Chris Murphy wrote:
> How to fix it?
d) Revert the complete BootLoaderSpecByDefault change, including reverting
grubby and the kernel.spec snippets to the F29 versions, and verify that
this fixes the issue.
This would really be the right way to deal with changes causing regressions.
It is
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 04:34:28PM -0400, Scott Talbert wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Oct 2019, Richard Shaw wrote:
>
> >I am in the midst of updating the freecad package in two major ways:
> >Qt4 -> Qt5 (via PySide -> PySide2, which also facilitates moving from Python
> >2 to 3)
> >and
> >Coin3 -> Coin4
On 10/7/19 10:23 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
I am in the midst of updating the freecad package in two major ways:
Qt4 -> Qt5 (via PySide -> PySide2, which also facilitates moving from
Python 2 to 3)
and
Coin3 -> Coin4 (Which requires several other packages move to Coin4)
I have been working with
Dne 07. 10. 19 v 16:26 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a):
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 03:15:02PM +0100, Ankur Sinha wrote:
>> Out of curiosity, what workflow do existing package maintainers user
>> while packaging new software? Is it `fedpkg` based with a folder for the
>> spec to work in? (I
On 10/8/19 8:03 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 04:34:28PM -0400, Scott Talbert wrote:
On Mon, 7 Oct 2019, Richard Shaw wrote:
I am in the midst of updating the freecad package in two major ways:
Qt4 -> Qt5 (via PySide -> PySide2, which also facilitates moving
On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 12:06 AM Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> Matthew Miller wrote:
> > A key goal of the modularity project is to allow some of the cases to be
> > better addressed by allowing packagers to think in terms of upstream
> > changes which affect user experience separate from the Fedora
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 04:39:22PM +0200, David Kaufmann wrote:
> Although I have to re-symlink SOURCES everytime I work on a different
> package I can use all of rpmbuild, mock, fedpkg,… from the same source
> folder.
You can also use a wrapper script that can be called in dist-git working
On 10/8/19 11:54 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
On Tuesday, 08 October 2019 at 08:34, Vít Ondruch wrote:
[...]
2) fedpkg would not be needed if rpmbuild would be sanely able to do
something like `fedpkg --release master srpm` but even so basic think
requires either shuffling with
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 10:57:14 +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Dne 08. 10. 19 v 1:38 Ankur Sinha napsal(a):
> > to link to the "How to create a GNU Hello world package" which focuses
> > on building the rpm only and not the rest of the process. This is here:
> >
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 09:07:14 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 12:38:21AM +0100, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 20:40:07 +0200, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I think we are talking about different things.
> > >
> >
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 12:21:05 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> Yup. If you prefer working in a dist-git like layout, just configure rpm do
> behave that way. One possibility is simply:
>
> %_topdir %{getenv:PWD}
> %_sourcedir %{_topdir}
> %_specdir %{_topdir}
> %_srcrpmdir %{_topdir}
It seems that the biggest issue with the documentation you have is the
`fedpkg` and I agree, we should not recommend it. Instead of `fedpkg`,
this should be used to create the SRPM:
~~~
$ rpmbuild --define "_sourcedir `pwd`" -bs package.spec
~~~
However, from this point, the mock should be
On Tuesday, 08 October 2019 at 08:34, Vít Ondruch wrote:
[...]
> 2) fedpkg would not be needed if rpmbuild would be sanely able to do
> something like `fedpkg --release master srpm` but even so basic think
> requires either shuffling with files on FS or specifying million of
> working directories.
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 08:32:47AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 10/8/19 8:03 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> >On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 04:34:28PM -0400, Scott Talbert wrote:
> >>On Mon, 7 Oct 2019, Richard Shaw wrote:
> >>
> >>>I am in the midst of updating the freecad package in two
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 12:38:21AM +0100, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 20:40:07 +0200, Aleksandra Fedorova wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> >
> > I think we are talking about different things.
> >
> > It all depends on which question the doc is trying to answer.
>
> So, there are two
Hello,
bzr (bazaar) FTBFS and is orphaned.
I have a Python 3 replacement called breezy (brz) ready, but it has some
problems with remote repositories on Python 3.8, so I was not ready to build it,
obsolete bzr and have a broken alternative.
However, bzr now also fails to install, so it
Dne 08. 10. 19 v 1:38 Ankur Sinha napsal(a):
to link to the "How to create a GNU Hello world package" which focuses
on building the rpm only and not the rest of the process. This is here:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/quick-docs/create-hello-world-rpm/
Unless there are strong objections,
Dne 08. 10. 19 v 11:21 Panu Matilainen napsal(a):
> On 10/8/19 11:54 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 08 October 2019 at 08:34, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>> [...]
>>> 2) fedpkg would not be needed if rpmbuild would be sanely able to do
>>> something like `fedpkg --release master
On 10/8/19 12:45 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 08. 10. 19 v 11:21 Panu Matilainen napsal(a):
On 10/8/19 11:54 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
On Tuesday, 08 October 2019 at 08:34, Vít Ondruch wrote:
[...]
2) fedpkg would not be needed if rpmbuild would be sanely able to do
something
Adding Nikola.
Nikola, is it intended that aspell doesn't depend on any dictionary? E.g.
aspell-en? Please see the email bellow.
Thanks,
Jindrich
On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 5:14 PM Tomasz Kłoczko
wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 at 15:30, Jindrich Novy wrote:
> [..]
>
>> BTW mc.
>>> Also I do not
On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 5:40 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> Hello,
> bzr (bazaar) FTBFS and is orphaned.
>
> I have a Python 3 replacement called breezy (brz) ready, but it has some
> problems with remote repositories on Python 3.8, so I was not ready to build
> it,
> obsolete bzr and have a broken
Dne 08. 10. 19 v 12:04 Ankur Sinha napsal(a):
> On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 12:21:05 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>> Yup. If you prefer working in a dist-git like layout, just configure rpm do
>> behave that way. One possibility is simply:
>>
>> %_topdir %{getenv:PWD}
>> %_sourcedir %{_topdir}
>>
On 08. 10. 19 13:19, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 5:40 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
Hello,
bzr (bazaar) FTBFS and is orphaned.
I have a Python 3 replacement called breezy (brz) ready, but it has some
problems with remote repositories on Python 3.8, so I was not ready to build it,
> bzr (bazaar) FTBFS and is orphaned.
>
> I have a Python 3 replacement called breezy (brz) ready, but it has some
> problems with remote repositories on Python 3.8, so I was not ready to build
> it,
> obsolete bzr and have a broken alternative.
>
> However, bzr now also fails to install, so it
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 02:06:06AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Sure, I fully understand the theoretical benefits to be had from Modularity
> (though I still think that this is much more useful for LTS distributions
> such as RHEL or CentOS than for Fedora). The issue is that it all breaks
>
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 01:23:01PM +0100, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 at 12:58, wrote:
>
> > Notification time stamped 2019-10-08 11:54:56 UTC
> >
> > From 26d638db91fa316f706ea947ab076bce216ec8cc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Phil Sutter
> > Date: Oct 08 2019 11:51:27
Petr, I am sorry to hear of your health problems. I hope you recover soon.
I have been following this situation but have little time to spend on this.
I personally use mercurial and depend on extensions: evolve and hg-git. I
have been quiet while working on getting these extensions ported.
- Original Message -
> From: "Matthew Miller"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2019 9:18:29 AM
> Subject: Re: Modularity and the system-upgrade path
>
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 08:08:56PM -0400, Alexander Scheel wrote:
> > > Without
My build (qpid-proton package) cannot find pythin36-devel package, I also
tried python3-devel (also not found). It appears python36 was removed from
EPEL 7 recently.
Is this still relevant:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bkabrda/EPEL7_Python3?
Is this a temporary issue with getting python3
Someone, could give us advice about below situation, if the new
package htslib's "/usr/lib64/libhts.so.1.9" is valid?
"1.9" is upstream software's version. "2" is ABI's version (so version).
```
sh-5.0# ls -l /usr/lib64/libhts.so*
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 13 Oct 2 23:50 /usr/lib64/libhts.so
On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 08:08:56PM -0400, Alexander Scheel wrote:
> > Without modularity, RPM doesn't offer a good way to choose between different
> > versions of the same thing. One can squash version numbers into the name,
> > which covers some use cases, but also becomes unwieldy and loses the
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 10:17:06AM -0400, Alexander Scheel wrote:
> > What if you want to apply a bugfix (or security update) to both of those
> > packages? How would that work?
> I'm not saying it is completely solved, just that what we have left to
> do is a lot less work than trying to fix
On Tue, 2019-10-08 at 12:22 +0200, Jindrich Novy wrote:
> Nikola, is it intended that aspell doesn't depend on any dictionary?
> E.g. aspell-en? Please see the email bellow.
Hi,
it seems it is intentional [1], this is probably the reason [2].
I suppose aspell could recommend aspell-en, to
Hi all.
I wish to maintain libcutl, recently orphaned.
Ticket #8882: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8882
--
---
Antonio Trande
Fedora Project
mailto 'sagitter at fedoraproject dot org'
GPG key: 0x6e0331dd1699e4d7
GPG key server: https://keys.openpgp.org/
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP
On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 1:35 AM Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 10/8/19 8:03 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 04:34:28PM -0400, Scott Talbert wrote:
> >> On Mon, 7 Oct 2019, Richard Shaw wrote:
> >>
> >>> I am in the midst of updating the freecad package in two major
Matthew Miller writes:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 03:20:21PM -0400, Alexander Scheel wrote:
>
>>> And where is the software for those containers coming from? Some
>>> container registry like Docker Hub? One of the main points of
>>> Modularity is to provide a trusted source of software to install
Using "BuildRequires: python%{python3_pkgversion}-devel" results in this
error:
fedpkg scratch-build
DEBUG util.py:593: No matching package to install: 'python36-devel'
On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 1:43 PM Sérgio Basto wrote:
> Now python 3.6 is shipped by RHEL 7.7 or Centos 7.7, the rules of
Minutes:
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-3/2019-10-08/modularity.2019-10-08-15.08.html
Minutes (text):
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-3/2019-10-08/modularity.2019-10-08-15.08.txt
Log:
Now python 3.6 is shipped by RHEL 7.7 or Centos 7.7, the rules
of [1] still valid so you should (or must ) use [2]
[2]BuildRequires: python%{python3_pkgversion}-devel
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bkabrda/EPEL7_Python3
On Tue, 2019-10-08 at 12:48 -0400, Irina Boverman wrote:
> My
On 08. 10. 19 18:48, Irina Boverman wrote:
My build (qpid-proton package) cannot find pythin36-devel package, I also tried
python3-devel (also not found). It appears python36 was removed from EPEL 7
recently.
Yes it was, as it was added to RHEL 7.7.
The error is:
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 07:54:37PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 08. 10. 19 18:48, Irina Boverman wrote:
> > My build (qpid-proton package) cannot find pythin36-devel package, I
> > also tried python3-devel (also not found). It appears python36 was
> > removed from EPEL 7 recently.
>
> Yes it
On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 3:42 PM John M. Harris, Jr.
wrote:
> We could simply stop doing projects that throw wildly different versions
> of software into a single installation, which causes this issue.
>
What you don't seem to appreciate, based on your comments in this thread
and others over the
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 06:42:40PM +0100, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> To be honest IMO separating aspell dictionaries is a bit illogical because
> on distribution layer language dependent resources should be described by
> %lang() and chosen on install stage by %_install_langs.
> Ergo: all "langpack"
On 10/7/19 4:34 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
To me, most packages would benefit from having two streams: fast and slow.
That's the essential problem I want solved anyway. (Maybe with CentOS
Streams: fast, slow, very slow.)
The "slow" version would be updated on a careful cadence with big updates
We could simply stop doing projects that throw wildly different versions of
software into a single installation, which causes this issue.
On October 8, 2019 6:23:47 PM UTC, Matthew Miller
wrote:
>On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 02:09:24PM -0400, Przemek Klosowski via devel
>wrote:
>> Having said that,
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 03:48:35PM -0400, Irina Boverman wrote:
> Ok, how will I know what test results are?
We will be sure to share them back here to devel and epel-devel lists.
kevin
--
>
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 2:56 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 07:54:37PM +0200,
On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 at 15:32, John M. Harris, Jr. wrote:
>
> We could simply stop doing projects that throw wildly different versions of
> software into a single installation, which causes this issue.
>
We could also just all quit and join potato farming cults.. they are
next to the Yak farms
Hi,
I have removed dependency on service B from service A and all references to
service B. The new package works well for fresh install (service A can be
started normally), but it does not work for upgrades from previous versions
where service A used to depend on service B (starting service A
Ok, how will I know what test results are?
On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 2:56 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 07:54:37PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > On 08. 10. 19 18:48, Irina Boverman wrote:
> > > My build (qpid-proton package) cannot find pythin36-devel package, I
> > > also tried
On 10/8/19 3:30 PM, John M. Harris, Jr. wrote:
We could simply stop doing projects that throw wildly different
versions of software into a single installation, which causes this issue.
There's a word for this that I can't remember at the
moment---'producting'? I think it's related to the
Hi all,
Today, October 8th 2019, is an important day on the Fedora 31
schedule [1], with significant cut-offs.
Today we have the Final Freeze [2]. This means that only packages
which fix accepted blocker or freeze exception bugs [3][4][5] will be
marked as 'stable' and included in the Final
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 02:09:24PM -0400, Przemek Klosowski via devel wrote:
> Having said that, I am not sure it will solve the problem with
> ecosystems requiring specific collection of component versions (*):
> what is the expected number of required versions for each module in
> those
On 10/8/19 6:04 AM, Ankur Sinha wrote:
Would anyone else have the cycles to review/update these pages in the
meantime please?
An update of mpfr from version 3.1.6 to version 4.0.2 is about to begin in
Rawhide in a side tag:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/mpfr-4.0.2
If you see a "Rebuild for mpfr 4" commit in your package repo, then please
coordinate with me before building your package in Rawhide. If you
On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 at 17:15, Nikola Forró wrote:
> On Tue, 2019-10-08 at 12:22 +0200, Jindrich Novy wrote:
> > Nikola, is it intended that aspell doesn't depend on any dictionary?
> > E.g. aspell-en? Please see the email bellow.
>
> Hi,
>
> it seems it is intentional [1], this is probably the
On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 at 15:49, Irina Boverman wrote:
>
> Ok, how will I know what test results are?
>
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 2:56 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 07:54:37PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
>> > On 08. 10. 19 18:48, Irina Boverman wrote:
>> > > My build (qpid-proton
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 12:58:21PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 03:48:35PM -0400, Irina Boverman wrote:
> > Ok, how will I know what test results are?
>
> We will be sure to share them back here to devel and epel-devel lists.
And... smooge and I just tested this. Sadly it
OLD: Fedora-31-20191007.n.0
NEW: Fedora-31-20191008.n.1
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 3
Added packages: 1
Dropped packages:1
Upgraded packages: 101
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 871.28 KiB
Size of dropped packages:1.16 MiB
On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 1:56 PM Irina Boverman wrote:
>
> Using "BuildRequires: python%{python3_pkgversion}-devel" results in this
> error:
>
> fedpkg scratch-build
> DEBUG util.py:593: No matching package to install: 'python36-devel'
A lot of Fedora .spec files use "python3-devel" and various
On 08. 10. 19 13:53, Peter Robinson wrote:
bzr (bazaar) FTBFS and is orphaned.
I have a Python 3 replacement called breezy (brz) ready, but it has some
problems with remote repositories on Python 3.8, so I was not ready to build it,
obsolete bzr and have a broken alternative.
However, bzr now
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 13:10:18 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
>
> I'll add this to the docs pages when I find time. It can go in the
> "prepare your system" section:
>
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/quick-docs/creating-rpm-packages/#preparing-your-system-to-create-rpm-packages
>
Hi,
On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 at 12:58, wrote:
> Notification time stamped 2019-10-08 11:54:56 UTC
>
> From 26d638db91fa316f706ea947ab076bce216ec8cc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Phil Sutter
> Date: Oct 08 2019 11:51:27 +
> Subject: iproute-5.3.0-2
>
>
> - ifcfg script uses killall, therefore
On 08. 10. 19 14:04, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 08. 10. 19 13:53, Peter Robinson wrote:
bzr (bazaar) FTBFS and is orphaned.
I have a Python 3 replacement called breezy (brz) ready, but it has some
problems with remote repositories on Python 3.8, so I was not ready to build it,
obsolete bzr and
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 13:03:48 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>
>
> Look, I'm no more in love with the traditional layout than anybody, I'm just
> saying changing the default is not as simple as you'd like to think. Anybody
> wanting to work on changing the default is welcome to propose it
- Original Message -
> From: "Vít Ondruch"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2019 1:10:18 PM
> Subject: Re: Has fedpkg + dist-git replaced rpmbuild for building new/local
> packages?
>
>
>
>
> Dne 08. 10. 19 v 12:04 Ankur Sinha napsal(a):
>
>
>
> On
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758589
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--- Comment #3 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1754947
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--- Comment #5 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1759039
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--- Comment #2 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758580
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--- Comment #3 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1759470
Bug ID: 1759470
Summary: Upgrade perl-Mail-DKIM to 0.57
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Mail-DKIM
Assignee: emman...@seyman.fr
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1759468
Bug ID: 1759468
Summary: Upgrade perl-Cairo to 1.107
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Cairo
Assignee: tcall...@redhat.com
Reporter:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1759273
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |MODIFIED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1759489
Bug ID: 1759489
Summary: perl-Net-Patricia packages for EPEL 8
Product: Fedora EPEL
Version: epel8
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Component:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1759273
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1759376
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1759042
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--- Comment #2 from
We are sad to announce that we will be dropping the aarch64 release
from EPEL-7 repository. The aarch64 has been built in Red Hat
Enterprise Linux as an alternative architecture which was supported
with different kernels and other libraries. With the release of
RHEL-8.0, Red Hat has decided to not
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1752674
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--- Comment #2 from
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 07:54:37PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 08. 10. 19 18:48, Irina Boverman wrote:
> > My build (qpid-proton package) cannot find pythin36-devel package, I
> > also tried python3-devel (also not found). It appears python36 was
> > removed from EPEL 7 recently.
>
> Yes it
Dear all,
You are kindly invited to the meeting:
EPEL Steering Co on 2019-10-09 from 18:00:00 to 19:00:00 GMT
At freenode@fedora-meeting
The meeting will be about:
This is the weekly EPEL Steering Committee Meeting. A general agenda is the
following:
#meetingname EPEL
#topic
On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 03:48:35PM -0400, Irina Boverman wrote:
> Ok, how will I know what test results are?
We will be sure to share them back here to devel and epel-devel lists.
kevin
--
>
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 2:56 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 07:54:37PM +0200,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758720
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #2 from
The following Fedora EPEL 8 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
9 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-4ca0c60e5b
mbedtls-2.16.3-1.el8
1 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-04183e6fbf
scapy-2.4.3-2.el8
The following builds have been
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1759044
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #3 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1759040
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #3 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1759041
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #3 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758577
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #3 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758596
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #3 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758586
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #4 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758970
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #2 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1752812
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #2 from
Hi all,
Today, October 8th 2019, is an important day on the Fedora 31
schedule [1], with significant cut-offs.
Today we have the Final Freeze [2]. This means that only packages
which fix accepted blocker or freeze exception bugs [3][4][5] will be
marked as 'stable' and included in the Final
On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 at 15:49, Irina Boverman wrote:
>
> Ok, how will I know what test results are?
>
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 2:56 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 07:54:37PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
>> > On 08. 10. 19 18:48, Irina Boverman wrote:
>> > > My build (qpid-proton
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1759733
Bug ID: 1759733
Summary: perl-IO-Pager-1.01 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-IO-Pager
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
Hi everyone,
In our previous catch up (about 4/5 weeks ago when I was visiting Matus/Simon),
we talked about nunc-stans and getting it at least cleaned up and into the code
base.
I've been looking at it again, and really thinking about it and reflecting on
it and I have a lot of questions and
I retired this:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/overrides/python-rpm-macros-3-31.el7
To allow epel 7 builds get the RHEL7.7 3-32.el7 version.
--
Orion Poplawski
Manager of NWRA Technical Systems 720-772-5637
NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane
On 10/8/19 7:32 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
I retired this:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/overrides/python-rpm-macros-3-31.el7
To allow epel 7 builds get the RHEL7.7 3-32.el7 version.
As a heads up - this will cause %py3_build to use /usr/bin/python3
rather than /usr/bin/python3.6 - which
https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/pull-request/50641
I noticed this with 389-ds-portal when a user couldn't self-change their
password. Opps!
--
Sincerely,
William
___
389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an
On 10/8/19 4:55 PM, William Brown wrote:
Hi everyone,
In our previous catch up (about 4/5 weeks ago when I was visiting Matus/Simon),
we talked about nunc-stans and getting it at least cleaned up and into the code
base.
I've been looking at it again, and really thinking about it and
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1753028
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |MODIFIED
--- Comment #1 from
1 - 100 of 108 matches
Mail list logo
