Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

2019-08-15 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 15. 08. 19 v 14:40 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): > > > Dne 15. 08. 19 v 13:36 Pavel Valena napsal(a): >> - Original Message - >>> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 12:42:02 PM >>> Subject: Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy >>> >>> On 15. 08. 19 12:06, Vít Ondruch wrote: At the end, if

Re: Why retire Python 2 packages and games that still work to end user ?

2019-08-15 Thread Miro Hrončok
On 15. 08. 19 14:33, Kevin Kofler wrote: What is more work: maintaining one compatibility package, or porting hundreds of packages (which are not getting ported upstream for whatever reason) to the new incompatible version? Once more: The one package you keep talking about stays. -- Miro

Re: when will bodhi (updates) recognize fc31/f31 updates

2019-08-15 Thread Alexander Bokovoy
On to, 15 elo 2019, Kaleb Keithley wrote: I've tried to submit a build on f31 to testing, using both the cli and via the web site, and both are failing On the web site I get a popup with: Builds : Cannot find release associated with build: nfs-ganesha-2.8.2-5.fc31, tags: ['f31'] fedpkg update

Re: when will bodhi (updates) recognize fc31/f31 updates

2019-08-15 Thread Kaleb Keithley
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:21 AM Alexander Bokovoy wrote: > On to, 15 elo 2019, Kaleb Keithley wrote: > >I've tried to submit a build on f31 to testing, using both the cli and via > >the web site, and both are failing > > > >On the web site I get a popup with: Builds : Cannot find release >

Re: Why retire Python 2 packages and games that still work to end user ?

2019-08-15 Thread Kevin Kofler
Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > I've been seeing migrations like this for d decades, with major > releases of many software tools. Preserving legacy versions, forever, > is the precise opposite of "scalable". What is more work: maintaining one compatibility package, or porting hundreds of packages

Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

2019-08-15 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 15. 08. 19 v 13:36 Pavel Valena napsal(a): > - Original Message - >> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 12:42:02 PM >> Subject: Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy >> >> On 15. 08. 19 12:06, Vít Ondruch wrote: >>> At the end, if somebody cares about such cases, it should not be hard to

Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

2019-08-15 Thread Gerald Henriksen
On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 11:23:53 -0500, you wrote: >So in summary, I guess I mostly support allowing packages which can't be >rebuilt to stay in the distribution as long as they actually work and >aren't causing maintenance burden elsewhere On the other hand, unbuildable packages could be viewed as

Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

2019-08-15 Thread Pavel Valena
- Original Message - > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 12:42:02 PM > Subject: Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy > > On 15. 08. 19 12:06, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > At the end, if somebody cares about such cases, it should not be hard to > > discover and act upon them, i.e. bugging the

orphaning packages recode, python-bibtex, pybliographer

2019-08-15 Thread Zoltan Kota
Hi, I am orphaning the following packages: recode -- The upstream development of recode is not very active, and I don't use it anymore. python-bibtex -- The upstream develepoment is not very active and it depends on python2. See the bug at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1738118

Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

2019-08-15 Thread Miro Hrončok
On 15. 08. 19 14:40, Vít Ondruch wrote: Interestingly enough, some people who complains the most about the process are too busy to even switch the component to assigned ... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ To rephrase: People have real work to do, so we should stop bothering them. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone:

when will bodhi (updates) recognize fc31/f31 updates

2019-08-15 Thread Kaleb Keithley
I've tried to submit a build on f31 to testing, using both the cli and via the web site, and both are failing On the web site I get a popup with: Builds : Cannot find release associated with build: nfs-ganesha-2.8.2-5.fc31, tags: ['f31'] fedpkg update gets: Could not execute update: Could not

Re: when will bodhi (updates) recognize fc31/f31 updates

2019-08-15 Thread Alexander Bokovoy
On to, 15 elo 2019, Kaleb Keithley wrote: On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:21 AM Alexander Bokovoy wrote: On to, 15 elo 2019, Kaleb Keithley wrote: >I've tried to submit a build on f31 to testing, using both the cli and via >the web site, and both are failing > >On the web site I get a popup with:

Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

2019-08-15 Thread Miro Hrončok
On 15. 08. 19 7:39, Vít Ondruch wrote: Of course you might consider this special case, but apparently all the other people who speak up had different special cases. "special cases aren't special enough to break the rules" I still think that if somebody would need to keep package unretired for

Re: Better interactivity in low-memory situations

2019-08-15 Thread Artem Tim
BFQ scheduler help a lot with this issue. Using it on Fedora since 4.19 kernel. Also there was previous discussion about make it default for Workstation https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/ker...@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/I2OZWDD4QCDYUXJ5NHYTMGNAB4KLJN2K/

Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

2019-08-15 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 15. 08. 19 v 9:33 Miro Hrončok napsal(a): > On 15. 08. 19 7:39, Vít Ondruch wrote: >> Of course you might consider this special case, but apparently all the >> other people who speak up had different special cases. > > "special cases aren't special enough to break the rules" They had either

Re: systemd-243-rc1

2019-08-15 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 02. 08. 19 v 12:33 Matthew Miller napsal(a): > On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 10:16:40AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: >> Hmm. I never really chipped into the ~ discussion, but it just occurred >> to me it intersects with a discussion I care quite a lot about: RPM >> version comparison. Especially

Re: Join the new Minimization Team

2019-08-15 Thread Adam Samalik
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 8:49 PM Robbie Harwood wrote: > > Here's the scriptlet: > > > > %triggerun libs -- krb5-libs < 1.15.1-5 > > if ! grep -q 'includedir /etc/krb5.conf.d' /etc/krb5.conf ; then > > sed -i '1i # To opt out of the system crypto-policies > > configuration of krb5, > > remove

Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

2019-08-15 Thread Miro Hrončok
On 15. 08. 19 12:06, Vít Ondruch wrote: At the end, if somebody cares about such cases, it should not be hard to discover and act upon them, i.e. bugging the maintainer, fixing them, taking over the maintenance etc. This part is problematic. Because it requires human action that can be seen as

Re: RFC: Drop lz4-static

2019-08-15 Thread David Sommerseth
On 14/08/2019 23:08, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >> "DS" == David Sommerseth writes: > > DS> As I can see it, there is little benefit of removing lz4-static. > > Isn't that entirely the decision of those maintaining the package? It's > still completely reasonable if they want to remove it

Re: What other external trackers would you like added to Bugzilla?

2019-08-15 Thread Ankur Sinha
Hello, Thanks for the links folks. If there are any others, please reply to this e-mail today. I'll submit our request tomorrow. -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD" (He / Him / His) | https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Time zone: Europe/London signature.asc Description:

Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

2019-08-15 Thread Panu Matilainen
On 8/14/19 8:22 PM, Ben Cotton wrote: I want to publicly express my appreciation for Miro's efforts to enforce our policy and his willingness to take the hits from people being rightly upset at its flaws. Seconded. FWIW. - Panu - ___ devel

unable to branch to epel8

2019-08-15 Thread Dave Love
I've tried to get a couple of epel8 branches created, and the tickets have been closed (twice in one case after I re-opened it) with "The branch in PDC already exists". (It worked for other packages.) I don't know what PDC is, but the branch definitely isn't in git. An example is

Re: RFC: Drop lz4-static

2019-08-15 Thread Japheth Cleaver
On 8/14/2019 2:08 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: "DS" == David Sommerseth writes: DS> As I can see it, there is little benefit of removing lz4-static. Isn't that entirely the decision of those maintaining the package? It's still completely reasonable if they want to remove it for no other

Re: Requesting F31 branches

2019-08-15 Thread Robert-André Mauchin
On Wednesday, 14 August 2019 18:40:53 CEST Gwyn Ciesla via devel wrote: > I believe Mohan has corrected this in git, but hasn't cut a release yet. > > -- > Gwyn Ciesla > she/her/hers > > in your fear, seek only peace > in your fear, seek only

Re: Requesting F31 branches

2019-08-15 Thread Gwyn Ciesla via devel
CCing Mohan. --  Gwyn Ciesla she/her/hers   in your fear, seek only peace  in your fear, seek only love -d. bowie Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Thursday, August 15, 2019 11:26 AM, Robert-André Mauchin

Re: Requesting F31 branches

2019-08-15 Thread Stephen Gallagher
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 1:21 PM Gwyn Ciesla via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > CCing Mohan. > > > -- > Gwyn Ciesla > she/her/hers > > in your fear, seek only peace > in your fear, seek only love > -d. bowie > > Sent with ProtonMail

Re: bootctl: no entry could be determined as default (Was: Upgrade to F30 gone wrong)

2019-08-15 Thread Dridi Boukelmoune
> Well, it went through many revisions, and some of the bits are very > recent. For example, the pre-boot random seed stuff has been added in > v243, of which we only posted an -rc1 so far, > > However, the basics have been around very early on, yes. Well, from someone not versed in bios, efi and

Taskjuggler COPR and its relevance

2019-08-15 Thread Ankur Sinha
Hello, It somehow slipped my radar that rubygem-taskjuggler had been retired. Even though upstream isn't exactly active, the current git HEAD builds fine. I've set it up in a COPR here now: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/ankursinha/Takjuggler The updated spec and sources are here on my

Re: ppc64le Rawhide VM issues

2019-08-15 Thread Scott Talbert
On Thu, 15 Aug 2019, Greg Hellings wrote: I'm trying to track down a build error in my package that appears only on ppc64le architectures in Rawhide. As I have no access to ppc64le machines, I'm attempting to boot a VM with qemu. But when I get into the system many of the more useful commands

ppc64le Rawhide VM issues

2019-08-15 Thread Greg Hellings
Halp! I'm trying to track down a build error in my package that appears only on ppc64le architectures in Rawhide. As I have no access to ppc64le machines, I'm attempting to boot a VM with qemu. But when I get into the system many of the more useful commands aren't working properly. Like "dnf".

Re: unable to branch to epel8

2019-08-15 Thread Robert-André Mauchin
On Thursday, 15 August 2019 12:18:12 CEST Dave Love wrote: > I've tried to get a couple of epel8 branches created, and the tickets > have been closed (twice in one case after I re-opened it) with "The > branch in PDC already exists". (It worked for other packages.) I don't > know what PDC is,

Re: Requesting F31 branches

2019-08-15 Thread Kevin Fenzi
On 8/15/19 11:03 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 1:21 PM Gwyn Ciesla via devel < > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > >> CCing Mohan. >> >> >> -- >> Gwyn Ciesla >> she/her/hers >> >> in your fear, seek only peace >> in

Re: Unresponsive SIG Leader

2019-08-15 Thread Richard Shaw
SIGs are more of a mediocrity so Bob may be one of the founders but whether he's still active or not is irrelevant. :) Just edit the wiki to join and dig in! I took over maintenance of a lot of the packages NBEMS suite (fldigi, flrig, flmsg, etc), QSSTV, CQRLOG, wsjtx, js8call, the AX.25 stack

Re: Better interactivity in low-memory situations

2019-08-15 Thread Chris Murphy
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 2:19 PM Chris Murphy wrote: > > [ 718.068633] fmac.local kernel: SLUB: Unable to allocate memory on > node -1, gfp=0x900(GFP_NOWAIT|__GFP_ZERO) > [ 718.068636] fmac.local kernel: cache: page->ptl, object size: 72, > buffer size: 72, default order: 0, min order: 0 > [

Re: Better interactivity in low-memory situations

2019-08-15 Thread David Airlie
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 7:48 AM Chris Murphy wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 2:19 PM Chris Murphy wrote: > > > > [ 718.068633] fmac.local kernel: SLUB: Unable to allocate memory on > > node -1, gfp=0x900(GFP_NOWAIT|__GFP_ZERO) > > [ 718.068636] fmac.local kernel: cache: page->ptl, object

Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

2019-08-15 Thread Adam Williamson
On Thu, 2019-08-15 at 09:33 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 15. 08. 19 7:39, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > Of course you might consider this special case, but apparently all the > > other people who speak up had different special cases. > > "special cases aren't special enough to break the rules" > > I

Re: bootctl: no entry could be determined as default (Was: Upgrade to F30 gone wrong)

2019-08-15 Thread Chris Murphy
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 9:14 AM Dridi Boukelmoune wrote: > > > Well, it went through many revisions, and some of the bits are very > > recent. For example, the pre-boot random seed stuff has been added in > > v243, of which we only posted an -rc1 so far, > > > > However, the basics have been

Re: Better interactivity in low-memory situations

2019-08-15 Thread Chris Murphy
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 1:51 AM Artem Tim wrote: > > BFQ scheduler help a lot with this issue. Using it on Fedora since 4.19 > kernel. Also there was previous discussion about make it default for > Workstation >

Re: when will bodhi (updates) recognize fc31/f31 updates

2019-08-15 Thread Kevin Fenzi
On 8/15/19 7:44 AM, Alexander Bokovoy wrote: > On to, 15 elo 2019, Kaleb Keithley wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:21 AM Alexander Bokovoy >> wrote: >> >>> On to, 15 elo 2019, Kaleb Keithley wrote: >>> >I've tried to submit a build on f31 to testing, using both the cli >>> and via >>> >the

Re: Requesting F31 branches

2019-08-15 Thread Gwyn Ciesla via devel
Will do. --  Gwyn Ciesla she/her/hers   in your fear, seek only peace  in your fear, seek only love -d. bowie Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Thursday, August 15, 2019 1:06 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On

Re: Unresponsive SIG Leader

2019-08-15 Thread Kevin Fenzi
On 8/13/19 4:21 AM, Geoffrey Marr wrote: > I have tried to join the Amateur Radio SIG twice, once in January, and > again recently in August. The owner, Bob Jensen [0], does not seem to be > around any longer in the Fedora community or the amateur radio community as > his FCC license has expired

Re: unable to branch to epel8

2019-08-15 Thread Kevin Fenzi
On 8/15/19 3:18 AM, Dave Love wrote: > I've tried to get a couple of epel8 branches created, and the tickets > have been closed (twice in one case after I re-opened it) with "The > branch in PDC already exists". (It worked for other packages.) I don't > know what PDC is, but the branch

Re: ppc64le Rawhide VM issues

2019-08-15 Thread Steven Munroe
> My qemu boot command is currently: > qemu-system-ppc64 -m 2048 -smp 2 -machine pseries -cpu power9 -hda -cdrom Looks like you are running an LE image in the BE machine: try qemu-system-ppc64le ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Where are f31 packages going?

2019-08-15 Thread Richard Shaw
Please disregard, just found the thread covering this. Thanks, Richard ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct:

Where are f31 packages going?

2019-08-15 Thread Richard Shaw
Now that f32 has branched when I build packages for f31 I can't add them to a bodhi update nor are they added automatically. Is f31 acting like pre-gating rawhide or are the packages going into the nether? Thanks, Richard ___ devel mailing list --

Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

2019-08-15 Thread Richard Shaw
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 1:33 PM Adam Williamson wrote: > Or just fix it so it damn well builds. Even if *you* don't need to use > it. I mean, is it so hard? I get *itchy* if I have an FTBFS bug on one > of my packages for three days. I can't imagine letting one sit there > for six months! > I

Missing arches on EPEL 8 for LibRaw?

2019-08-15 Thread Richard Shaw
I assume this is because LibRaw is available in RHEL but only for x86_64 and ppc64le? So I'm assuming there is some sort of procedure to build only for s390x and aarch64 for EPEL? Thanks, Richard ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

2019-08-15 Thread Kevin Kofler
Richard Shaw wrote: > Perhaps a partial solution is encouraging people to ask for help. Sure > it's easy to post to the devel list but sometimes it's difficult to admit > you need help :) IMHO, it should be the job of those people who broke the packages to fix them. E.g., if yet another

Re: Why retire Python 2 packages and games that still work to end user ?

2019-08-15 Thread Kevin Kofler
Miro Hrončok wrote: > Once more: The one package you keep talking about stays. The python2 package stays, but we have to jump through completely unreasonable hoops to be allowed to actually use it. Kevin Kofler ___ devel mailing list --

[Bug 1741573] New: Upgrade perl-Data-ICal to 0.23

2019-08-15 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1741573 Bug ID: 1741573 Summary: Upgrade perl-Data-ICal to 0.23 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-Data-ICal Assignee: rc040...@freenet.de

[EPEL-devel] Re: how to use epel8-playground?

2019-08-15 Thread Troy Dawson
That's not the error I was getting. I gave it a try also, and got the same error as you. I'd say, re-request the branches. When they try to re-make a branch that is already there, it will just say that the branch is already there, if it isn't, then it will make it. No real harm in

[Bug 1740157] Upgrade perl-IO-Compress-Lzma to 2.087

2019-08-15 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1740157 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |NEW Resolution|RAWHIDE

[EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL 8 not finding buildroot overrides

2019-08-15 Thread Troy Dawson
Oh ... then there really is a problem. 12 hours (or longer) is a very long time for a package to not make it into the repo. The longest I had to wait was 4 hours, because I was doing things in the middle of the F31 mass rebuild. I'm afraid helping with this is above my fedora permissions. I

[Bug 1741574] New: Upgrade perl-DateTime-Calendar-Julian to 0.101

2019-08-15 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1741574 Bug ID: 1741574 Summary: Upgrade perl-DateTime-Calendar-Julian to 0.101 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-DateTime-Calendar-Julian Assignee:

[Bug 1739463] perldoc -f '<>' complains about pod errors

2019-08-15 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1739463 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED Fixed In Version|

pghmcfc pushed to perl-MCE-Shared (master). "Update to 1.844 (..more)"

2019-08-15 Thread notifications
Notification time stamped 2019-08-15 10:28:43 UTC From 9680086198dc9542bec569d9e4992e5b0c189271 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Paul Howarth Date: Aug 15 2019 10:27:59 + Subject: Update to 1.844 - New upstream release 1.844 - Completed validation running Kelp and Raisin apps with

pghmcfc pushed to perl-Specio (master). "Update to 0.44 (..more)"

2019-08-15 Thread notifications
Notification time stamped 2019-08-15 10:04:49 UTC From 62b9138893d3dcb030bbf9d391a818846a703377 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Paul Howarth Date: Aug 15 2019 10:04:04 + Subject: Update to 0.44 - New upstream release 0.44 - Replaced the use of B with XString if it is installed; the latter

pghmcfc pushed to perl-MCE-Shared (f31). "Update to 1.844 (..more)"

2019-08-15 Thread notifications
Notification time stamped 2019-08-15 10:39:08 UTC From 9680086198dc9542bec569d9e4992e5b0c189271 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Paul Howarth Date: Aug 15 2019 10:27:59 + Subject: Update to 1.844 - New upstream release 1.844 - Completed validation running Kelp and Raisin apps with

pghmcfc pushed to perl-Specio (f31). "Update to 0.44 (..more)"

2019-08-15 Thread notifications
Notification time stamped 2019-08-15 10:14:34 UTC From 62b9138893d3dcb030bbf9d391a818846a703377 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Paul Howarth Date: Aug 15 2019 10:04:04 + Subject: Update to 0.44 - New upstream release 0.44 - Replaced the use of B with XString if it is installed; the latter

[EPEL-devel] Re: EPEL 8 not finding buildroot overrides

2019-08-15 Thread Orion Poplawski
On 8/15/19 7:31 AM, Troy Dawson wrote: > Oh ... then there really is a problem. 12 hours (or longer) is a very > long time for a package to not make it into the repo. The longest I > had to wait was 4 hours, because I was doing things in the middle of > the F31 mass rebuild. > I'm afraid helping

[Bug 1741574] Upgrade perl-DateTime-Calendar-Julian to 0.101

2019-08-15 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1741574 Tom "spot" Callaway changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|---

spot pushed to perl-DateTime-Calendar-Julian (f31). "update to 0.101"

2019-08-15 Thread notifications
Notification time stamped 2019-08-15 17:06:33 UTC From 067bde8a3f3a3c470e4f5a3766c3ac3861a0e415 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tom Callaway Date: Aug 15 2019 17:02:49 + Subject: update to 0.101 --- diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore index fe14587..6467202 100644 --- a/.gitignore +++

[EPEL-devel] What to do about missing gcc-objc from RHEL8?

2019-08-15 Thread Orion Poplawski
What to do about missing gcc-objc from RHEL8? Are there alternative compilers yet that we can access? Will we have to package gcc-objc for EPEL8 separately? -- Orion Poplawski Manager of NWRA Technical Systems 720-772-5637 NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702 3380

spot pushed to perl-DateTime-Calendar-Julian (master). "update to 0.101"

2019-08-15 Thread notifications
Notification time stamped 2019-08-15 17:02:55 UTC From 067bde8a3f3a3c470e4f5a3766c3ac3861a0e415 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tom Callaway Date: Aug 15 2019 17:02:49 + Subject: update to 0.101 --- diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore index fe14587..6467202 100644 --- a/.gitignore +++

[EPEL-devel] Re: how to use epel8-playground?

2019-08-15 Thread Dave Dykstra
Troy, I did fedpkg request-branch epel8 and it did indeed make two issues. Looking back at all issues that I previously had requested, last time it only made one issues for epel8 and did not make the epel8-playground issue. I wonder how many other people had or will have the same problem. I

[EPEL-devel] Fedora EPEL 6 updates-testing report

2019-08-15 Thread updates
The following builds have been pushed to Fedora EPEL 6 updates-testing clustershell-1.8.2-1.el6 procenv-0.51-1.el6 python-regex-2019.06.08-1.el6 Details about builds: clustershell-1.8.2-1.el6

[EPEL-devel] Re: What to do about missing gcc-objc from RHEL8?

2019-08-15 Thread Troy Dawson
Note: I am not an expert of gcc-objc. I just see that it wasn't built with the RHEL8 gcc and I'm answering accordingly. Someone else might have different, better answers. On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 9:14 AM Orion Poplawski wrote: > > What to do about missing gcc-objc from RHEL8? Open a customer

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

2019-08-15 Thread updates
The following builds have been pushed to Fedora EPEL 8 updates-testing Lmod-8.1.10-2.el8 aalib-1.4.0-0.37.rc5.el8 byobu-5.129-2.el8 clustershell-1.8.2-1.el8 cros-guest-tools-1.0-0.16.20190815git4e1b573.el8 dar-2.6.5-2.el8 hdf-4.2.14-5.el8 libxsmm-1.13-2.el8

[EPEL-devel] 2 weeks in testing for new packages?

2019-08-15 Thread Richard Shaw
Does it make sense for packages to wait in testing for two weeks when they are new packages? For example, all the packages I'm building for the first time in epel8... Even outside of new packages I rarely get karma for my Fedora packages, much less for my EPEL packages and two weeks is a "long

[389-devel] 389 DS nightly 2019-08-16 - 96% PASS

2019-08-15 Thread vashirov
https://fedorapeople.org/groups/389ds/ci/nightly/2019/08/16/report-389-ds-base-1.4.1.6-20190815gitca915d5.fc30.x86_64.html ___ 389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to

[EPEL-devel] Re: Missing arches on EPEL 8 for LibRaw?

2019-08-15 Thread Orion Poplawski
(Moving to EPEL list) On 8/15/19 10:22 PM, Richard Shaw wrote: I assume this is because LibRaw is available in RHEL but only for x86_64 and ppc64le? So I'm assuming there is some sort of procedure to build only for s390x and aarch64 for EPEL? Yes, many libs appear to be missing on those

[389-devel] Re: Please review: Issue 50206 - Account IDM CLI - WIP

2019-08-15 Thread William Brown
Sure thing, I'll look soon :) > On 16 Aug 2019, at 11:55, Simon Pichugin wrote: > > Hi team, > I have a big chunk of work ready for review. > The main part is done and I just need to polish it a bit more and add > more tests. > > In a mean while... > > William, could you please take a look?

[389-devel] Please review: Issue 50206 - Account IDM CLI - WIP

2019-08-15 Thread Simon Pichugin
Hi team, I have a big chunk of work ready for review. The main part is done and I just need to polish it a bit more and add more tests. In a mean while... William, could you please take a look? The lib389 part for Accounts is much bigger now and has much more to offer. Thanks, Simon

[389-devel] Re: Please review: Issue 50206 - Account IDM CLI - WIP

2019-08-15 Thread Simon Pichugin
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 11:56:43AM +1000, William Brown wrote: > Sure thing, I'll look soon :) Great, thanks! Forgot to put the link: https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/pull-request/50549 > > > On 16 Aug 2019, at 11:55, Simon Pichugin wrote: > > > > Hi team, > > I have a big chunk of work ready

[Bug 1739463] perldoc -f '<>' complains about pod errors

2019-08-15 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1739463 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|perl-Pod-Perldoc-3.28.01-44 |perl-Pod-Perldoc-3.28.01-44

[Bug 1741756] New: Request to build ack for EPEL 8

2019-08-15 Thread bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1741756 Bug ID: 1741756 Summary: Request to build ack for EPEL 8 Product: Fedora EPEL Version: epel8 Status: NEW Component: ack Assignee: robinlee.s...@gmail.com