Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On 10/13/2017 01:29 PM, Peter Oliver wrote: On Thu, 12 Oct 2017, Adam Williamson wrote: it sounds like downgrading from 56 to 52 (the most recent ESR), aside from the epoch bump it'd require on our side, is not straightforward (it seems there were profile changes between 56 and 52). Ouch.

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 02:21:42PM +0200, Martin Stransky wrote: > On 10/13/2017 01:29 PM, Peter Oliver wrote: > >On Thu, 12 Oct 2017, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > >>it sounds like downgrading from 56 to 52 > >>(the most recent ESR), aside from the epoch bump it'd require on our > >>side, is not

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

> Does this update break the entire browser? No, it's more akin to the switch from Gnome 2 to Gnome 3: lots of changes all over the place, old trusted features gone, replacements not totally there and in any case different requiring user adaptation. Which all means our release planning is too

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 08:44 -0700, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > Adam, can you please use the other thread. This discussion has gotten way > off topic. The other thread I opened is Fx 57 Release Issues. I think that ship sailed long ago, I'm afraid. I can't really 'move' a reply to the other thread,

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On 13/10/17 16:48, Adam Williamson wrote: On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 15:56 +0100, Tom Hughes wrote: Cookie Monster Seemed to have been removed from AMO and no obvious replacement. I use(d) Self Destructing Cookies, but the page for that one says it's not being rewritten as a webextension and

Re: Interdependent packages *must* go in the same update - a reminder (ref. nss and nspr)

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 11:46:42PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > That's far less important. Especially the distinction between > enhancement and newpackage, I think, barely matters. If we had this metadata for stuff that lands in Rawhide, it'd be useful, but since we don't, it's basically just

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On vendredi 13 octobre 2017 17:48:51 CEST Adam Williamson wrote: > On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 15:56 +0100, Tom Hughes wrote: > > > On 13/10/17 15:26, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > > > > > > Sure, that's what everybody knows. But without going from generalities > > > to details of a specific

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Oct 13, 2017 19:00, "Simo Sorce" wrote: We are Fedora and we are First, even when it is painful IMHO. I count for little in the Fedora community, but this is exactly my opinion in this discussion. A. ___ devel mailing list --

Re: Broken dependencies: audacity

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 10:15:37AM -0400, Todd Zullinger wrote: > Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 08:44:27AM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > > I think I found the issue. Last week we finally migrated the ACLs > > > from pkgdb to pagure but it looks like the query I used

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 6:04 PM, Athos Ribeiro wrote: > I maintain a small extension to toggle proxy configurations […] Hi Athos, Does noturno support proxy authentication by any chance ;) ? ___ devel mailing list --

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 15:56 +0100, Tom Hughes wrote: > On 13/10/17 15:26, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > > Sure, that's what everybody knows. But without going from generalities > > to details of a specific extension, we're just speculating idly. > > So lets do a little review of the

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On 10/13/2017 10:40 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: We've chosen not to ship ESR in the past, AIUI, because we think our target audiences generally prefer to get the main Firefox release stream, they don't want the ESR stream. We could change that decision, of course. I don't personally think a

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 10:47 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote: > > Is everyone being over-dramatic (per usual)? To take that personally for a minute, well, no, I don't believe I've been over-dramatic at all. I've never suggested anything besides 'maybe we should take a look at whether shipping

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 14:26 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 02:55:37PM +0100, Peter Oliver wrote: > > On Fri, 13 Oct 2017, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > > > > All the energy devoted to this thread would imho be better spent on > > > trying to encourage

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 18:48 +0200, Robert-André Mauchin wrote: > On vendredi 13 octobre 2017 17:48:51 CEST Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 15:56 +0100, Tom Hughes wrote: > > > > > On 13/10/17 15:26, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Sure, that's what

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 09:43 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 14:26 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 02:55:37PM +0100, Peter Oliver wrote: > > > On Fri, 13 Oct 2017, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > > > > > > All the energy devoted to

Re: GCL and SELinux: help requested

On 10/13/2017 11:07 PM, Jerry James wrote: But that's not the end of the fun. GCL failed the mass rebuild this summer. It built successfully on every architecture but s390x. On s390x, the build failed due to a failed call to mprotect(), almost certainly a sign that SELinux was in enforcing

Re: GCL and SELinux: help requested

On 10/13/2017 03:00 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 14:53 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: >> It's really hard to say what the trouble >> is... are there to few of them? Overtasked with other work? Workflow too >> difficult? > > AFAIK it's basically just lvrabec at the moment, and I

Re: Interdependent packages *must* go in the same update - a reminder (ref. nss and nspr)

Adam Williamson writes: > There are currently separate updates for nss 3.33.0 and nspr 4.17.0 in > both Fedora 26 and 27. However, nss 3.33.0 requires nspr 4.17.0. > > As a reminder, this is a violation of the Updates Policy: > >

[Test-Announce] 2017-10-16 @ 15:00 UTC - Fedora QA Meeting

# Fedora Quality Assurance Meeting # Date: 2017-10-16 # Time: 15:00 UTC (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto) # Location: #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net Greetings testers! It's time for another meeting! Let's call this the Everyone Tell Adam What's Going On meeting, as

[Test-Announce] Proposal to CANCEL: 2017-10-16 blocker review meeting

Hi folks! I'm proposing we cancel the blocker review meeting for Monday, as there are no proposed Final (or Server Beta) blockers. Thanks! -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net

Re: Broken dependencies: audacity

Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 08:44:27AM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: I think I found the issue. Last week we finally migrated the ACLs from pkgdb to pagure but it looks like the query I used to export the ACLs from pkgdb wasn't restricted to active Fedora branch, so

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 02:55:37PM +0100, Peter Oliver wrote: > On Fri, 13 Oct 2017, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > >All the energy devoted to this thread would imho be better spent on > >trying to encourage the authors of popular extensions to update to the > >new model, > > My

Fx 57 Release Issues

Changing the subject to reflect the actual discussion. Apparently many people are unaware of Mozilla's plan for Fx and webextensions: Here are some links which might be helpful: https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2015/08/21/the-future- of-developing-firefox-add-ons/

Re: Fx 57 Release Issues

There are also several alternatives for those who for whatever reason do not want to use the new Fx, and want to continue using the old extension system: https://www.waterfoxproject.org/ http://www.palemoon.org/ https://www.seamonkey-project.org/ On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 7:34 AM, Gerald B. Cox

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

Please use the thread Fx 57 Release Issues. This discussion isn't about the use of the updates-testing repository for non-update software. On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Alexander Ploumistos < alex.ploumis...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 6:04 PM, Athos Ribeiro

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 6:31 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > Please use the thread Fx 57 Release Issues. This discussion isn't about the > use of the updates-testing repository for non-update software. Sure, sorry for the digression. ___

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On 13/10/17 15:26, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: Sure, that's what everybody knows. But without going from generalities to details of a specific extension, we're just speculating idly. So lets do a little review of the things I have installed in one of my firefox instances that aren't

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 01:14:50PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > All the energy devoted to this thread would imho be better spent on > trying to encourage the authors of popular extensions to update to the > new model, or trying to find alternatives that work with FF57+. >

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Fri, 13 Oct 2017, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: All the energy devoted to this thread would imho be better spent on trying to encourage the authors of popular extensions to update to the new model, My understanding is that the new API lacks capabilities needed to make some extensions

Re: Broken dependencies: audacity

Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 10:15:37AM -0400, Todd Zullinger wrote: It might be unrelated, but I've received broken dependency notifications for nginx the past two days. I've never been a maintainer or contributor to nginx. I did fork the repo in pagure, just to look

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 12:29 +0100, Peter Oliver wrote: > On Thu, 12 Oct 2017, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > it sounds like downgrading from 56 to 52 > > (the most recent ESR), aside from the epoch bump it'd require on our > > side, is not straightforward (it seems there were profile changes > >

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

Adam, can you please use the other thread. This discussion has gotten way off topic. The other thread I opened is Fx 57 Release Issues. Thanks! On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 12:29 +0100, Peter Oliver wrote: > > On

Fedora Modular 27 compose report: 20171013.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-Modular-27-20171012.n.0 NEW: Fedora-Modular-27-20171013.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:12 Dropped images: 1 Added packages: 0 Dropped packages:0 Upgraded packages: 291 Downgraded packages: 21 Size of added packages: 0.00 B Size of dropped packages

Re: GCL and SELinux: help requested

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 03:07:05PM -0600, Jerry James wrote: > But that's not the end of the fun. GCL failed the mass rebuild this > summer. It built successfully on every architecture but s390x. On > s390x, the build failed due to a failed call to mprotect(), almost > certainly a sign that

Re: GCL and SELinux: help requested

On 10/13/2017 02:07 PM, Jerry James wrote: > On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 9:34 AM, Jerry James wrote: ...snip... > But that's not the end of the fun. GCL failed the mass rebuild this > summer. It built successfully on every architecture but s390x. On > s390x, the build failed

Re: GCL and SELinux: help requested

On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 15:58 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On 10/13/2017 03:00 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 14:53 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > It's really hard to say what the trouble > > > is... are there to few of them? Overtasked with other work? Workflow too > > >

GCL and SELinux: help requested

On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 9:34 AM, Jerry James wrote: > I don't believe that anybody looks at those pull requests on a regular > basis. Should somebody be doing so? There are 8 pull requests, > dating back to about the time of the above conversation. Five of > those don't

Re: GCL and SELinux: help requested

On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 14:53 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > It's really hard to say what the trouble > is... are there to few of them? Overtasked with other work? Workflow too > difficult? AFAIK it's basically just lvrabec at the moment, and I think the 'map' permission issues that showed up this

Review swap

Easy python module, python-Mastodon: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1502072 I'll take one of yours in return if you like. Thanks all! -Gwyn -- http://cecinestpasunefromage.wordpress.com/ in your fear, seek only peace in your fear,

Re: GCL and SELinux: help requested

On 14 Oct 2017 12:08 am, "Adam Williamson" wrote: On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 15:58 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On 10/13/2017 03:00 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 14:53 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > It's really hard to say what the trouble > > >

Re: Interdependent packages *must* go in the same update - a reminder (ref. nss and nspr)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 17:34 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > There are currently separate updates for nss 3.33.0 and nspr 4.17.0 > in > both Fedora 26 and 27. However, nss 3.33.0 requires nspr 4.17.0. > > As a reminder, this is a violation of the

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 12:58 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: > On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 09:43 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 14:26 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 02:55:37PM +0100, Peter Oliver wrote: > > > > On Fri, 13 Oct 2017, Zbigniew

Re: Interdependent packages *must* go in the same update - a reminder (ref. nss and nspr)

On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 10:38 -0700, Josh Stone wrote: > On 10/12/2017 05:34 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > In this case there's an even worse consequence; if you do attempt to > > update to nss 3.33.0 without nspr 4.17.0 dnf will 'skip' *most* of the > > nss packages (as it notices that they are

Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2017-10-13)

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Adam Miller wrote: > Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the > FESCo meeting Friday at 16:00UTC in #fedora-meeting on > irc.freenode.net. > > To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at >

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Adam Williamson < adamw...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 12:58 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote: > > On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 09:43 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 14:26 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > > > On Fri,

Re: Interdependent packages *must* go in the same update - a reminder (ref. nss and nspr)

On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 08:16 +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > On Thu, 2017-10-12 at 17:34 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > There are currently separate updates for nss 3.33.0 and nspr 4.17.0 > > in > > both Fedora 26 and 27. However, nss 3.33.0 requires nspr 4.17.0. > > > > As a reminder, this is a

Fedora Rawhide-20171013.n.0 compose check report

Missing expected images: Server dvd i386 Workstation live i386 Server boot i386 Kde live i386 Failed openQA tests: 85/128 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm) Old failures (same test failed in Rawhide-20171012.n.0): ID: 157120 Test: x86_64 Server-boot-iso install_default@uefi URL:

Fedora 27-20171013.n.0 compose check report

Missing expected images: Server dvd i386 Workstation live i386 Server boot i386 Kde live i386 Failed openQA tests: 24/128 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm) New failures (same test did not fail in 27-20171012.n.0): ID: 157273 Test: x86_64 Everything-boot-iso install_default URL:

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017, Adam Williamson wrote: it sounds like downgrading from 56 to 52 (the most recent ESR), aside from the epoch bump it'd require on our side, is not straightforward (it seems there were profile changes between 56 and 52). Ouch. Is now a good time to think about how we could

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

Another option could be to ship Fedora 27 with a Firefox 57 prerelease version. This will stop breakage of extensions 2 weeks after Fedora 27 ships (and shipped extensions can be moved to web extension version). On 13 Oct 2017 12:31 pm, "Peter Oliver" < lists.fedoraproject@mavit.org.uk>

Re: Interdependent packages *must* go in the same update - a reminder (ref. nss and nspr)

On 10/12/2017 05:34 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > In this case there's an even worse consequence; if you do attempt to > update to nss 3.33.0 without nspr 4.17.0 dnf will 'skip' *most* of the > nss packages (as it notices that they are missing dependencies), but it > *will* install

Fedora Modular bikeshed compose report: 20171013.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-Modular-Bikeshed-20171012.n.0 NEW: Fedora-Modular-Bikeshed-20171013.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:0 Dropped images: 0 Added packages: 1 Dropped packages:0 Upgraded packages: 0 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 531.63 KiB Size

[389-devel] Build failed in Jenkins: COMMIT_SANITY_TEST #69

.x86_64.rpm 389-ds-base-debuginfo-1.4.0.1-20171013gitdf4492b.fc25.x86_64.rpm 389-ds-base-devel-1.4.0.1-20171013gitdf4492b.fc25.x86_64.rpm 389-ds-base-snmp-1.4.0.1-20171013gitdf4492b.fc25.x86_64.rpm Preparing... ##

[389-devel] Re: csiphash on Sparc

On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 13:36 +0200, Lukas Slebodnik wrote: > On (11/10/17 12:42), Carsten Grzemba wrote: > > > > > > > >On 11.10.17 10:54, William Brown wrote: > > >> > > >> On Tue, 2017-10-10 at 16:28 +0200, Carsten Grzemba wrote: > > >> > > > >> > On 10.10.17 16:10,

[Bug 1501400] perl-Parse-Gitignore-0.04 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501400 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED

Re: what openQA packages versions on openqa.stg.fedoraproject.org

On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 18:09 +0200, Normand wrote: > Hello Adam, > > What are the currently running openQA rpm versions on > openqa.stg.fedoraproject.org ? > > I saw in (1) that this version is sorting the successive runs with most > recents on top, which is an option I like. > > But we do not

what openQA packages versions on openqa.stg.fedoraproject.org

Hello Adam, What are the currently running openQA rpm versions on openqa.stg.fedoraproject.org ? I saw in (1) that this version is sorting the successive runs with most recents on top, which is an option I like. But we do not have such behaviour on our openQA server running f26 fedora

[389-devel] Build failed in Jenkins: NIGHTLY #108

See -- [...truncated 54372 lines...] # Create and extract a service keytab args = {SER_HOST: self.host, SER_PORT: self.port,

[389-devel] Build failed in Jenkins: COMMIT_SANITY_TEST #70

See Changes: [spichugi] Issue 49381 - Refactor filter test suite docstrings -- [...truncated 1537 lines...] D man/man8/saveconfig.8 D

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

The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing: Age URL 950 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-1087 dokuwiki-0-0.24.20140929c.el7 712 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-dac7ed832f mcollective-2.8.4-1.el7 294

[Bug 1492094] CVE-2017-12837 CVE-2017-12883 perl: various flaws [ fedora-all]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1492094 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- perl-5.24.3-389.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving

[Bug 1492093] CVE-2017-12883 perl: Buffer over-read in regular expression parser

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1492093 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- perl-5.24.3-389.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this

[Bug 1492091] CVE-2017-12837 perl: Heap buffer overflow in regular expression compiler

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1492091 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- perl-5.24.3-389.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this

[Bug 1500438] perl-Code-TidyAll-0.69 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1500438 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA

[Bug 1500804] perl-Net-IPv6Addr-0.91 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1500804 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA

[Bug 1500805] perl-MP3-Info-1.26 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1500805 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA

[Bug 1501321] perl-Gearman-2.004.009 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501321 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA

[Bug 1501270] perl-Digest-SHA-5.98 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501270 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Digest-SHA-5.98-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See

[Bug 1501310] perl-Eval-WithLexicals-1.003006 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501310 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA

[Bug 1501402] perl-Perl-Critic-Pulp-95 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501402 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Perl-Critic-Pulp-95-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See

[Bug 1501363] perl-local-lib-2.000024 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501363 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA