On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 15:47, Richard Shaw wrote:
>
> 4. I'm not a C/C++ programmer and certainly not a security expert. If I can
> find a link to a fix for another distro, such as debian, I'll apply it but
> more often than not there's nothing there when I look. I'll even file an
> issue
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 1/35 (x86_64)
ID: 515952 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_default_upload
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/515952
Passed openQA tests: 20/35 (x86_64)
Skipped non-gating openQA tests: 14 of 35
--
Mail generated by
On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 10:18 PM Chris wrote:
>
> > I assume most package maintainers are not simultaneously upstream for their
> > packages.
>
> I would definitely agree with that! Just to clarify further, I guess i was
> hoping that Anitya could be smart enough to detect that a bugzilla
Thanks a lot Fabio,
I've done as you suggested! Your swift reply and answer was much
appreciated!
Chris
On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 4:24 PM Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 10:18 PM Chris wrote:
> >
> > > I assume most package maintainers are not simultaneously upstream for
> their
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 3:59 PM Robbie Harwood wrote:
> Richard Shaw writes:
>
> > Not replying to anyone in particular but to the thead as a whole...
> >
> > 1. Nothing in the packager introduction process prepares a packager
> > for what to do when they get a CVE filed against one of their
> >
On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 10:06 PM Chris wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I was just curious if there as a way to dial back the Upstream Release
> Monitoring and the automatic Bugzilla ticket generation from it?
>
> I pushed a new release of my software to PyPi and I swear before I even got
> access to the
No missing expected images.
Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check!
6 of 43 required tests failed, 17 results missing
openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING**
below
Failed openQA tests: 52/158 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm)
Old failures (same test failed in
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 17:59, Robbie Harwood wrote:
> Richard Shaw writes:
>
> > Not replying to anyone in particular but to the thead as a whole...
> >
> > 1. Nothing in the packager introduction process prepares a packager
> > for what to do when they get a CVE filed against one of their
> >
> I assume most package maintainers are not simultaneously upstream for
their packages.
I would definitely agree with that! Just to clarify further, I guess i was
hoping that Anitya could be smart enough to detect that a bugzilla wouldn't
be necessary to be created in the event it's found already
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20200131.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20200201.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:6
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 14
Dropped packages:4
Upgraded packages: 173
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 3.93 MiB
Size of dropped packages
Hi,
I was just curious if there as a way to dial back the Upstream Release
Monitoring and the automatic Bugzilla ticket generation from it?
I pushed a new release of my software to PyPi and I swear before I even got
access to the shell again (from the successful twine upload message), I was
On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 at 19:58, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>
>> From
>> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Package_maintainer_responsibilities/#_deal_with_reported_bugs_in_a_timely_manner
>> :
>>
>> It is recommended that non-coder packagers should find
>> co-maintainers who are
Greetings.
Aside from a few stragglers, the mass rebuild is complete.
However, we ran into a number of builds that failed at the start of the
mass rebuild due to some problems with s390x builders.
Due to that and also to reduce the chance of any failed builds being
caused by builder or network
Dan Čermák writes:
> Rahul Sundaram writes:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 10:46 AM Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Welcome to our lives!
>>> If it was mathematically possible to go above 100% that's how much
>>> agreement you
>>> would have from us.
>>>
>>
>> If Red Hat is using
No missing expected images.
Passed openQA tests: 1/1 (x86_64)
--
Mail generated by check-compose:
https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
No missing expected images.
Passed openQA tests: 1/1 (x86_64)
--
Mail generated by check-compose:
https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
On 31. 01. 20 15:01, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
On Friday, 31 January 2020 at 14:52, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 2:47 pm, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
wrote:
I'm very well aware of the above, but I'm forced to use some proprietary
software that is linked
On 31/01/2020 11:22, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
Anyway the news is that none of these branches can be compiled with
our OCaml 4.10.0-beta-1 compiler.
Thanks for picking this up. FWIW (in my limited role as the one who built
unison227 for EPEL6), I have no interest (or ability) to engage in
> > > I'm very well aware of the above, but I'm forced to use some proprietary
> > > software that is linked against gstreamer 0.10, so I need to maintain
> > > these until the software in question gets ported to gstreamer1.
> >
> > gstreamer0.10 has not received security updates -- or security
On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 12:59 AM Erich Eickmeyer
wrote:
>
> Hello all!
>
> I'm Erich, the current project leader of Ubuntu Studio, the
> creativity-oriented flavor of Ubuntu. I've been leading that project for the
> past two years.
Hi Erich!
> In that time, my team and I have taken Ubuntu
On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 8:43 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> On 01. 02. 20 8:36, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > On 01. 02. 20 0:31, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> >> Hi everybody,
> >>
> >> I've noticed these a few times now, and I have *no idea* where this is
> >> coming from, for example:
> >>
> >> dnf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1797226
Bug ID: 1797226
Summary: perl-Archive-Tar-2.34 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Archive-Tar
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1797253
--- Comment #2 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
the-new-hotness/release-monitoring.org's scratch build of
perl-Net-Amazon-S3-0.88-1.fc30.src.rpm for rawhide failed
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=41314264
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1797258
Bug ID: 1797258
Summary: perl-SVG-TT-Graph-1.03 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-SVG-TT-Graph
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1797253
--- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
Created attachment 1657056
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1657056=edit
[patch] Update to 0.88 (#1797253)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1797253
Bug ID: 1797253
Summary: perl-Net-Amazon-S3-0.88 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Net-Amazon-S3
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1796684
Upstream Release Monitoring
changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|perl-Data-Serializer-0.64
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1797154
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #6 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1797154
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System ---
perl-Modern-Perl-1.20200201-1.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1797154
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System ---
perl-Modern-Perl-1.20200201-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See
The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
536 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-3c9292b62d
condor-8.6.11-1.el7
278 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-c499781e80
python-gnupg-0.4.4-1.el7
276
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1797154
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System ---
perl-Modern-Perl-1.20200201-1.el8 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See
Greetings.
Aside from a few stragglers, the mass rebuild is complete.
However, we ran into a number of builds that failed at the start of the
mass rebuild due to some problems with s390x builders.
Due to that and also to reduce the chance of any failed builds being
caused by builder or network
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1797154
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |MODIFIED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1797154
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2020-5beba3f1cf has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-5beba3f1cf
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1797154
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-EPEL-2020-d3d9330260 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-d3d9330260
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1797154
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-EPEL-2020-9a6cb765c1 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-9a6cb765c1
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1797154
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2020-0768d1e3fb has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-0768d1e3fb
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
38 matches
Mail list logo
