Looking for volunteers for a handful of Go package reviews

2019-03-03 Thread Robert-André Mauchin
Hello, I have several Go packages in need of a review for the latest Rclone version. I'm available for any review in exchange. - golang-github-anacrolix-dms https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684956 - golang-github-anacrolix-ffprobe

Re: Looking for volunteers for a handful of Go package reviews

2019-03-03 Thread J. Scheurich
I have several Go packages in need of a review for the latest Rclone version. I'm available for any review in exchange. - golang-github-anacrolix-dms https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684956 I would review it, but i am not in the packager group 8-( All i can offer is a unofficial

Is dnf update --releasever=30 supposed to work with modules?

2019-03-03 Thread Richard W.M. Jones
On my Fedora 29-ish machine, I just tried: # dnf update --best --releasever=30 However it fails with pages of errors which seem to be related to modules. Is this supposed to work? It certainly worked fine in previous Fedora releases. Bonus question: Are "Problem 1" (etc) in each section of

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

2019-03-03 Thread Miroslav Suchý
Dne 04. 03. 19 v 7:36 Richard W.M. Jones napsal(a): > Why is the --setopt parameter needed? Couldn't that be based on > $releasever? For the record - we are speaking about: --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 I spoke to DNF team and: * there is no definition of platform_id * while

Re: Is dnf update --releasever=30 supposed to work with modules?

2019-03-03 Thread Miroslav Suchý
Dne 04. 03. 19 v 7:30 Richard W.M. Jones napsal(a): > Bonus question: Are "Problem 1" (etc) in each section of the error > message supposed to relate to each other in some way? Or is the > second list a new list of problems? You mean this error: - nothing provides module(platform:f30) needed

Re: Is dnf update --releasever=30 supposed to work with modules?

2019-03-03 Thread Peter Robinson
On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 6:31 AM Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > On my Fedora 29-ish machine, I just tried: > > # dnf update --best --releasever=30 You're better off doing: dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=deltarpm=false distro-sync But it does have issues with modules atm so a work around is: dnf

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

2019-03-03 Thread Richard W.M. Jones
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 10:22:51AM +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > Do you want to make Fedora 30 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and > try to run: > > sudo dnf --releasever=30 --setopt=module_platform_id=platform:f30 > --enablerepo=updates-testing distro-sync Why is the --setopt

Re: state of fedora-review?

2019-03-03 Thread Robert-André Mauchin
On lundi 4 mars 2019 00:16:02 CET Neal Gompa wrote: > On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 6:14 PM Felix Schwarz > wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I am wondering about the state of the "fedora-review" package. It seems to > > be a pretty important package to ensure new stuff adhers to the latest > >

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

2019-03-03 Thread Marcin Juszkiewicz
W dniu 01.03.2019 o 13:28, Miroslav Suchý pisze: > Dne 01. 03. 19 v 12:59 Marcin Juszkiewicz napsal(a): >> My system was Fedora 19 when first time I installed Fedora. Now I >> have packages from each release from F20 to F29 ;d > > In fedora-upgrade(8) I run > > package-cleanup --orphans | grep

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal: Gating Rawhide - Single package updates

2019-03-03 Thread Miro Hrončok
On 01. 03. 19 22:19, Ben Cotton wrote: '''The CI system, the tests and the decision on which tests are used to gate upon are out of scope for the present document.''' This is both good (specifying explicitly what is this change about and what it is not about) and bad... Since the CI system

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F29 to F30

2019-03-03 Thread Miro Hrončok
On 02. 03. 19 20:16, Alexander Bokovoy wrote: Problem 6: package python2-ipaclient-4.7.2-1.1.fc29.noarch requires freeipa-client-common = 4.7.2-1.1.fc29, but none of the providers can be installed  - freeipa-client-common-4.7.2-1.1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository  -

auto-closing of F30 ftbfs bugs

2019-03-03 Thread Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
Hi all, I run a script to close F30/rawhide FTBFS [1] bugs in the cases where a build exists because maintainers sometimes forget to close the bug after a successful build. About 20 bugs were closed this times. There might be some false positives. If I closed a bug inadvertently, please just

Re: Qt 5.12 coming to rawhide

2019-03-03 Thread Rex Dieter
Richard Shaw wrote: > Was qt 5.12.x supposed to be done in a side tag That was the original plan, but I gave up on that with the beta freeze quickly approaching. My apologies. -- Rex ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To

Re: Qt 5.12 coming to rawhide

2019-03-03 Thread Richard Shaw
Was qt 5.12.x supposed to be done in a side tag? I was trying to build klog but ran into this: DEBUG util.py:490: BUILDSTDERR: Error: DEBUG util.py:490: BUILDSTDERR: Problem: package qt5-devel-5.12.1-1.fc31.noarch requires qt5-qtwebkit-devel, but none of the providers can be installed DEBUG

Re: Reminder: Beta freeze and code complete deadline in one week

2019-03-03 Thread Leigh Scott
Can someone wake me once beta is released, the time between branching and beta isn't enough to do anything! ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of

state of fedora-review?

2019-03-03 Thread Felix Schwarz
Hi, I am wondering about the state of the "fedora-review" package. It seems to be a pretty important package to ensure new stuff adhers to the latest Fedora packaging policy. When I ran "fedora-review" I noticed that it was clearly not updated for some time: There where outdated points about

Re: Qt 5.12 coming to rawhide

2019-03-03 Thread Sérgio Basto
On Sun, 2019-03-03 at 15:24 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote: > Richard Shaw wrote: > > > Was qt 5.12.x supposed to be done in a side tag > > That was the original plan, but I gave up on that with the beta > freeze > quickly approaching. My apologies. Buildroot seems be fixed now . > -- Rex >

Re: state of fedora-review?

2019-03-03 Thread Neal Gompa
On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 6:14 PM Felix Schwarz wrote: > > Hi, > > I am wondering about the state of the "fedora-review" package. It seems to be > a pretty important package to ensure new stuff adhers to the latest Fedora > packaging policy. > > When I ran "fedora-review" I noticed that it was

Re: Qt 5.12 coming to rawhide

2019-03-03 Thread Sérgio Basto
On Sun, 2019-03-03 at 15:24 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote: > Richard Shaw wrote: > > > Was qt 5.12.x supposed to be done in a side tag > > That was the original plan, but I gave up on that with the beta > freeze > quickly approaching. My apologies. ATM buildroot seems to be fixed . > -- Rex >

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

2019-03-03 Thread updates
The following builds have been pushed to Fedora EPEL 7 updates-testing chirp-20190303-1.el7 combblas-1.6.2-0.2.beta2.el7 netatalk-3.1.12-3.el7 perl-Mojolicious-7.94-2.el7 python-pyvirtualize-0.9-4.20181003git57d2307.el7 yapet-2.3-1.el7 Details about builds

[Bug 1672088] perl-Mojolicious version clash with perl-IO-Socket-SSL

2019-03-03 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1672088 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #4 from

[Bug 1684855] New: perl-CPAN-2.25 is available

2019-03-03 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684855 Bug ID: 1684855 Summary: perl-CPAN-2.25 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-CPAN Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged

[Bug 1684873] New: perl-Iterator-Simple-Lookahead-0.09 is available

2019-03-03 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1684873 Bug ID: 1684873 Summary: perl-Iterator-Simple-Lookahead-0.09 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-Iterator-Simple-Lookahead

[Bug 1672088] perl-Mojolicious version clash with perl-IO-Socket-SSL

2019-03-03 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1672088 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED --- Comment #3 from