date:20230224

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2144909



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-9364813e45 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-9364813e45


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2144909
___
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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2144909] perl-Log-Any-1.713 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2144909

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |MODIFIED



--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-099b9e819a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-099b9e819a


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2144909
___
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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2172670] perl-HTTP-Daemon-6.15 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2172670



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-5bf9d886d9 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh
--advisory=FEDORA-2023-5bf9d886d9`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-5bf9d886d9

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information
on how to test updates.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2172670
___
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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[EPEL-devel] Fedora EPEL 7 updates-testing report

2023-02-24 Thread updates

The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing:
 Age  URL
   5  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-66548f784b   
openssl11-1.1.1k-5.el7
   2  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-acd256a168   
gssntlmssp-1.2.0-1.el7


The following builds have been pushed to Fedora EPEL 7 updates-testing

chromium-110.0.5481.177-1.el7
openssh-ldap-authkeys-0.2.0+git20230224.62ece4b-1.el7
yascreen-1.97-1.el7

Details about builds:



 chromium-110.0.5481.177-1.el7 (FEDORA-EPEL-2023-29b054d297)
 A WebKit (Blink) powered web browser that Google doesn't want you to use

Update Information:

update to 110.0.5481.177. Fixes the following security issues:  CVE-2023-0927
CVE-2023-0928 CVE-2023-0929 CVE-2023-0930 CVE-2023-0931 CVE-2023-0932
CVE-2023-0933 CVE-2023-0941    Update to 110.0.5481.100

ChangeLog:

* Thu Feb 23 2023 Than Ngo  - 110.0.5481.177-1
- update to 110.0.5481.177
- workaround for crash on aarch64, rhel8
* Wed Feb 22 2023 Jan Grulich  - 110.0.5481.100-3
- Enable PipeWire screen sharing on RHEL8+
* Tue Feb 21 2023 Than Ngo  - 110.0.5481.100-2
- fixed bz#2036205, failed to load GLES library
* Fri Feb 17 2023 Than Ngo  - 110.0.5481.100-1
- update to 110.0.5481.100
* Thu Feb 16 2023 Than Ngo  - 110.0.5481.77-2
- fix #2071126, enable support V4L2 stateless decoders for aarch64 plattform
- fix prefers-color-scheme
- drop snapshot_blob.bin, replace snapshot_blob.bin with v8_context_snapshot.bin
- move headless_lib*.pak to headless subpackage

References:

  [ 1 ] Bug #2036205 - 'Failed to load GLES library' error when starting the 
headless_shell of chromium-headless
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2036205
  [ 2 ] Bug #2172935 - CVE-2023-0927 CVE-2023-0928 CVE-2023-0929 CVE-2023-0930 
CVE-2023-0931 CVE-2023-0932 CVE-2023-0933 CVE-2023-0941 chromium: various flaws 
[epel-all]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2172935




 openssh-ldap-authkeys-0.2.0+git20230224.62ece4b-1.el7 
(FEDORA-EPEL-2023-1fdc5f78e3)
 Python script to generate SSH authorized_keys files using an LDAP directory

Update Information:

Add SELinux policy module subpackage to make it work in SELinux-enabled
environments

ChangeLog:

* Fri Feb 24 2023 Neal Gompa  - 
0.2.0^git20230224.62ece4b-1
- Update to post-release snapshot
- Add SELinux subpackage




 yascreen-1.97-1.el7 (FEDORA-EPEL-2023-09504761ad)
 Yet Another Screen Library (lib(n)curses alternative)

Update Information:

Update to latest ver 1.97

ChangeLog:

* Fri Feb 17 2023 Boian Bonev  - 1.97-1
- Update to latest ver 1.97
* Tue Feb 14 2023 Boian Bonev  - 1.96-2
- SPDX migration
* Sun Feb  5 2023 Boian Bonev  - 1.96-1
- Update to latest ver 1.96
* Sat Jan 21 2023 Fedora Release Engineering  - 1.92-2
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_38_Mass_Rebuild
* Mon Jan  2 2023 Boian Bonev  - 1.92-1
- Update to latest ver 1.92
* Sat Jul 23 2022 Fedora Release Engineering  - 1.86-3
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_37_Mass_Rebuild
* Sat Jan 22 2022 Fedora Release Engineering  - 1.86-2
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_36_Mass_Rebuild


___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[EPEL-devel] Fedora EPEL 8 updates-testing report

2023-02-24 Thread updates

The following Fedora EPEL 8 Security updates need testing:
 Age  URL
   4  https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2023-5cb6798308   
clamav-0.103.8-3.el8


The following builds have been pushed to Fedora EPEL 8 updates-testing

openssh-ldap-authkeys-0.2.0^git20230224.62ece4b-1.el8
python-django3-3.2.18-1.el8
yascreen-1.97-1.el8

Details about builds:



 openssh-ldap-authkeys-0.2.0^git20230224.62ece4b-1.el8 
(FEDORA-EPEL-2023-c28b765e00)
 Python script to generate SSH authorized_keys files using an LDAP directory

Update Information:

Add SELinux policy module subpackage to make it work in SELinux-enabled
environments

ChangeLog:

* Fri Feb 24 2023 Neal Gompa  - 
0.2.0^git20230224.62ece4b-1
- Update to post-release snapshot
- Add SELinux subpackage




 python-django3-3.2.18-1.el8 (FEDORA-EPEL-2023-934b856e97)
 A high-level Python Web framework

Update Information:

Security fixes for CVE-2022-24580 and CVE-2023-41323

ChangeLog:

* Fri Feb 24 2023 Michel Alexandre Salim  - 3.2.18-1
- Update to 3.2.18
- convert to SPDX license identifier

References:

  [ 1 ] Bug #2136134 - CVE-2022-41323 python-django3: python-django: Potential 
denial-of-service vulnerability in internationalized URLs [epel-8]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2136134
  [ 2 ] Bug #2136137 - CVE-2022-41323 python-django3: python-django: Potential 
denial-of-service vulnerability in internationalized URLs [fedora-36]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2136137
  [ 3 ] Bug #2169742 - CVE-2023-24580 python-django3: python-django: Potential 
denial-of-service vulnerability in file uploads [epel-8]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2169742
  [ 4 ] Bug #2169744 - CVE-2023-24580 python-django3: python-django: Potential 
denial-of-service vulnerability in file uploads [fedora-36]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2169744
  [ 5 ] Bug #2169746 - CVE-2023-24580 python-django3: python-django: Potential 
denial-of-service vulnerability in file uploads [fedora-37]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2169746




 yascreen-1.97-1.el8 (FEDORA-EPEL-2023-602a2ea74f)
 Yet Another Screen Library (lib(n)curses alternative)

Update Information:

Update to latest ver 1.97

ChangeLog:

* Fri Feb 17 2023 Boian Bonev  - 1.97-1
- Update to latest ver 1.97
* Tue Feb 14 2023 Boian Bonev  - 1.96-2
- SPDX migration
* Sun Feb  5 2023 Boian Bonev  - 1.96-1
- Update to latest ver 1.96
* Sat Jan 21 2023 Fedora Release Engineering  - 1.92-2
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_38_Mass_Rebuild
* Mon Jan  2 2023 Boian Bonev  - 1.92-1
- Update to latest ver 1.92
* Sat Jul 23 2022 Fedora Release Engineering  - 1.86-3
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_37_Mass_Rebuild
* Sat Jan 22 2022 Fedora Release Engineering  - 1.86-2
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_36_Mass_Rebuild


___
epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2172670] perl-HTTP-Daemon-6.15 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2172670

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-748e811334 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-748e811334

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information
on how to test updates.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2172670
___
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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2173127] perl-HTTP-Daemon-6.16 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2173127

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-748e811334 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-748e811334

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information
on how to test updates.


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2173127
___
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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Fedora 37: kernel: general protection fault when use NFS server

2023-02-24 Thread Dario Lesca

There is some work around or solution for this kernel's bug?

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2150630#c6

All 6.1.x kernel crash my nfs server if I use it from a Debian (OSMC)
client.

Many thanks

-- 
Dario Lesca
(inviato dal mio Linux Fedora 37 Workstation)



___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Review Request: unretire slim

2023-02-24 Thread Globe Trotter via devel

Hi,

I have filed a BZ request for unretiring slim. It is at: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2173236

Can someone please review it?

Best!
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Announced pkgconf soname change

2023-02-24 Thread Neal Gompa

On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 5:18 PM Fabio Valentini  wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 6:43 PM Neal Gompa  wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 8:02 AM Neal Gompa  wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 7:55 AM Petr Pisar  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > pkgconf-1.9.4-1.fc39, comparing to 1.8.0-6.fc39, changed a soname 
> > > > without
> > > > a notice on this list. Affected packages:
> > > >
> > > > # dnf -q --repoid f39-build repoquery --whatrequires 
> > > > 'libpkgconf.so.3()(64bit)' --source | sort -u
> > > > build2-0.15.0-1.fc37~bootstrap.src.rpm
> > > > perl-PkgConfig-LibPkgConf-0.11-11.fc38.src.rpm
> > > >
> > > > It also broke API:
> > > >
> > > > LibPkgConf.xs:246:23: error: too few arguments to function 
> > > > 'pkgconf_pkg_new_from_file'
> > > >   246 |   RETVAL = PTR2IV(pkgconf_pkg_new_from_file(>client, 
> > > > filename, fp));
> > > >   |   ^
> > > >
> > > > From an upstream changelog:
> > > >
> > > > * pkgconf 1.9.0 is the first testing release in the pkgconf 2.0 
> > > > development
> > > >   series.  While it is believed to be suitable for production, there 
> > > > may be
> > > >   bugs due to the overall redesign of the solver and other initiatives.
> > > >   Additionally, a future release of pkgconf plans will have additional 
> > > > ABI
> > > >   breaks for the libpkgconf library before the pkgconf 2.0 release is 
> > > > cut.
> > > >
> > >
> > > My bad, I missed that this package doesn't have the soversion tracked.
> > > I'll update the packaging for that going forward.
> > >
> >
> > I've updated the packaging to track this going forward:
> > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pkgconf/c/930106a9359d866a6591b27e797fd396b2013b08?branch=rawhide
>
> Is it possible that pkgconf 1.9.4 changed some string quoting
> behaviour between 1.9.3 and 1.9.4?
> The upstream changelog [0] doesn't mention any related changes as far
> as I can see, but the test suite of the "pkg-config" Rust crate
> started failing because escaped strings returned by pkg-config now
> look slightly differently:
>
>   left: `Some(Some("\"escaped string\\' literal\""))`, // the actual value
>  right: `Some(Some("\"escaped string' literal\""))`', // the expected value
>
> The additional escaping of the single-quote with pkgconfig 1.9.4
> actually seems to be the more correct behaviour?
> Because in the old "expected" string, the single quote is not escaped
> at all? Not sure. Please advise :)
>

The changes in string handling might be related to improvements in
Windows compatibility. But otherwise, I'm not sure either.



-- 
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Announced pkgconf soname change

2023-02-24 Thread Fabio Valentini

On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 6:43 PM Neal Gompa  wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 8:02 AM Neal Gompa  wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 7:55 AM Petr Pisar  wrote:
> > >
> > > pkgconf-1.9.4-1.fc39, comparing to 1.8.0-6.fc39, changed a soname without
> > > a notice on this list. Affected packages:
> > >
> > > # dnf -q --repoid f39-build repoquery --whatrequires 
> > > 'libpkgconf.so.3()(64bit)' --source | sort -u
> > > build2-0.15.0-1.fc37~bootstrap.src.rpm
> > > perl-PkgConfig-LibPkgConf-0.11-11.fc38.src.rpm
> > >
> > > It also broke API:
> > >
> > > LibPkgConf.xs:246:23: error: too few arguments to function 
> > > 'pkgconf_pkg_new_from_file'
> > >   246 |   RETVAL = PTR2IV(pkgconf_pkg_new_from_file(>client, 
> > > filename, fp));
> > >   |   ^
> > >
> > > From an upstream changelog:
> > >
> > > * pkgconf 1.9.0 is the first testing release in the pkgconf 2.0 
> > > development
> > >   series.  While it is believed to be suitable for production, there may 
> > > be
> > >   bugs due to the overall redesign of the solver and other initiatives.
> > >   Additionally, a future release of pkgconf plans will have additional ABI
> > >   breaks for the libpkgconf library before the pkgconf 2.0 release is cut.
> > >
> >
> > My bad, I missed that this package doesn't have the soversion tracked.
> > I'll update the packaging for that going forward.
> >
>
> I've updated the packaging to track this going forward:
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pkgconf/c/930106a9359d866a6591b27e797fd396b2013b08?branch=rawhide

Is it possible that pkgconf 1.9.4 changed some string quoting
behaviour between 1.9.3 and 1.9.4?
The upstream changelog [0] doesn't mention any related changes as far
as I can see, but the test suite of the "pkg-config" Rust crate
started failing because escaped strings returned by pkg-config now
look slightly differently:

  left: `Some(Some("\"escaped string\\' literal\""))`, // the actual value
 right: `Some(Some("\"escaped string' literal\""))`', // the expected value

The additional escaping of the single-quote with pkgconfig 1.9.4
actually seems to be the more correct behaviour?
Because in the old "expected" string, the single quote is not escaped
at all? Not sure. Please advise :)

Fabio

[0]: https://github.com/pkgconf/pkgconf/blob/master/NEWS
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

2023-02-24 Thread Gordon Messmer


On 2023-02-21 12:48, Matthew Miller wrote:

I was asked to weigh in onhttps://pagure.io/releng/issue/7215  as a
priority. Last time we talked about this we didn't really get anywhere...

https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/JYKVELSBJQMEK6KEFXG354ZDZDDX4C5G/#RLEUYSWOUVUS53YAP7WQQNN7HNEBIC4E

... and that ticket hasn't moved, because fixing it isn't trivial.



In that thread, Kevin noted:

* only can make drpms at createrepo_c run time, this means you can't do
them later/on the side/keep previous ones around/etc.
* pungi doesn't have access to older rpms at the right time to generate
more and has no way to keep them accross pushes.

If someone were interested in working on this, to fix either delta rpms, 
or the vanishing security advisory problem, or both: Are there any 
tools, repos, collections of scripts, etc that they would need to update 
in addition to those two?


___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

2023-02-24 Thread Michael Catanzaro

On Fri, Feb 24 2023 at 11:42:17 AM -0400, Robert Marcano via devel 
 wrote:

Does DNF on RHEL for example do something different when --security is
involved? Because the RHEL documentation talks about it as a feature 
to

use. Is a lack of metadata for previous updates the problem or the
implementation?


So if you are missing a non-security update, then any security update 
built against it will break your system, exactly the same as in the 
scenarios proposed in the very first comment in this thread. A scenario 
like libsoup depending on an nghttp update could easily happen in your 
RHEL updates just the same as it could in Fedora.


Perhaps --security might work sometimes or even most of the time, but 
it cannot work safely in general.


Michael

___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

2023-02-24 Thread Kevin Fenzi

On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 06:03:39AM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > I'm not sure what a solution could be. Keep every update in updateinfo
> > so dnf could tell you that there's 2 updates and 1 is security and the
> > other bugfix? but then we would need to also keep those updates around
> > to update to.
> 
> Add a repodata field "last security update EVR" that would be filled in by 
> Bodhi for any non-security update. Then DNF would just need to check whether 
> the installed EVR is less than the value of that field and treat the update 
> as a security update in that case.

That might be workable. Someone willing to file a bodhi RFE/PR? ;) 

Then we would need buyin from dnf folks... 

kevin


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

2023-02-24 Thread Kevin Fenzi

On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 05:56:01AM -, Daniel Alley wrote:
> Are you saying that DNF does an exact version match instead of making the
> assumption that packages with version >= X contain a fix for a security bug
> which the updateinfo declares to be fixed in X? 
> Or that the updateinfo itself gets purged of advisories that don't apply to 
> the latest versions available.

updateinfo is created by bodhi on every push with the current data. 

So consider: 

You have foo-1.0-1.fc37 in the base repo
foo-1.1-1.fc37 comes out as an update and it fixes a security bug.
later foo-1.2-1.fc37 comes out and it's an enhancement. 

Users that updated to 1.1-1.fc37 will just see the enhancement update. 

Users that just installed or haven't updated to 1.1-1.fc37 will see just
'an enhancement update to 1.2-1.fc37' and --security will not update the
package. 

kevin

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

2023-02-24 Thread drago01

On Wednesday, February 22, 2023, Kevin Fenzi  wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 06:18:23AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 3:48 PM Matthew Miller 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > I was asked to weigh in on https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7215 as a
> > > priority. Last time we talked about this we didn't really get
> anywhere...
> > >
> > > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.
> fedoraproject.org/thread/JYKVELSBJQMEK6KEFXG354ZDZDDX4C5G/#
> RLEUYSWOUVUS53YAP7WQQNN7HNEBIC4E
> > >
> > > ... and that ticket hasn't moved, because fixing it isn't trivial.
> > >
> > >
> > > What we're doing now — as has been the case for several years, already
> noted
> > > in the previous discussion — has very little end-user value. Also as
> noted
> > > in that thread (as in the ticket)... that's unfortunate, because it did
> > > bring some real benefits (and could possibly do even more.)
> > >
> >
> > Our tooling has been broken for a long time and contributions to that
> > tooling is just not going to happen since nobody can run this stuff
> > outside of Fedora infrastructure. It's a sad state of affairs indeed.
>
> It's not "broken" just because it doesn't do what you would like it to
> do. Please can we not disparage other peoples work?

Well everything is someone's work. Being that defensive makes discussion on
improving things unnecessary hard. I doubt people mean this comments as
personal attacks on the people who did this work.

Back on topic: using fedora without having an adequate internet connection
is not really "fun" even with delta roms due to the amount and frequency of
updates. From that pov the can go if the costs of keeping them is not
justified.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: libindi upgrade to 2.0.0 and soname bump

2023-02-24 Thread Mattia Verga via devel

> Il 04/02/23 18:41, Mattia Verga ha scritto:
> So, I've built libindi 2.0.0 under f39-build-side-63222.
> 
> I'm building indi-3rdparty-libraries and indi-3rdparty-drivers 2.0.0 now
> and I'll take care of building phd2 from the latest git snapshot which
> was fixed to be compatible with libindi 2.0.0.
> 
> The remaining software that need to be rebuild are:
> 
> - kstars (needs to be upgraded to 3.6.3, I've verified in COPR that the
> new version fixes compatibility with libindi 2)
> - stellarium (we need to wait for a fix from upstream, see
> https://github.com/Stellarium/stellarium/issues/3038 )
> 
> To the kstars maintainers: I can take care to upgrade the package, if
> you want (it's just a simple version bump and upload new sources).
> 
> To the stellarium maintainers: I will wait for a patch from upstream
> before pushing the side-tag (I hope before it expires).
> 

Update on this: kstars has been updated and built in the side tag. The only 
package which remain to be fixed for libindi 2.0 is stellarium, but it seems 
that upstream is taking much longer than I thought to look at this.

As I don't want to let the side-tag expire, I'll probably push it to Rawhide in 
the next few days. I'll then take care of the FTI/FTB ticket on stellarium by 
monitoring upstream and applying any patch (or upgrading the package). 
Obviously, I will not push anything to F38 until all packages are fixed.

Mattia
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Changes to Bugzilla API key requirements

2023-02-24 Thread Solomon Peachy via devel

On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 05:55:55AM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
> Ah right, I had forgotten about that issue. I do not think I will ever 
> understand the fascination some projects have for JIRA. It is proprietary, 
> and IMHO the web UI for users to report bugs in JIRA is very confusing at 
> times. (The Bugzilla one can be confusing at times as well, but at least it 
> is familiarly confusing. ;-) )

Middle management *LOVES LOVES LOVES* Jira.

As for everyone else... let's just say that it's not repeatable in polite 
company.

(I admit I'm surprised that "Free Software for Everything" Red Hat is 
 chosing to base something so fundamental to their business on a highly 
 proprietary tool.  I suppose O365 is just a matter of time...)

 - Solomon
-- 
Solomon Peachypizza at shaftnet dot org (email)
  @pizza:shaftnet dot org   (matrix)
Dowling Park, FL  speachy (libra.chat)


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)


On 2/24/23 12:35 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:

On 2023-02-24 07:42, Robert Marcano via devel wrote:
Does DNF on RHEL for example do something different when --security is 
involved? Because the RHEL documentation talks about it as a feature 
to use. Is a lack of metadata for previous updates the problem or the 
implementation? 



I don't have the log, but I checked this about a month ago:

I can set up an 8.3 system (I used a UBI container, to be specific) and 
subscribe to Red Hat's repositories. Since 8.3, there has been a 
security update to bash, but the most recent bash package is not a 
security fix. If I run |dnf update --security bash|, the system will 
offer the most recent bash package, even though it is not a security 
fix. Naturally, if I run |dnf update bash|, I get the same offer.


So on RHEL, dnf will evidently offer to update a package to the current 
version if any of the available update candidates are marked as a 
security update.  And there are multiple update candidates in RHEL 
repositories, as well as CentOS Stream repositories, unlike Fedora.


Thanks for testing it. So, if there is a desire to "fix" this in Fedora, 
having the repository includes the latest package marked as a security 
update and the latest one. I am not sure that will solve much because it 
still depends, as other posts said, Fedora has more open rules for 
updates, than enterprise distributions and therea are entire version 
jumps without tracking errata metadata.


So, from my point of view the biggest problem with "dnf update 
--security" on Fedora is that rpm doesn't track minor-version 
dependencies of libraries without versioned symbols, which means that 
"dnf update --security" can easily break the system by updating a leaf 
package but not updating dependencies that have added new interfaces 
that it requires.  (But I'm working on fixing that.)

___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/

List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

2023-02-24 Thread Gordon Messmer


On 2023-02-24 07:42, Robert Marcano via devel wrote:
Does DNF on RHEL for example do something different when --security is 
involved? Because the RHEL documentation talks about it as a feature 
to use. Is a lack of metadata for previous updates the problem or the 
implementation? 



I don't have the log, but I checked this about a month ago:

I can set up an 8.3 system (I used a UBI container, to be specific) and 
subscribe to Red Hat's repositories. Since 8.3, there has been a 
security update to bash, but the most recent bash package is not a 
security fix. If I run |dnf update --security bash|, the system will 
offer the most recent bash package, even though it is not a security 
fix. Naturally, if I run |dnf update bash|, I get the same offer.


So on RHEL, dnf will evidently offer to update a package to the current 
version if any of the available update candidates are marked as a 
security update.  And there are multiple update candidates in RHEL 
repositories, as well as CentOS Stream repositories, unlike Fedora.


So, from my point of view the biggest problem with "dnf update 
--security" on Fedora is that rpm doesn't track minor-version 
dependencies of libraries without versioned symbols, which means that 
"dnf update --security" can easily break the system by updating a leaf 
package but not updating dependencies that have added new interfaces 
that it requires.  (But I'm working on fixing that.)

___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

livcd-creator gives incorrect checksum for recently rebuilt local repo packages

2023-02-24 Thread Globe Trotter via devel

Hello,

I was using livecd-creator, and I get the following for local recently rebuilt 
packages, but not for those built a few weeks ago.

Specifically, I get:


 Package "wbar-2.3.4-2.fc37.x86_64" from local repository "MyBaseRepo" has 
incorrect checksum
 Error creating Live CD : Unable to install: Some packages from local repository

What is the problem here, and how do I get around this?

Many thanks!
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

RE: TSS maintainer volunteer

2023-02-24 Thread Kenneth Goldman



> -Original Message-
> From: Peter Robinson 
> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2023 4:20 AM
> To: Development discussions related to Fedora 
> 
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: TSS maintainer volunteer
>
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 9:04 AM Petr Pisar  wrote:
> >
> > V Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 07:29:07PM +, Kenneth Goldman napsal(a):
> > > I think I followed all those steps - identifying the package,
> > > announcing that I want to be the packager, making an account, etc.
> > >
> > > What's next?
> >
> > Submit an updated tss2 package for a package review. As far as I can
> > see, there is no review opened for tss2 now
>
> It was only retired on Jan 9th so should not need a re-review.
>
> I think the process needs to be:
> 1) get a package sponsor. If you don't have one I can possibly do it as I 
> co-
> maintain the intel tpm2 packages

Can you get me a sponsor / sponsor it?  That seems to be the next step.

> 2) request ownership and unblocking of the package

How do I do that?  I did the Pagure, releng tickets

#559 tss2, tss2-devel package maintainer
#11294 Unretire tss2, tss2-devel

> 3) build new versions as follow the process.

I'm working through the tutorial.  If you have an alternate HOWTO, let me 
know.

>
> >  3A__bugzilla.redhat.com_buglist.cgi-3Fcomponent-3DPackage-2520Review-
> 26product-3DFedora-26short-5Fdesc-3Dtss2-26short-5Fdesc-5Ftype-
> 3Dallwordssubstr=DwIGaQ=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-
> siA1ZOg=DZCVG43VcL8GTneMZb8k8lEwb-O1GZktFfre1-
> mlmiA=LENjKgA1o8jJJQUeUgkw1NFO085ft2GxJNSWS6C9-
> uwvnxzuXat8ZLOJ_EwPWbbZ=ChnuonR2xzfsR-
> 55TVKYnZojmhjceqrcSRl9S_URRow= >.
> > How to do it is described at
> >  3A__docs.fedoraproject.org_en-2DUS_package-2Dmaintainers_Package-
> 5FReview-5FProcess_-23-5Fcontributor=DwIGaQ=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-
> siA1ZOg=DZCVG43VcL8GTneMZb8k8lEwb-O1GZktFfre1-
> mlmiA=LENjKgA1o8jJJQUeUgkw1NFO085ft2GxJNSWS6C9-
> uwvnxzuXat8ZLOJ_EwPWbbZ=69hUQdHPBi7Qv8EFcTVNjiZd880oTiPox9hM0rB
> oKtg= >.
> > Especially pay attention to:
> >
> > If you are not member of the packager group, you need a sponsor. Add
> > FE-NEEDSPONSOR to the bugs being blocked by your review request.
> >
> > > Does someone approve me?
> >
> > Based on the FE-NEEDSPONSOR blocker someone from sponsors should
> > notice your review request and start to communicate with you in the
> > review request in Bugzilla. (If that does not happen, approach you a
> > sponsor of your choice as recommended at
> >  > ct.org_en-2DUS_package-2Dmaintainers_How-5Fto-5FGet-5FSponsored-
> 5Finto
> > -5Fthe-5FPackager-5FGroup_-23how-5Fto-5Ffind-5Fa-
> 5Fsponsor=DwIGaQ=
> > jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg=DZCVG43VcL8GTneMZb8k8lEwb-O1GZktFfre1-
> mlmiA
> > =LENjKgA1o8jJJQUeUgkw1NFO085ft2GxJNSWS6C9-
> uwvnxzuXat8ZLOJ_EwPWbbZ=wQ
> > 0j4l0zTDLd6Wcb3Easz-QF-q_MukicKUX5PjsECMU= >)
> >
> > Once the sponsor finds your package looks good and you understand how
> > to maintain a package, he/she will sponsor you, i.e. adds you into a
> > packagers group. Then you will be able to continue from this item on
> > the Package_Review_Process document:
> >
> > When your package passes the review you should use fedpkg to request a
> Git
> > repository for it.
> >
> > > Move a git repo somewhere?
> >
> > For the purpose of the package review, you need to publish the spec
> > file and the SRPM file somewhere on the Internet. (Once you become a
> > packager, you can also use
> >  > _=DwIGaQ=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg=DZCVG43VcL8GTneMZb8k8lEwb-
> O1GZkt
> > Ffre1-mlmiA=LENjKgA1o8jJJQUeUgkw1NFO085ft2GxJNSWS6C9-
> uwvnxzuXat8ZLOJ
> > _EwPWbbZ=W-SMTTNywFjnciP-Cj5_16Zh9LkcQDkEAEitLklonsA= > server
> for
> > that purpose.)
> >
> > Once the package review passes, the offical git repository (called
> > dist-git in
> > Fedora) for the tss2 package will be reopened with completing this item:
> >
> > Request a Git repository for the package
> >
> > Then you will commit the new spec file into the reopen dist-git 
> > repository.
> >
> > -- Petr
> > ___
> > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe
> > send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> > Fedora Code of Conduct:
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.fedoraprojec
> > t.org_en-2DUS_project_code-2Dof-
> 2Dconduct_=DwIGaQ=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-s
> > iA1ZOg=DZCVG43VcL8GTneMZb8k8lEwb-O1GZktFfre1-
> mlmiA=LENjKgA1o8jJJQU
> > eUgkw1NFO085ft2GxJNSWS6C9-
> uwvnxzuXat8ZLOJ_EwPWbbZ=oV9NmN_quxXMyDtHMw
> > -SotPI3e712uROhkbauKod2ZY= List Guidelines:
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__fedoraproject.org
> > _wiki_Mailing-5Flist-5Fguidelines=DwIGaQ=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg=
> > DZCVG43VcL8GTneMZb8k8lEwb-O1GZktFfre1-
> mlmiA=LENjKgA1o8jJJQUeUgkw1NFO
> >

Re: Test upgrades from F37 to F38 - it will take you just a minute

2023-02-24 Thread Ahmed Almeleh

Mostly upgrades, here are the other results.


Installing weak dependencies:
 ipp-usb
   x86_640.9.23-2.fc38
   fedora
  2.1 M
 passt
   x86_640^20230216.g4663ccc-1.fc38
  fedora
  174 k
Downgrading:
 fwupd
   x86_641.8.10-1.fc38
   fedora
  1.8 M
 fwupd-plugin-flashrom
   x86_641.8.10-1.fc38
   fedora
   26 k
 fwupd-plugin-modem-manager
  x86_641.8.10-1.fc38
 fedora
 60 k
 fwupd-plugin-uefi-capsule-data
  x86_641.8.10-1.fc38
 fedora
1.8 M

Transaction Summary
==
Install  41 Packages
Upgrade1782 Packages
Downgrade 4 Packages

Total download size: 1.7 G
Operation aborted.



On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 at 09:53, Ankur Sinha  wrote:

> Looks good, with a few downgrades:
>
> Downgrading:
>  buildah  x86_64   1.29.0-2.fc38
>  calcium-calculator   x86_64   7.9.5-10.fc38
>  enchant2 x86_64   2.3.3-6.fc38
>  enchant2-aspell  x86_64   2.3.3-6.fc38
>  freerdp-libs x86_64   2:2.9.0-3.fc38
>  fwupdx86_64   1.8.10-1.fc38
>  fwupd-plugin-flashromx86_64   1.8.10-1.fc38
>  fwupd-plugin-modem-manager   x86_64   1.8.10-1.fc38
>  fwupd-plugin-uefi-capsule-data   x86_64   1.8.10-1.fc38
>  libjcat  x86_64   0.1.12-2.fc38
>  libwinpr x86_64   2:2.9.0-3.fc38
>  mock-core-configsnoarch   38.1-1.fc38
>  octave   x86_64   6:7.3.0-1.fc38
>  perl-Module-CoreList noarch   1:5.20230120-1.fc38
>  python3-PyDrive2 noarch   1.15.0-2.fc38
>  python3-xlsxwriter   noarch   3.0.7-1.fc38
>  syncthingx86_64   1.22.0-1.fc38
>  syncthing-tools  x86_64   1.22.0-1.fc38
>  transmission-common  x86_64   4.0.0-3.fc38
>  transmission-gtk x86_64   4.0.0-3.fc38
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Regards,
> Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD" (He / Him / His) |
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha
> Time zone: Europe/London
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Do not reply to spam, report it:
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
>
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)


On 2/24/23 12:01 PM, Chris Adams wrote:

Once upon a time, Robert Marcano via devel  said:

Does DNF on RHEL for example do something different when --security
is involved? Because the RHEL documentation talks about it as a
feature to use. Is a lack of metadata for previous updates the
problem or the implementation?


Just a guess, but... updates in RHEL are different from updates in
Fedora because of policy.  In RHEL, updates outside of a point release
are much more targeted - mostly security and significant bug fixes.
Since there are fewer updates, the security updates stick around for a
while and stand out more.

In Fedora, essentially anything can be updated at any time for any
reason, whenever the packager(s) want.  It could be a minor bugfix, a
new upstream release, etc.  So the update "churn" tends to be higher.
There could be a security update today to a package (maybe just by
applying a quick patch), and then maybe upstream incorporates the patch
next week (along with other changes) and the Fedora packager updates to
that release.  From the Fedora point of view, the second new package is
not addressing any security issue, because the first new package did.

Neither are wrong, they're just different polices.


Right, but does a security update replaced by a non security update will 
hide the first security update on RHEL like happens on Fedora?


Because if the problem is how DNF process --security and not how Fedora 
and RHEL push security updates metadata, The Red Hat documenting how to 
use dnf-automatic to only install security updates is probably not at 
all secure. Just wondering where is the problem, metadata or implementation.

___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

2023-02-24 Thread Chris Adams

Once upon a time, Robert Marcano via devel  said:
> Does DNF on RHEL for example do something different when --security
> is involved? Because the RHEL documentation talks about it as a
> feature to use. Is a lack of metadata for previous updates the
> problem or the implementation?

Just a guess, but... updates in RHEL are different from updates in
Fedora because of policy.  In RHEL, updates outside of a point release
are much more targeted - mostly security and significant bug fixes.
Since there are fewer updates, the security updates stick around for a
while and stand out more.

In Fedora, essentially anything can be updated at any time for any
reason, whenever the packager(s) want.  It could be a minor bugfix, a
new upstream release, etc.  So the update "churn" tends to be higher.
There could be a security update today to a package (maybe just by
applying a quick patch), and then maybe upstream incorporates the patch
next week (along with other changes) and the Fedora packager updates to
that release.  From the Fedora point of view, the second new package is
not addressing any security issue, because the first new package did.

Neither are wrong, they're just different polices.
-- 
Chris Adams 
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)

On 2/23/23 8:24 PM, Dennis Gilmore via devel wrote:

On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 2:48 PM Matthew Miller > wrote:

I was asked to weigh in on https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7215
as a
priority. Last time we talked about this we didn't really get
anywhere...

https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/JYKVELSBJQMEK6KEFXG354ZDZDDX4C5G/#RLEUYSWOUVUS53YAP7WQQNN7HNEBIC4E

... and that ticket hasn't moved, because fixing it isn't trivial.

What we're doing now — as has been the case for several years,
already noted
in the previous discussion — has very little end-user value. Also as
noted
in that thread (as in the ticket)... that's unfortunate, because it did
bring some real benefits (and could possibly do even more.)

But, I think it's time to move on. We have ostree and various
container-delta approaches. We should focus on those — and give
DeltaRPMs a
sad, fond farewell.

The last updates just now on three different machines gave me
Delta RPMs reduced 284.9 MB of updates to 281.0 MB (1.4% saved)
Delta RPMs reduced 14.3 MB of updates to 3.3 MB (76.9% saved)
and the third had no Delta RPMs

Outside of specific instances, the first or last results are typical. I
think it is time to say goodbye. Times are very different from what they
were when we added support.

Results may be better for applications that require a lot of data
outside the projects binaries, like games related packages as
wesnoth-data, built from the wesnoth main spec file, but not
xonotic-data (1.1G) that is a split from the binaries spec files.

Disabling deltarpms may not change much for a lot of people, but it may
affect a few ones using these games. maybe packagers will be forces to
split their data to different specs, how easy it is depends on the build
process of those games.

Dennis

___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Proposal: drop delta rpms (for real this time)


On 2/23/23 8:04 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
On Fri, Feb 24 2023 at 12:00:40 AM +0100, Björn Persson 
 wrote:

There are also other dangers with installing only security fixes. If a
bugfix is released and packaged, and later it's discovered that the bug
had security implications, then no security update will be made because
the fix is already packaged. It might be possible to set a security
flag on the update after the fact, but nobody will bother with that.

I would therefore advise against using --security. If one can't install
all the updates continuously, then one should use a more stable
distribution than Fedora.


tbh I'd go so far as to propose that this functionality should not be 
reimplemented in dnf5 at all.




Does DNF on RHEL for example do something different when --security is 
involved? Because the RHEL documentation talks about it as a feature to 
use. Is a lack of metadata for previous updates the problem or the 
implementation?



___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/

List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Fedora 38 compose report: 20230224.n.0 changes

2023-02-24 Thread Fedora Rawhide Report

OLD: Fedora-38-20230223.n.0
NEW: Fedora-38-20230224.n.0

= SUMMARY =
Added images:2
Dropped images:  0
Added packages:  0
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages:   56
Downgraded packages: 0

Size of added packages:  0 B
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size of upgraded packages:   500.47 MiB
Size of downgraded packages: 0 B

Size change of upgraded packages:   138.20 KiB
Size change of downgraded packages: 0 B

= ADDED IMAGES =
Image: Kinoite dvd-ostree x86_64
Path: Kinoite/x86_64/iso/Fedora-Kinoite-ostree-x86_64-38-20230224.n.0.iso
Image: Budgie live x86_64
Path: Spins/x86_64/iso/Fedora-Budgie-Live-x86_64-38-20230224.n.0.iso

= DROPPED IMAGES =

= ADDED PACKAGES =

= DROPPED PACKAGES =

= UPGRADED PACKAGES =
Package:  bluedevil-5.27.1-1.fc38
Old package:  bluedevil-5.27.0-1.fc38
Summary:  Bluetooth stack for KDE
RPMs: bluedevil
Size: 2.83 MiB
Size change:  -50 B
Changelog:
  * Tue Feb 21 2023 Marc Deop i Argem??  - 5.27.1-1
  - 5.27.1


Package:  breeze-gtk-5.27.1-1.fc38
Old package:  breeze-gtk-5.27.0-1.fc38
Summary:  Breeze widget theme for GTK
RPMs: breeze-gtk breeze-gtk-common breeze-gtk-gtk2 breeze-gtk-gtk3 
breeze-gtk-gtk4
Size: 406.53 KiB
Size change:  117 B
Changelog:
  * Tue Feb 21 2023 Marc Deop i Argem??  - 5.27.1-1
  - 5.27.1


Package:  budgie-desktop-10.7.1-2.fc38
Old package:  budgie-desktop-10.7.1-1.fc38
Summary:  A feature-rich, modern desktop designed to keep out the way of 
the user
RPMs: budgie-desktop budgie-desktop-devel budgie-desktop-docs
Size: 12.90 MiB
Size change:  2.48 KiB
Changelog:
  * Wed Feb 22 2023 Joshua Strobl  - 10.7.1-2
  - Rebuild against Mutter 44 beta


Package:  flatpak-kcm-5.27.1-1.fc38
Old package:  flatpak-kcm-5.27.0-2.fc38
Summary:  Flatpak Permissions Management KCM
RPMs: flatpak-kcm
Size: 524.78 KiB
Size change:  24.52 KiB
Changelog:
  * Tue Feb 21 2023 Marc Deop i Argem??  - 5.27.1-1
  - 5.27.1


Package:  grub2-breeze-theme-5.27.1-1.fc38
Old package:  grub2-breeze-theme-5.27.0-1.fc38
Summary:  Breeze theme for GRUB
RPMs: grub2-breeze-theme
Size: 10.10 MiB
Size change:  -72.09 KiB
Changelog:
  * Tue Feb 21 2023 Marc Deop i Argem??  - 5.27.1-1
  - 5.27.1


Package:  kactivitymanagerd-5.27.1-1.fc38
Old package:  kactivitymanagerd-5.27.0-1.fc38
Summary:  Plasma service to manage user's activities
RPMs: kactivitymanagerd
Size: 1.34 MiB
Size change:  525 B
Changelog:
  * Tue Feb 21 2023 Marc Deop i Argem??  - 5.27.1-1
  - 5.27.1


Package:  kde-cli-tools-5.27.1-1.fc38
Old package:  kde-cli-tools-5.27.0-1.fc38
Summary:  Tools based on KDE Frameworks 5 to better interact with the system
RPMs: kde-cli-tools kdesu
Size: 5.71 MiB
Size change:  2.84 KiB
Changelog:
  * Tue Feb 21 2023 Marc Deop i Argem??  - 5.27.1-1
  - 5.27.1


Package:  kde-gtk-config-5.27.1-1.fc38
Old package:  kde-gtk-config-5.27.0-1.fc38
Summary:  Configure the appearance of GTK apps in KDE
RPMs: kde-gtk-config
Size: 547.89 KiB
Size change:  2.69 KiB
Changelog:
  * Tue Feb 21 2023 Marc Deop i Argem??  - 5.27.1-1
  - 5.27.1


Package:  kdecoration-5.27.1-1.fc38
Old package:  kdecoration-5.27.0-1.fc38
Summary:  A plugin-based library to create window decorations
RPMs: kdecoration kdecoration-devel
Size: 685.34 KiB
Size change:  -13 B
Changelog:
  * Tue Feb 21 2023 Marc Deop i Argem??  - 5.27.1-1
  - 5.27.1


Package:  kdeplasma-addons-5.27.1-1.fc38
Old package:  kdeplasma-addons-5.27.0-1.fc38
Summary:  Additional Plasmoids for Plasma 5
RPMs: kdeplasma-addons kdeplasma-addons-devel
Size: 8.47 MiB
Size change:  -702 B
Changelog:
  * Tue Feb 21 2023 Marc Deop i Argem??  - 5.27.1-1
  - 5.27.1


Package:  kgamma-1:5.27.1-1.fc38
Old package:  kgamma-1:5.27.0-1.fc38
Summary:  A monitor calibration tool
RPMs: kgamma
Size: 1.06 MiB
Size change:  -6 B
Changelog:
  * Tue Feb 21 2023 Marc Deop i Argem??  - 
1:5.27.1-1
  - 5.27.1


Package:  khotkeys-5.27.1-1.fc38
Old package:  khotkeys-5.27.0-1.fc38
Summary:  Application to configure hotkeys in KDE
RPMs: khotkeys khotkeys-devel
Size: 10.19 MiB
Size change:  -1.08 KiB
Changelog:
  * Tue Feb 21 2023 Marc Deop i Argem??  - 5.27.1-1
  - 5.27.1


Package:  kinfocenter-5.27.1-1.fc38
Old package:  kinfocenter-5.27.0-1.fc38
Summary:  KDE Info Center
RPMs: kinfocenter
Size: 6.38 MiB
Size change:  64 B
Changelog:
  * Tue Feb 21 2023 Marc Deop i Argem??  - 5.27.1-1
  - 5.27.1


Package:  kmenuedit-5.27.1-1.fc38
Old package:  kmenuedit-5.27.0-1.fc38
Summary:  KDE menu editor
RPMs: kmenuedit
Size: 4.48 MiB
Size change:  -492 B
Changelog:
  * Tue Feb 21 2023 Marc Deop i Argem??  - 5.27.1-1
  - 5.27.1


Package:  kpipewire-5.27.1-1.fc38
Old package:  kpipewire-5.27.0-1.fc38

[rpms/perl-HTTP-Daemon] PR #23: 6.16 bump


mspacek merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-HTTP-Daemon` that you 
are following.

Merged pull-request:

``
6.16 bump
``

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-HTTP-Daemon/pull-request/23
___
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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Update of catch to Catch2 v3

2023-02-24 Thread Neal Gompa

On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 6:22 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
 wrote:
>
> On 24/02/2023 09:42, Tom Hughes wrote:
> > Did you miss the bit where I said you needed to change
> > your BR to catch2-devel unless upstream has v3 support?
>
> I want to fix them correctly, i.e. port to catch v3 and send a PR to
> upstream.
>

That's awesome! Thanks for that! :)



-- 
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Update of catch to Catch2 v3

2023-02-24 Thread Vitaly Zaitsev via devel


On 24/02/2023 09:42, Tom Hughes wrote:

Did you miss the bit where I said you needed to change
your BR to catch2-devel unless upstream has v3 support?


I want to fix them correctly, i.e. port to catch v3 and send a PR to 
upstream.


--
Sincerely,
  Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: compiling guayadeque on rawhide and f38 - error: ambiguous overload for 'operator!='

2023-02-24 Thread Martin Gansser

did work, many thanks.

Regards
Martin
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[rpms/perl-HTTP-Daemon] PR #23: 6.16 bump


mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-HTTP-Daemon` that 
you are following:
``
6.16 bump
``

To reply, visit the link below
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-HTTP-Daemon/pull-request/23
___
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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2173127] perl-HTTP-Daemon-6.16 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2173127

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |MODIFIED



--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-748e811334 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-748e811334


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2173127
___
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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[rpms/perl-HTTP-Daemon] PR #22: 6.16 bump + fixes


mspacek merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-HTTP-Daemon` that you 
are following.

Merged pull-request:

``
6.16 bump + fixes
``

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-HTTP-Daemon/pull-request/22
___
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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Bug 2172670] perl-HTTP-Daemon-6.15 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2172670

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |MODIFIED



--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System  ---
FEDORA-2023-5bf9d886d9 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-5bf9d886d9


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2172670
___
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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[rpms/perl-HTTP-Daemon] PR #22: 6.16 bump + fixes


mspacek opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-HTTP-Daemon` that 
you are following:
``
6.16 bump + fixes
``

To reply, visit the link below
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-HTTP-Daemon/pull-request/22
___
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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: compiling guayadeque on rawhide and f38 - error: ambiguous overload for 'operator!='

2023-02-24 Thread Mamoru TASAKA


Martin Gansser wrote on 2023/02/24 18:23:

Hi,

when i compile guayadeque-0.4.7 [1] on rawhide and f38 i get the following 
error messages [2]:

/builddir/build/BUILD/guayadeque-0.4.7/src/taginfo/TagInfo.cpp: In member function 
'virtual bool Guayadeque::guGStreamerTagInfo::ReadGStreamerTags(const 
wxString&)':
/usr/include/glib-2.0/glib/gstrfuncs.h:209:22: error: ambiguous overload for 
'operator!=' (operand types are 'wxCStrData' and 'long int')
   209 | (G_LIKELY ((STR) != NULL) ?
   \
   |  ^

[1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/guayadeque/tree/master
[2] https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/1757/97931757/build.log

How can i solve this ?


Perhaps
2533 | uri = g_strdup( filename.c_str() );
needs explicit cast like

uri = g_strdup ( (const gchar*)filename.c_str() );



Regards
Martin


Regards,
Mamoru
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Re: Test upgrades from F37 to F38 - it will take you just a minute

2023-02-24 Thread Ankur Sinha

Looks good, with a few downgrades:

Downgrading:
 buildah  x86_64   1.29.0-2.fc38
 calcium-calculator   x86_64   7.9.5-10.fc38
 enchant2 x86_64   2.3.3-6.fc38
 enchant2-aspell  x86_64   2.3.3-6.fc38
 freerdp-libs x86_64   2:2.9.0-3.fc38
 fwupdx86_64   1.8.10-1.fc38
 fwupd-plugin-flashromx86_64   1.8.10-1.fc38
 fwupd-plugin-modem-manager   x86_64   1.8.10-1.fc38
 fwupd-plugin-uefi-capsule-data   x86_64   1.8.10-1.fc38
 libjcat  x86_64   0.1.12-2.fc38
 libwinpr x86_64   2:2.9.0-3.fc38
 mock-core-configsnoarch   38.1-1.fc38
 octave   x86_64   6:7.3.0-1.fc38
 perl-Module-CoreList noarch   1:5.20230120-1.fc38
 python3-PyDrive2 noarch   1.15.0-2.fc38
 python3-xlsxwriter   noarch   3.0.7-1.fc38
 syncthingx86_64   1.22.0-1.fc38
 syncthing-tools  x86_64   1.22.0-1.fc38
 transmission-common  x86_64   4.0.0-3.fc38
 transmission-gtk x86_64   4.0.0-3.fc38


-- 
Thanks,
Regards,
Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD" (He / Him / His) | 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha
Time zone: Europe/London


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[rpms/perl-HTTP-Daemon] PR #21: Bump 6.16 + fixes


mspacek merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-HTTP-Daemon` that you 
are following.

Merged pull-request:

``
Bump 6.16 + fixes
``

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-HTTP-Daemon/pull-request/21
___
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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[rpms/perl-HTTP-Daemon] PR #21: Bump 6.16 + fixes