVR builds simply be ignored?
>
The merging a side tag is not considering NVRs
On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 11:38, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2020, 11:27 Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 05:36:44PM -0400, Mohan Boddu wrote:
>> > On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 2:56 AM Richard W.M. Jones
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
On 17. 03. 20 14:45, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
If you are logged in and on a package where you have admin rights, there should
be an "update" button underneath, clicking it makes a pop-up (a modal) appear,
in which you can update the settings.
It appears you need to be main admin to do this. Is
On 08. 04. 20 11:33, Tomas Tomecek wrote:
My questions are
* How to manage a RPM spec file on the upstream repository,
synchronizing it with Fedora rawhide's one.
Ideally, you'd maintain the spec upstream and packit will copy [1] it
for you when you perform releases.
Once again I would like
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020, 11:27 Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 05:36:44PM -0400, Mohan Boddu wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 2:56 AM Richard W.M. Jones
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d120de33c5
> >
> > I guess it should be a
Hi Jun, thanks for reaching out! I'd suggest CCing someone from our
team in future to make sure we see your message. It's good though you
started the discussion on fedora-devel.
On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 8:54 PM Jun Aruga wrote:
>
> I am considering using Packit-as-a-Service [1] for an upstream
>
On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 08:53:38AM +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> I agree, if this would not happen then everything would just blow up.
Wouldn't the lower NVR builds simply be ignored?
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming and
On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 05:36:44PM -0400, Mohan Boddu wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 2:56 AM Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >
> >
> > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d120de33c5
>
> I guess it should be a fixed in bodhi. But for now you can remove the
> builds that it's
On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 01:41:48PM -0500, Brandon Nielsen wrote:
> It doesn't make much sense to me for this to default to on if we still
> "trust" the DNS servers provided over DHCP.
What is the issue with using untrusted DNS servers here? An NTS client
is supposed to verify the certificates.
> * How to manage a RPM spec file on the upstream repository,
synchronizing it with Fedora rawhide's one.
As my first step, I am trying to use Packit, having separately managed
the RPM spec file that is only used to run the %check section on the
Fedora scratch build at the pull-request in the
On 07. 04. 20 23:31, Ben Cotton wrote:
* Proposal owners: Provide a compat-openssl11 package, identify
dependent packages, provide the rebased openssl package, work with
dependent package owners on rebuilds.
Thanks for doing this.
Will compat-openssl11-devel be provided? For how long you
On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 7:22 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-04-07 at 13:12 -0400, Alex Scheel wrote:
> > I'm sure we can trust that Red Hat did its
> >
> > due diligence and Google isn't using responses to a customer's form to
> >
> > track those taking the survey.
>
> I don't really
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
Dne 07. 04. 20 v 17:43 Scott Talbert napsal(a):
> Is there a recommended way for detecting when a package is being built under
> mock?
In Mock, we try as much as possible mimic normal system. So - no, there is no
way I can recommend.
> I have a package where some tests
> fail due to various
Dne 07. 04. 20 v 20:55 Stephen Gallagher napsal(a):
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 5:53 PM Stephen Gallagher
> wrote:
> > I've just published a fourth version[1] of the ELN proposal. With a
> > lot of input from Miro Hrončok, I think I've finally been able to
> > clarify some of the points that we
> On Tue, 2020-04-07 at 20:55 -0400, Paul Dufresne via devel wrote:
> you could discuss it on their mailing lists etc.
There is no need to do that as rpmfusion has already been updated to 440.82
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 02:51:43PM -0400, Scott Talbert wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Apr 2020, Paul Howarth wrote:
>
> > > Is there a recommended way for detecting when a package is being
> > > built under mock? I have a package where some tests fail due to
> > > various things not being present in a mock
On 08. 04. 20 4:22, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
Hi all,
I just updated python-hypothesis to the latest 5.8.0 version. It should be fine
for Rawhide, but for Fedora 32 it's probably worth testing (since the previous
version we have in the repo is a bit behind -- 4.23.8).
I'm putting it as
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 12:24 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 10:45:40AM +0800, Robin Lee wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 5, 2020 at 6:58 AM Rex Dieter wrote:
> > >
> > > FYI, Started work on importing Qt 5.14.2 into rawhide today, with work-in-
> > > progress being done in side tag
I agree, if this would not happen then everything would just blow up.
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 8:33 AM Clement Verna wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 23:38, Mohan Boddu wrote:
>>
>> I guess it should be a fixed in bodhi. But for now you can remove the
>> builds that it's complaining about in
On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 23:38, Mohan Boddu wrote:
> I guess it should be a fixed in bodhi. But for now you can remove the
> builds that it's complaining about in the update.
>
> https://github.com/fedora-infra/bodhi/issues/3991
Answered in the ticket, but I think Bodhi is behaving correctly
On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 14:57, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> >
> > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d120de33c5
> >
> > This one is a Rawhide update from a side tag, submitted on Sunday
> > morning which has been in pending for 2 days. (As it's Rawhide it's
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1819677
--- Comment #6 from Emmanuel Seyman ---
(In reply to Stefan Dietrich from comment #4)
>
> Could the patch be included in the version for EPEL-8?
I'll do this today or tomorrow.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1819677
--- Comment #5 from Stefan Dietrich ---
Created attachment 1677137
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1677137=edit
Patch for kernels >=4.18
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1819677
--- Comment #4 from Stefan Dietrich ---
There is an issue with perl-Sys-Statistics-Linux for kernels >=4.18, which I
did not see during initial tests. It fails to parse /proc/diskstats correctly
due to new fields.
This is the upstream
94 matches
Mail list logo
