On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 10:16 AM Adam Williamson
wrote:
> 2) Just to note what I wound up doing here - aside from the special
> polymake case, I found (I hope) all the packages that got built against
> 5.34.1, bumped and rebuilt them against 5.34.0, and edited the
> standalone updates to have the
On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 2:54 PM Carl George wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 4:23 PM Troy Dawson wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 2:17 PM Diego Herrera wrote:
> >>
> >> I've been checking the packages that won't install on EPEL [1] and found
> >> out that drbd-pacemaker cant
Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden writes:
On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 07:12:23PM -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden writes:
On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 08:27:35AM -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden writes:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 06:22:08PM -0400, Sam
Is there a timeline for supporting building modules for EPEL9? At the
moment I get:
Could not execute module_build: The build failed with:
None of the base module (platform or bootstrap) streams in the
buildrequires section could be found
--
Orion Poplawski
he/him/his - surely the least
Hello,
I'm going to orphan "ustl" package for several reasons:
- the library is generally deprecated;
- the maintainer has switched the C++ library type to static, which makes
shared lib support no longer possible.
It should be harmless since there are no packages that depend on "ustl".
$ dnf
Hello,
I'm going to orphan "ustl" package for several reasons:
- the library is generally deprecated;
- the maintainer has switched the C++ library type to static, which makes
shared lib support no longer possible.
It should be harmless since there are no packages that depend on "ustl".
$ dnf
Missing expected images:
Minimal raw-xz armhfp
Compose PASSES proposed Rawhide gating check!
All required tests passed
Failed openQA tests: 10/231 (x86_64), 9/161 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20220323.n.0):
ID: 1192145 Test: x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree
On Wed, 2022-03-23 at 18:13 -0400, Elliott Sales de Andrade wrote:
> >
> > 1) Neat trick: I'm pretty sure the buildroot override only needs to be
> > valid until all the build dependencies have been installed. For my
> > polymake rebuild, I put the override back in place, fired the polymake
> >
On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 12:16 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2022-03-23 at 08:39 +, Paul Howarth wrote:
> >
> > OK, so this is largely my fault. Whilst I didn't do the initial perl
> > 5.34.1 build and update, I did set up the buildroot override and the
> > builds of the two packages
I intend to take ownership of the vorbisgain pacakge. It was retired last week
having been orphaned for more than six weeks.
I am sending this email as in the procedure at
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Retirement_Process/#claiming
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2063243
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-89e04dbc76 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-89e04dbc76
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2063243
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version||perl-Data-MessagePack-1.02-
jplesnik merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-Data-MessagePack`
that you are following.
Merged pull-request:
``
Tests
``
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Data-MessagePack/pull-request/1
___
perl-devel mailing list --
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20220323.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20220323.n.1
= SUMMARY =
Added images:1
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 104
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0 B
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size
On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 7:54 PM Richard Shaw wrote:
> Clang doesn't understand some options that gcc does, and a lot of it depends
> on the version of clang IIRC. For a while Fedora maintainers would modify
> clang to at least silently ignore these options but now it's much easier to
>
Minutes:
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2022-03-23/fedora_coreos_meeting.2022-03-23-16.28.html
Minutes (text):
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2022-03-23/fedora_coreos_meeting.2022-03-23-16.28.txt
Log:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2063504
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|jples...@redhat.com |
Doc Type|---
jplesnik opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-Data-MessagePack`
that you are following:
``
Tests
``
To reply, visit the link below
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Data-MessagePack/pull-request/1
___
perl-devel mailing list --
On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 6:55 PM Ron Olson wrote:
>
> Hey all-
>
> I’m trying to build a new version of a package and got the aforementioned
> error, but only under EPEL 8, all other builds (Rawhide, F35, F34, EPEL 9)
> built fine. The failed build is at
>
On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 1:55 PM Ron Olson wrote:
> Hey all-
>
> I’m trying to build a new version of a package and got the aforementioned
> error, but only under EPEL 8, all other builds (Rawhide, F35, F34, EPEL 9)
> built fine. The failed build is at
>
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 4:23 PM Troy Dawson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 2:17 PM Diego Herrera wrote:
>>
>> I've been checking the packages that won't install on EPEL [1] and found out
>> that drbd-pacemaker cant get installed
>> because of a missing dependency (pacemaker). While
I encountered the same problem in luminance-hdr. It does not seem to
affect all packages that link qt5-qtwebengine. I would like to know the
root cause, but never figured it out. Instead, I was able to work around
it by disabling LTO in my own package. More details in the bugs below.
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 6/229 (x86_64), 10/161 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-36-20220322.n.0):
ID: 1191594 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_browser
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1191594
ID: 1191655 Test: aarch64
Hi,
in order to rebuild tellico, to fix a FTBFS bug, I get in the link stage the
following error:
/usr/bin/ld: /usr/lib64/libQt5WebEngineCore.so.5.15.8: undefined reference to
`std::__cxx11::basic_string, std::allocator
>::_M_replace_aux(unsigned long, unsigned long, unsigned long,
Hey all-
I’m trying to build a new version of a package and got the aforementioned
error, but only under EPEL 8, all other builds (Rawhide, F35, F34, EPEL 9)
built fine. The failed build is at
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=84560380.
I’m curious what I can do, but also to
On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 10:41:52 -0700
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> I wonder... should we stop allowing buildroot overrides?
>
> Or at the very least add a admon to adding a new one in bodhi,
> explaining that you should probibly use a side tag, etc?
They're still very useful when bringing up new EPEL
On 23. 03. 22 18:40, Mattia Verga via devel wrote:
So, now that we have side-tags to perform this kind of builds, does the
buildroot override existence still make sense? Is there any use case
that still requires BR overrides and cannot be done with side-tags?
As I've said elsewhere in the
On 23. 03. 22 18:41, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
I wonder... should we stop allowing buildroot overrides?
I wondered this for a long time. Unfortunately I still find usecases for
buildroot overrides. E.g. when we ship new versions of some macro packages etc.
and we want them available even before the
I wonder... should we stop allowing buildroot overrides?
Or at the very least add a admon to adding a new one in bodhi,
explaining that you should probibly use a side tag, etc?
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
devel mailing list --
So, now that we have side-tags to perform this kind of builds, does the
buildroot override existence still make sense? Is there any use case
that still requires BR overrides and cannot be done with side-tags?
Mattia
___
devel mailing list --
V Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 10:24:35AM -0600, Orion Poplawski napsal(a):
> When I do:
>
> [orion@vmrawhide-rufous zabbix (rawhide *+)]$ fedpkg request-branch
> --no-auto-module --sl rawhide:2027-06-01 -- 6.0
>
> It generates a request for a branch named "rawhide". I'm following:
>
>
On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 07:12:23PM -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden writes:
On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 08:27:35AM -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden writes:
On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 06:22:08PM -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
The only thing that
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2066104
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-59fc484e6f has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2064808
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA
--- Comment #7 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2046804
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-9f00fd has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2007247
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-c2203f1964 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2062963
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-0990e3309e has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2063824
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-4fe5aa1f96 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2066103
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-e7325a71a9 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2061201
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #2 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2067181
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #6 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2060434
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-d83d0ba901 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2059502
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-cb9b8847e5 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2062688
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-a053e3f979 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2065327
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-cea638ebd4 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2064642
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2022-cea638ebd4 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing
OLD: Fedora-36-20220322.n.0
NEW: Fedora-36-20220323.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:2
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 0
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0 B
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size of upgraded
When I do:
[orion@vmrawhide-rufous zabbix (rawhide *+)]$ fedpkg request-branch
--no-auto-module --sl rawhide:2027-06-01 -- 6.0
It generates a request for a branch named "rawhide". I'm following:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/modularity/building-modules/fedora/adding-new-modules/
On Wed, 2022-03-23 at 08:39 +, Paul Howarth wrote:
>
> OK, so this is largely my fault. Whilst I didn't do the initial perl
> 5.34.1 build and update, I did set up the buildroot override and the
> builds of the two packages (perl-PAR-Packer and polymake) that have
> hard dependencies on the
On Wed, 2022-03-23 at 08:39 +, Paul Howarth wrote:
>
> In mitigation, my thinking was that since the f36 beta freeze is still
> ongoing, the perl update and its hard dependencies would almost
> certainly have been pushed to stable at the same time anyway. In
> addition, since those updates
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2067181
--- Comment #5 from Michal Josef Spacek ---
In this version is still issue:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1947053
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2067181
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--- Comment #4 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2050091
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Status|ON_QA
Heads up for anyone using Rawhide with Secure Boot enabled: *do not*
update to grub2 version 2.0.6-27! Due to a chain of unfortunate events,
it is in today's Rawhide compose, but is not signed with the official
Fedora SB keys and will not be trusted. If you update to it, your
system will not boot
On Tue, 2022-03-22 at 08:15 +, rawh...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
> According to the schedule [1], Fedora 36 Candidate Beta-1.4 is now
> available for testing. Please help us complete all the validation
> testing! For more information on release validation testing, see:
>
The following Fedora EPEL 9 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
4 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-7a48f758c5
openvpn-2.5.6-1.el9
1 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-0963d0e76e
unrealircd-6.0.2-1.el9
The following builds have been
mspacek merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-POE` that you are
following.
Merged pull-request:
``
1.370 bump
``
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-POE/pull-request/2
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-POE` that you are
following:
``
1.370 bump
``
To reply, visit the link below
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-POE/pull-request/2
___
perl-devel mailing list --
Miro Hrončok writes:
> If that's the case, can we please stop enforcing the signed-off-by
> thing in Fedora projects (such as various Fedora projects on Pagure or
> Bodhi on GitHub)?
My understanding is that's about provenance, not licensing per se (not a
lawyer etc.). In any case it's up to
The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
4 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-3f443e2e1e
openvpn-2.4.12-1.el7
1 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-fc26d3885c
unrealircd-6.0.2-1.el7
The following builds have
mspacek merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-POE` that you are
following.
Merged pull-request:
``
1.370 bump
``
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-POE/pull-request/1
___
perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
The following Fedora EPEL 8 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
5 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-1edabe7090
openssl3-3.0.1-18.el8.1
4 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-883139a5ce
openvpn-2.4.12-1.el8
1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2061468
Denis Fateyev changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(lkund...@v3.sk)
mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-POE` that you are
following:
``
1.370 bump
``
To reply, visit the link below
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-POE/pull-request/1
___
perl-devel mailing list --
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2063243
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2067181
Michal Josef Spacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Doc Type|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2067181
--- Comment #2 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
the-new-hotness/release-monitoring.org's scratch build of
perl-POE-1.370-1.fc34.src.rpm for rawhide completed
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=84599268
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2067181
--- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
Created attachment 1867811
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1867811=edit
Update to 1.370 (#2067181)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2067181
Bug ID: 2067181
Summary: perl-POE-1.370 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-POE
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
I know for a fact you need at least a few i686 packages to run games on
Lutris as well (Blizzard Agent/Overwatch being one)
On 3/23/22 08:03, Germano Massullo wrote:
All these are somehow related to Steam and x86 32 bit games
# rpm -qa | grep 686 | sort
alsa-lib-1.2.6.1-3.fc35.i686
Hi all,
driverless+printer applications world of printing and scanning is coming
in the future:
- printer driver, raw queues and other removals are planned with CUPS
3.0, roughly in the next year,
- printer applications RPMs are waiting for cups-filters 2.0, but the
apps are in SNAP already
On 3/22/22 11:19, Petr Pisar wrote:
> V Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 07:30:13AM -0400, Demi Marie Obenour napsal(a):
>> All kernel-mode drivers, to be specific. User-mode drivers are an
>> underutilized alternative for systems that have an IOMMU/SMMU. Obviously,
>> the drivers still need to be free
Missing expected images:
Minimal raw-xz armhfp
Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check!
8 of 43 required tests failed
openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING**
below
Failed openQA tests: 16/216 (x86_64), 13/161 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed
On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 7:05 AM Alexander Sosedkin wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 12:51 AM Josh Boyer wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 1:40 PM Alexander Sosedkin
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello, community, I need your wisdom for planning a disruptive change.
> > >
> > > Fedora 28 had
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2061201
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--- Comment #1 from
All these are somehow related to Steam and x86 32 bit games
# rpm -qa | grep 686 | sort
alsa-lib-1.2.6.1-3.fc35.i686
atk-2.36.0-4.fc35.i686
at-spi2-atk-2.38.0-3.fc35.i686
at-spi2-atk-debuginfo-2.38.0-3.fc35.i686
at-spi2-atk-debugsource-2.38.0-3.fc35.i686
at-spi2-core-2.42.0-1.fc35.i686
jplesnik merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-Git-CPAN-Patch` that
you are following.
Merged pull-request:
``
Tests
``
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Git-CPAN-Patch/pull-request/1
___
perl-devel mailing list --
On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 9:36 AM Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Dne 22. 03. 22 v 19:18 Michal Schorm napsal(a):
> > On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 7:06 PM Richard Fontana wrote:
> >> I would assert that the "unlicensed
> >> contribution" scenario contemplated by the FPCA is actually going to
> >> be fairly rare
I will build python-probeinterface 0.2.8[1] for Rawhide in one week
(2022-03-30), or slightly later.
This breaks the API by renaming:
- `probeinterface.probe.select_dimensions` to
`probeinterface.probe.select_axes`
- the `plane` keyword argument of `probeinterface.probe.to_3d` to `axes`
-
jplesnik opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-Git-CPAN-Patch`
that you are following:
``
Tests
``
To reply, visit the link below
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Git-CPAN-Patch/pull-request/1
___
perl-devel mailing list --
Now that we have (or will have shortly) fully CryptX-based versions of
perl-Net-SSH-Perl in F-36, F-37 and all EPELs, it looks to me that
there are no remaining dependents of perl-Crypt-RSA in Fedora (other
than the Suggests: for it in perl-Net-SSH-Perl, but I can get rid of
that in due course).
On 22.03.22 08:47, Sandro Mani wrote:
Hi
I'll be updating to cgnslib-4.3 in rawhide in f37-build-side-52152,
rebuilding the following dependencies:
gmsh
paraview
pcl
petsc
vtk
This is now done and the side-tag merged.
Sandro
___
devel mailing
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64), 1/8 (aarch64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-34-20220322.0):
ID: 1191085 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL:
On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 12:51 AM Josh Boyer wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 1:40 PM Alexander Sosedkin
> wrote:
> >
> > Hello, community, I need your wisdom for planning a disruptive change.
> >
> > Fedora 28 had https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/StrongCryptoSettings
> > Fedora 33 had
On 23. 03. 22 9:35, Vít Ondruch wrote:
I understand your answer as that:
it is irrelevant whether the contributor specified the license (e.g.
text "I submit this under GPL-2.0 license" in the pull request
comment)
If somebody states license of the contribution, then it has to be respected.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2066942
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|andrea.v...@gmail.com |p...@city-fan.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2066942
--- Comment #3 from Andrea Veri ---
Paul, that was granted, thanks!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2066942
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20220322.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20220323.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:3
Dropped images: 1
Added packages: 3
Dropped packages:1
Upgraded packages: 168
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 475.68 KiB
Size of dropped packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2066942
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(p...@city-fan.org |
|)
On 22. 03. 22 19:48, Adam Williamson wrote:
I found quite a big mess today, caused by an attempt to bump perl to
5.34.1 in Fedora 36:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-cea638ebd4
Because some packages depend on the exact perl interpreter version, the
maintainer made a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2066942
Andrea Veri changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||p...@city-fan.org
Doc Type|---
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64), 1/8 (aarch64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-35-20220322.0):
ID: 1190692 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 11:48:57 -0700
Adam Williamson wrote:
> I found quite a big mess today, caused by an attempt to bump perl to
> 5.34.1 in Fedora 36:
>
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-cea638ebd4
>
> Because some packages depend on the exact perl interpreter version,
>
Dne 22. 03. 22 v 19:18 Michal Schorm napsal(a):
On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 7:06 PM Richard Fontana wrote:
I would assert that the "unlicensed
contribution" scenario contemplated by the FPCA is actually going to
be fairly rare apart from the special case of spec files, which the
FPCA was
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2061201
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Doc Type|---
95 matches
Mail list logo
