Re: What to I have to do....

Hey, On 12/07/2017 03:49 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2017-12-07 at 10:31 -0500, Steve Dickson wrote: > >> Where committed to the master branch and not to any other >> branch make the maintenance of those branches a pain >> because I can no longer cherry-pick between branches. >> I have

Re: What to I have to do....

On 12/07/2017 06:13 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote: > On Thu, 2017-12-07 at 10:31 -0500, Steve Dickson wrote: >> Hello, >> >> What do I have to do to stop random people >> from making random changes to packages I maintain? >> >> How do people get this type of permission? >> >> Case in point; >> >>

Re: What to I have to do....

On 12/08/2017 02:40 PM, Steve Dickson wrote: Hey, On 12/07/2017 02:31 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: On 12/07/2017 04:31 PM, Steve Dickson wrote: Where committed to the master branch and not to any other branch make the maintenance of those branches a pain because I can no longer cherry-pick

Re: What to I have to do....

On 12/07/2017 02:18 PM, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote: > On 2017-12-07 09:31, Steve Dickson wrote: >> What do I have to do to stop random people >> from making random changes to packages I maintain? >> >> How do people get this type of permission? > >

no updates since Monday

Does anyone know why there have been no updates or changes to any of the Fedora repos (including rawhide) since Monday? ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: no updates since Monday

On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 09:25:05AM -0500, Chuck Anderson wrote: > Does anyone know why there have been no updates or changes to any of > the Fedora repos (including rawhide) since Monday? Darn, I just found the announcement about the data center move. Never mind...

Re: What to I have to do....

Hey, On 12/07/2017 02:31 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: > On 12/07/2017 04:31 PM, Steve Dickson wrote: >> Where committed to the master branch and not to any other >> branch make the maintenance of those branches a pain >> because I can no longer cherry-pick between branches. > > Maybe you can

Re: What to I have to do....

On 12/07/2017 05:38 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Steve Dickson wrote: >> Where committed to the master branch and not to any other >> branch make the maintenance of those branches a pain >> because I can no longer cherry-pick between branches. >> I have to make multiple commits to multiple branches

Re: What to I have to do....

On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 02:07:51AM +, Michael Cullen wrote: > > because I can no longer cherry-pick between branches. > > Not true at all - you’d be surprised how well git deals with cherry > picks across diverse branches. And even when it doesn’t there’s very > rarely anything in a spec file

Re: debug facilities

On Mon, 2017-12-04 at 15:47 -0500, Przemek Klosowski wrote: > The bottom line is that it's pretty tricky to figure this out, which is  > a pity because easy debuggability is one of the important cultural  > features of Fedora and FOSS. It's a regression: GDB used to point to  > integrated

Re: [Ambassadors] Re: Autumn Elections 2017 are cancelled

Il 08/dic/2017 12:39 AM, "Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski" < domi...@greysector.net> ha scritto: On Thursday, 07 December 2017 at 18:54, Jan Kurik wrote: > During the Autumn 2017 Election cycle we wanted to try a new approach > in the way how Elections are organized [1]. Unfortunately, at the >

Re: What to I have to do....

On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 09:14:35AM -0500, Steve Dickson wrote: > > > On 12/07/2017 06:13 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote: > > On Thu, 2017-12-07 at 10:31 -0500, Steve Dickson wrote: > >> Hello, > >> > >> What do I have to do to stop random people > >> from making random changes to packages I maintain?

Schedule for Friday's FESCo Meeting (2017-12-08)

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo meeting Friday at 16:00UTC in #fedora-meeting onirc.freenode.net. To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UTCHowto or run: date -d '2017-12-08 16:00 UTC' Links to all issues below

Re: What to I have to do....

On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 10:31:58AM -0500, Steve Dickson wrote: > > > On 12/08/2017 10:07 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 08:31:44AM -0500, Steve Dickson wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 12/07/2017 02:18 PM, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote: > >>> On 2017-12-07 09:31, Steve

Re: What to I have to do....

On Fri, 2017-12-08 at 09:14 -0500, Steve Dickson wrote: > > On 12/07/2017 06:13 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote: > > On Thu, 2017-12-07 at 10:31 -0500, Steve Dickson wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > What do I have to do to stop random people > > > from making random changes to packages I maintain? > > >

Re: What to I have to do....

On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 11:21:10AM -0500, Charalampos Stratakis wrote: > - Original Message - > > > Unless you want to say that the change is somehow wrong, please > > > don't say that "poeple [...] are clueless", because that's disingenuous. > > Fair enough... "clueless" was probably not

Re: What to I have to do....

On 12/07/2017 03:37 PM, R P Herrold wrote: > On Thu, 7 Dec 2017, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote: > >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Provenpackager_policy > >> These were properly announced: >> >>

Re: What to I have to do....

On 12/08/2017 10:07 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 08:31:44AM -0500, Steve Dickson wrote: >> >> >> On 12/07/2017 02:18 PM, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote: >>> On 2017-12-07 09:31, Steve Dickson wrote: What do I have to do to stop random people from making

Re: What to I have to do....

- Original Message - > From: "Steve Dickson" > To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" > , "Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek" > > Cc: "Yaakov Selkowitz" > Sent: Friday, December 8, 2017 4:31:58

Re: What to I have to do....

On 12/08/2017 05:17 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 10:59:20AM -0500, Steve Dickson wrote: >> >> >> On 12/08/2017 10:12 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: >>> How would the overhead be lower? Instead of a single clean commit that >>> does what needs to be done

Re: What to I have to do....

On 12/08/2017 09:00 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > On 12/08/2017 02:40 PM, Steve Dickson wrote: >> Hey, >> >> On 12/07/2017 02:31 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: >>> On 12/07/2017 04:31 PM, Steve Dickson wrote: Where committed to the master branch and not to any other branch make the

Re: debug facilities

On 12/08/2017 06:29 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote: On Mon, 2017-12-04 at 15:47 -0500, Przemek Klosowski wrote: The bottom line is that it's pretty tricky to figure this out, which is a pity because easy debuggability is one of the important cultural features of Fedora and FOSS. It's a regression: GDB

Re: What to I have to do....

On 12/08/2017 10:12 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 09:14:35AM -0500, Steve Dickson wrote: >> >> >> On 12/07/2017 06:13 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote: >>> On Thu, 2017-12-07 at 10:31 -0500, Steve Dickson wrote: Hello, What do I have to do to stop random

Re: no updates since Monday

On 12/08/2017 06:26 AM, Chuck Anderson wrote: > On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 09:25:05AM -0500, Chuck Anderson wrote: >> Does anyone know why there have been no updates or changes to any of >> the Fedora repos (including rawhide) since Monday? > > Darn, I just found the announcement about the data

Re: debug facilities

On Fri, 2017-12-08 at 10:17 -0500, Przemek Klosowski wrote: > I still don't quite understand why only some packages have the  > debuginfo/debugsource split (I counted ~10k debugsources to ~30k  > debuginfo). Is that an automatic process that just needs to happen > over time, or do the maintainers

Re: What to I have to do....

On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 08:31:44AM -0500, Steve Dickson wrote: > > > On 12/07/2017 02:18 PM, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote: > > On 2017-12-07 09:31, Steve Dickson wrote: > >> What do I have to do to stop random people > >> from making random changes to packages I maintain? > >> > >> How do people get

Re: What to I have to do....

On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 10:59:20AM -0500, Steve Dickson wrote: > > > On 12/08/2017 10:12 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 09:14:35AM -0500, Steve Dickson wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 12/07/2017 06:13 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote: > >>> On Thu, 2017-12-07 at 10:31 -0500,

Re: What to I have to do....

On 8 December 2017 at 11:40, Steve Dickson wrote: > > > On 12/08/2017 11:12 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: >> Well, I'd say this works great. There's maybe a hundred or two hundred >> proven packagers and somehow none of them decide to mess up the kernel >> any day. In

Re: What to I have to do....

On 12/08/2017 11:28 AM, Kalev Lember wrote: > On 12/08/2017 05:17 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 10:59:20AM -0500, Steve Dickson wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 12/08/2017 10:12 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: How would the overhead be lower? Instead of a

Re: What to I have to do....

On 12/08/2017 12:10 PM, Mathieu Bridon wrote: > On Fri, 2017-12-08 at 12:01 -0500, Steve Dickson wrote: >> On 12/08/2017 11:46 AM, Mathieu Bridon wrote: >>> You're blowing this way out of proportion, as if this was a >>> catastrophe. History shows that it isn't. >> >> Maybe I am... Would not be

Re: What to I have to do....

On Friday, 08 December 2017 at 18:07, Steve Dickson wrote: [...] > > A proven packager is not someone random, they were given access > > based on various criteria and that IMHO includes the fact that > > their perception or "feels" about what has to be done on other > > people's packages, is

Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2017-12-08)

=== #fedora-meeting: FESCO (2017-12-08) === Meeting started by tyll at 16:05:46 UTC. The full logs are available at https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2017-12-08/fesco.2017-12-08-16.05.log.html

Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2017-12-08)

=== #fedora-meeting: FESCO (2017-12-08) === Meeting started by tyll at 16:05:46 UTC. The full logs are available at https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2017-12-08/fesco.2017-12-08-16.05.log.html Meeting summary

Re: What to I have to do....

- Original Message - > From: "Steve Dickson" > To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" > , "Charalampos Stratakis" > > Cc: "Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek" , "Yaakov Selkowitz" >

Re: What to I have to do....

On 12/08/2017 11:46 AM, Mathieu Bridon wrote: > On Fri, 2017-12-08 at 11:40 -0500, Steve Dickson wrote: >> >> On 12/08/2017 11:12 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: >>> Well, I'd say this works great. There's maybe a hundred or two >>> hundred proven packagers and somehow none of them decide

Re: What to I have to do....

On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 10:45:47AM -0600, Michael Cronenworth wrote: > On 12/08/2017 10:40 AM, Steve Dickson wrote: > >You are telling me there hundreds of people that have complete > >control over all the packages in fedora with no boundaries??? > >They can do anything they what??? Wow... > >

Re: What to I have to do....

On 12/08/2017 11:54 AM, Simo Sorce wrote: > On Fri, 2017-12-08 at 11:40 -0500, Steve Dickson wrote: >> >> On 12/08/2017 11:12 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: >>> Well, I'd say this works great. There's maybe a hundred or two hundred >>> proven packagers and somehow none of them decide to

Re: What to I have to do....

* Steve Dickson [08/12/2017 12:11] : > > But if it is non-massive, non-critical shouldn't the maintainer be notified? If it's trivial, I'm ok with being informed via fedmsg telling me a commit has been made. In this case, this was a trivial fix that the maintainer should have done years ago so I

Re: What to I have to do....

On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 11:21:10AM -0500, Charalampos Stratakis wrote: >> - Original Message - >> > > Unless you want to say that the change is somehow wrong, please >> > > don't say that "poeple [...] are

Re: What to I have to do....

On Fri, 2017-12-08 at 10:45 -0600, Michael Cronenworth wrote: > On 12/08/2017 10:40 AM, Steve Dickson wrote: > > You are telling me there hundreds of people that have complete > > control over all the packages in fedora with no boundaries??? > > They can do anything they what??? Wow... > > Not

Re: What to I have to do....

On 12/08/2017 11:12 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > Well, I'd say this works great. There's maybe a hundred or two hundred > proven packagers and somehow none of them decide to mess up the kernel > any day. In fact, the commits which caused this thread are _correct_: > so far I haven't

Re: What to I have to do....

On 12/08/2017 10:40 AM, Steve Dickson wrote: You are telling me there hundreds of people that have complete control over all the packages in fedora with no boundaries??? They can do anything they what??? Wow... Not really. There are a handful of packages that are protected. I tried to push a

Re: What to I have to do....

On Fri, 2017-12-08 at 11:40 -0500, Steve Dickson wrote: > > On 12/08/2017 11:12 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > Well, I'd say this works great. There's maybe a hundred or two > > hundred proven packagers and somehow none of them decide to mess up > > the kernel any day. In fact, the

Re: What to I have to do....

On 12/08/2017 11:21 AM, Charalampos Stratakis wrote: > The kernel is actually blacklisted from proven packager access, you can't > make changes there. This is good to know... how do you get on that list? ;-) > > Apart from that though, I don't really see any reasons for creating this >

Re: What to I have to do....

On 12/08/2017 11:59 AM, Charalampos Stratakis wrote: > > > - Original Message - >> From: "Steve Dickson" >> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" >> , "Charalampos Stratakis" >> >> Cc: "Zbigniew

Re: What to I have to do....

On Fri, 2017-12-08 at 12:01 -0500, Steve Dickson wrote: > Then on the other hand I get these pull-requests that > work so well! > > So I just don't understand why for non-massive changes > why is it not required to go through the pull-request > process? There is a pedestrian reason, which

Re: What to I have to do....

On 12/08/2017 08:33 AM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 11:21:10AM -0500, Charalampos Stratakis wrote: >> - Original Message - Unless you want to say that the change is somehow wrong, please don't say that "poeple [...] are clueless", because that's

Re: What to I have to do....

On Fri, 2017-12-08 at 12:11 -0500, Steve Dickson wrote: > > On 12/08/2017 11:54 AM, Simo Sorce wrote: > > On Fri, 2017-12-08 at 11:40 -0500, Steve Dickson wrote: > > > > > > On 12/08/2017 11:12 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > > > Well, I'd say this works great. There's maybe a hundred

Re: What to I have to do....

On Fri, 2017-12-08 at 11:40 -0500, Steve Dickson wrote: > > On 12/08/2017 11:12 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > Well, I'd say this works great. There's maybe a hundred or two hundred > > proven packagers and somehow none of them decide to mess up the kernel > > any day. In fact, the

Re: What to I have to do....

On Fri, 2017-12-08 at 12:01 -0500, Steve Dickson wrote: > On 12/08/2017 11:46 AM, Mathieu Bridon wrote: > > You're blowing this way out of proportion, as if this was a > > catastrophe. History shows that it isn't. > > Maybe I am... Would not be the first time! ;-) > > In last couple of months

Re: What to I have to do....

On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 11:52:21AM -0500, Steve Dickson wrote: > > > On 12/08/2017 11:28 AM, Kalev Lember wrote: > > On 12/08/2017 05:17 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > >> On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 10:59:20AM -0500, Steve Dickson wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> On 12/08/2017 10:12 AM, Zbigniew

Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: Forge-hosted projects packaging automation

Hi, I am proposing for inclusion a macro set aimed at automating the packaging of forge-hosted projects. — Packaging draft: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Forge-hosted_projects_packaging_automation — FPC ticket: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/719 (without the “hasdraft” tag

Re: What to I have to do....

On 12/08/2017 12:33 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Fri, 2017-12-08 at 12:01 -0500, Steve Dickson wrote: >> Then on the other hand I get these pull-requests that >> work so well! >> >> So I just don't understand why for non-massive changes >> why is it not required to go through the

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: Forge-hosted projects packaging automation

On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 07:03:48PM +0100, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote: > I am proposing for inclusion a macro set aimed at automating the packaging of > forge-hosted projects. Could we be more specific about what "forges" are supported? I see github and googlesource.com in the examples,

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposed Fedora packaging guideline: Forge-hosted projects packaging automation

De: "Matthew Miller" On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 07:03:48PM +0100, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote: >> I am proposing for inclusion a macro set aimed at automating the packaging >> of forge-hosted projects. > Also, is "forge" synonymous with "git hosting service" as used here? Here a "forge" is

Re: What to I have to do....

On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 11:46:03AM -0500, Steve Dickson wrote: > > > On 12/08/2017 11:21 AM, Charalampos Stratakis wrote: > > The kernel is actually blacklisted from proven packager access, you can't > > make changes there. > This is good to know... how do you get on that list? ;-) > > > >

Re: What to I have to do....

On 12/08/2017 06:48 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Fri, 2017-12-08 at 10:45 -0600, Michael Cronenworth wrote: On 12/08/2017 10:40 AM, Steve Dickson wrote: You are telling me there hundreds of people that have complete control over all the packages in fedora with no boundaries??? They can do

Re: no updates since Monday

On 12/08/2017 09:25 AM, Chuck Anderson wrote: > Does anyone know why there have been no updates or changes to any of > the Fedora repos (including rawhide) since Monday? It was due to the planned infrastructure datacenter move. I believe updates went out today and things should be back to normal.

[Test-Announce] Proposal to CANCEL: 2017-12-11 Fedora QA Meeting

Hi folks! I'm proposing we cancel the QA meeting tomorrow. I don't think we have anything requiring discussion this week. If you're aware of anything important we have to discuss this week, please do reply to this mail and we can go ahead and run the meeting. Thanks! -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA

Re: Reminder: upcoming retirement of webkitgtk and webkitgtk3 packages

On Thu, 2017-12-07 at 23:26 +, Sérgio Basto wrote: > On Wed, 2017-12-06 at 16:19 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Thu, 2017-12-07 at 00:04 +, Sérgio Basto wrote: > > > > > > hum Markdown plugin is build with GTK3 , the plus of GTK+ is > > > confusing > > > me > > > > GTK+ is the

[Test-Announce] 2017-12-11 @ 17:00 UTC - Fedora 28 Blocker Review Meeting

# F28 Blocker Review meeting # Date: 2017-12-11 # Time: 17:00 UTC # Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net Hi folks! We have two proposed blockers and one proposed freeze exception for Fedora 28 Beta, and one proposed blocker for Fedora 28 Final, so let's have a quick review meeting

Re: [Ambassadors] Re: Autumn Elections 2017 are cancelled

Il 08/dic/2017 12:39 AM, "Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski" < domi...@greysector.net> ha scritto: On Thursday, 07 December 2017 at 18:54, Jan Kurik wrote: > During the Autumn 2017 Election cycle we wanted to try a new approach > in the way how Elections are organized [1]. Unfortunately, at the >

[Bug 1523893] New: perl-Log-Report-1.25 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1523893 Bug ID: 1523893 Summary: perl-Log-Report-1.25 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: perl-Log-Report Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged Assignee:

[Bug 1512341] perl-Finance-Quote-1.47 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1512341 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|perl-Finance-Quote-1.47-1.f

[Bug 1510220] perl-Finance-Quote-1.42 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1510220 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|perl-Finance-Quote-1.43-1.f

[Bug 1509722] perl-Finance-Quote-1.40 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1509722 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|perl-Finance-Quote-1.41-1.f

[Bug 1469031] Please update perl-Plack version

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1469031 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA

[Bug 1523427] perl-Iterator-Simple-0.07 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1523427 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Iterator-Simple-0.07-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See

[Bug 1522709] Upgrade perl-BibTeX-Parser to 1.01

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1522709 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- perl-BibTeX-Parser-1.01-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See

[Bug 1522699] Upgrade perl-experimental to 0.019

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1522699 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- perl-experimental-0.019-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See

[Bug 1523888] New: perl-libwww-perl-6.30 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1523888 Bug ID: 1523888 Summary: perl-libwww-perl-6.30 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: perl-libwww-perl Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged Assignee:

[Bug 1523884] New: perl-DBIx-Simple-1.36 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1523884 Bug ID: 1523884 Summary: perl-DBIx-Simple-1.36 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: perl-DBIx-Simple Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged Assignee:

[Bug 1522699] Upgrade perl-experimental to 0.019

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1522699 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA

[Bug 1523427] perl-Iterator-Simple-0.07 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1523427 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA

[Bug 1522709] Upgrade perl-BibTeX-Parser to 1.01

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1522709 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA

[Bug 1510220] perl-Finance-Quote-1.42 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1510220 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|perl-Finance-Quote-1.43-1.f

[Bug 1509722] perl-Finance-Quote-1.40 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1509722 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|perl-Finance-Quote-1.41-1.f

[Bug 1511240] perl-Finance-Quote-1.45 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1511240 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|perl-Finance-Quote-1.47-1.f

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

The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing: Age URL 1006 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-1087 dokuwiki-0-0.24.20140929c.el7 768 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-dac7ed832f mcollective-2.8.4-1.el7 350

[Bug 1408326] build perl-EV for EPEL7

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1408326 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA

[Bug 1510678] perl-Finance-Quote-1.44 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1510678 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|perl-Finance-Quote-1.47-1.f

[Bug 1511240] perl-Finance-Quote-1.45 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1511240 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|perl-Finance-Quote-1.47-1.f

[Bug 1510678] perl-Finance-Quote-1.44 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1510678 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|perl-Finance-Quote-1.47-1.f

[Bug 1512341] perl-Finance-Quote-1.47 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1512341 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|perl-Finance-Quote-1.47-1.f

[Bug 1515805] perl-Module-CoreList-5.20171120 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1515805 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- perl-Module-CoreList-5.20171120-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You

[Bug 1523894] perl-Protocol-WebSocket-0.22 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1523894 --- Comment #2 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- hotness's scratch build of perl-Protocol-WebSocket-0.22-1.el7.src.rpm for rawhide completed

[Bug 1523894] perl-Protocol-WebSocket-0.22 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1523894 --- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- Created attachment 1365073 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1365073=edit [patch] Update to 0.22 (#1523894) -- You are

[Bug 1523894] New: perl-Protocol-WebSocket-0.22 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1523894 Bug ID: 1523894 Summary: perl-Protocol-WebSocket-0.22 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: perl-Protocol-WebSocket Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged