Fedora 34 Change: Make selinux-policy up-to-date with the latest kernel (Self-Contained Change proposal)

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Make_selinux_policy_uptodate_with_current_kernel == Summary == Add new permissions, classes, and capabilities to the selinux policy so that system recognizes them, can boot without an error message, and use them in the actual policy for confined services.

Re: Fedora 34 Change: Remove Python2 RPM Macros (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 3:57 PM Ben Cotton wrote: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Remove_Python2_RPM_Macros > > > == Summary == > The {{package|python2-rpm-macros}} package (containing > `/usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.python2`) will be removed from Fedora 34 > and newer. The python2 RPM

Fedora 34 Change: Remove Python2 RPM Macros (Self-Contained Change proposal)

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Remove_Python2_RPM_Macros == Summary == The {{package|python2-rpm-macros}} package (containing `/usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.python2`) will be removed from Fedora 34 and newer. The python2 RPM macros will ceases to exist. Python 2 packages are already not

Fedora 35 Change: Retire python3.5 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RetirePython3.5 == Summary == The {{package|python3.5}} package will be retired without replacement from [[Releases/35|Fedora 35]]. Python 3.5 has been End of Life since September 2020 and was kept around only to test software targeting Ubuntu 16.04 “Xenial

Re: Is there interest in Quantum computing in Fedora?

On Friday, January 15, 2021 7:08:34 PM WET Matthew Miller wrote: > As I understand it, IBM's state of the art beats that by one already! I knew that the number was higher than 64, but then I would ruin the joke. :-) At the same time if we do not measure it the number could be 64. :-D This is

Re: libelf now depends on openssl

"Colin Walters" writes: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2021, at 9:47 AM, Simo Sorce wrote: >> >> There is of course no problem to have it in Fedora, but if this is >> something that is going to end up in RHEL one day, it would be better >> to do the work now to make it use OpenSSL rather than scramble

Re: Fedora 34 Change: Remove Python2 RPM Macros (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 10:58 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 3:57 PM Ben Cotton wrote: > > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Remove_Python2_RPM_Macros > > > > > > == Summary == > > The {{package|python2-rpm-macros}} package (containing > >

[Test-Announce] 2021-01-18 @ 16:00 UTC - Fedora QA Meeting

# Fedora Quality Assurance Meeting # Date: 2021-01-18 # Time: 16:00 UTC (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto) # Location: #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net Greetings testers! We didn't meet for a couple of weeks, and there are interesting goings- on, so let's meet up on

Re: Fedora 34 Change: Remove Python2 RPM Macros (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On 15. 01. 21 22:49, Neal Gompa wrote: I would really rather not have this happen until we're going to retire Python 2 entirely. The Python 2 macros are already separate from the Python 3 ones, so we could just leave them alone until we're ready to just remove Python 2 entirely. My point here

How to build CPM.cmake packages?

One of my packages has started to use CPM.cmake (https://github.com/TheLartians/CPM.cmake) which is a "Setup-free CMake dependency management" addon script for cmake. I'm hoping someone out there has some expertise and can coach me through this - I'm frankly bewildered by it. My problem is that

Re: libdnet in Fedora

Thanks Rich and Oliver. FWIW, open-vm-tools 11.0.0 onwards have removed libdnet dependency - https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/open-vm-tools/11.0.0/2.fc32/data/logs/x86_64/build.log. My bad I forgot to remove libdnet from open-vm-tools.spec when I updated to 11.0.0. If no one else

Re: Fedora 34 Mass Rebuild

On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 8:35 PM Mohan Boddu wrote: > > Hi all, > > Per the Fedora 34 schedule[1] we will start a mass rebuild for Fedora 34 > on Jan 20th 2021. We will run a mass rebuild for Fedora 34 for the > changes listed in: > > https://pagure.io/releng/issues?status=Open=mass+rebuild > >

Re: [ELN] How to handle RHEL-specific changes when it fails in ELN?

On 15. 01. 21 20:34, Igor Raits wrote: Hello, My friendly co-maintainers pushed https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/stratisd/c/32d87697075a846f9a3feb9ee66058287a91ccde?branch=master that

Re: Fedora 34 Mass Rebuild

On 15. 01. 21 20:31, Mohan Boddu wrote: Hi all, Per the Fedora 34 schedule[1] we will start a mass rebuild for Fedora 34 on Jan 20th 2021. We will run a mass rebuild for Fedora 34 for the changes listed in: https://pagure.io/releng/issues?status=Open=mass+rebuild I've noticed

Re: libelf now depends on openssl

On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 08:24:03AM -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 12:52 am, Kevin Kofler via devel > wrote: > >Do the boringssl symbols not have hidden visibility in libwebrtc? > >If they > >do, why are they getting interposed anyway? If they don't, why > >not? I assume

[ELN] "eln-sig" group is missing from dist-git

I have a package where ELN SIG is supposed to be a co-maintainer because there is something specific to their needs but there is no such group on dist-git "@eln-sig". Can somebody add it there? Thanks! ___ devel mailing list --

Re: protobuf 3.14 update coming to rawhide

Adrian Reber writes: > On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 10:18:37AM +0100, Adrian Reber wrote: >> I prepared a protobuf update for rawhide to 3.14. It requires a rebuild >> of all dependencies and of the 54 dependencies currently only 3 fail to >> rebuild in COPR: >> >>

Re: libelf now depends on openssl

* Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek: > On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 08:24:03AM -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 12:52 am, Kevin Kofler via devel >> wrote: >> >Do the boringssl symbols not have hidden visibility in libwebrtc? >> >If they >> >do, why are they getting interposed

Re: protobuf 3.14 update coming to rawhide

On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 10:15:11AM +0100, Dan Čermák wrote: > Adrian Reber writes: > > > On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 10:18:37AM +0100, Adrian Reber wrote: > >> I prepared a protobuf update for rawhide to 3.14. It requires a rebuild > >> of all dependencies and of the 54 dependencies currently only 3

[389-devel] Re: Deref plugin entries == NULL #4525

On 1/13/21 1:44 AM, William Brown wrote: Hey there, https://github.com/389ds/389-ds-base/pull/4525/files I had a look and I can see a few possible contributing factors, but without a core and the exact state I can't be sure if this is correct. It's all just hypothetical from reading the

[389-devel] Re: Deref plugin entries == NULL #4525

On 1/14/21 12:32 PM, Pierre Rogier wrote: Hi William, > It's a scenario we will need to fix via your BE work because of the MVCC transaction model that > LMDB will force us to adopt :) As I see things in the early phases the lmdb read txn will probably only be managed at the db plugin

status of 'dhcpcd' pkg builds ?

dhcpcd client pkgs @Fedora https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/dhcpcd are years out of date, currently versioned at Fedora 33 dhcpcd-6.11.3-11.fc33 Fedora 32 dhcpcd-6.11.3-10.fc32 as per comment,

[389-devel] Re: Deref plugin entries == NULL #4525

Hi Thierry, I was rather thinking about the key and value duplication when querying the DB: When using bdb functions that is done implicitly. bdb either copies the values in the DBT buffer or it alloc/realloc it When mimicking bdb behavior with LDBM we will have to do that explicitly in the

[389-devel] Re: Deref plugin entries == NULL #4525

On 1/15/21 11:53 AM, Pierre Rogier wrote: Hi Thierry, I was rather thinking about the key and value duplication when querying the DB: When using bdb functions that is done implicitly.   bdb either copies the values in the DBT buffer or it alloc/realloc it When mimicking bdb behavior with

Re: protobuf 3.14 update coming to rawhide

Hi Adrian, I would like to rebuild new BIND 9.16, once this tag is merged. I guess building significant rebase into your tag is not welcome. Is there any ETA, when it could be merged? Could you please send me a mail, once it is merged? Is there any bug for the rebase I can watch? Thanks, Petr

[389-devel] Re: Deref plugin entries == NULL #4525

As I understand things: yes. (I do not know if there is an explicit way to tells ldbm that a memory block is no more needed, in which case we could do something about it ... ) On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 12:11 PM thierry bordaz wrote: > > > On 1/15/21 11:53 AM, Pierre Rogier wrote: > > Hi Thierry,

Re: protobuf 3.14 update coming to rawhide

On Friday, 15 January 2021 at 10:28, Adrian Reber wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 10:15:11AM +0100, Dan Čermák wrote: > > Adrian Reber writes: > > > > > On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 10:18:37AM +0100, Adrian Reber wrote: > > >> I prepared a protobuf update for rawhide to 3.14. It requires a rebuild >

Re: protobuf 3.14 update coming to rawhide

* Dominik Mierzejewski: > I've just fixed libgadu. There was a symbol clash with OpenSSL > SHA1_Init(). libgadu cannot be distributed when linked directly with > OpenSSL, I can't read Polish, so I don't know the exact libgadu license terms, but if it's the usual GPL issue, for Fedora, we have

help with jekyll build

Hello, are there some jekyll experts? I'm failing to build a website, which did run fine, until update to more recent jekyll version (3.5 -> 4.2 I think). Here's the PR of my attempts to build it: https://github.com/developer-portal/website/pull/104#issuecomment-735529591 I'll be glad for

Re: Migrating the Fedora Developer Portal to Fedora Docs

- Original Message - > From: "Kevin Fenzi" > To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org, d...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 6:44:56 PM > Subject: Re: Migrating the Fedora Developer Portal to Fedora Docs > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 08:41:04AM +, Ankur Sinha wrote:

Is there interest in Quantum computing in Fedora?

Hi, I've recently been experimenting with Quantum computing and learning about its uses and benefits. There are currently libraries available in python to experiment with this technology so I thought it would be interesting to see if others in the community were working in this area. I've

Re: Migrating the Fedora Developer Portal to Fedora Docs

On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 07:37:23 -0500, Pavel Valena wrote: > > Hello, Hi Pavel, Thanks for chiming in. > I'm afraid I'm the only one left who's currently active. > > > > Let me repost what I said in the issue: > > If it's up to me (as there're no notes from the other/previous > maintainers),

Orphaned tomcat-taglibs-standard

Due to no time nor need for it I've just orphaned tomcat-taglibs-standard and its build requirement tomcat-taglibs-parent. -- Alexander Kurtakov Red Hat Eclipse Team ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email

Orphaned couple of jnr-* packages

I have no need for the following thus orphaned them: * jnr-enxio * jnr-unixsocket -- Alexander Kurtakov Red Hat Eclipse Team ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Delay in master->main changes for src.fedoraproject.org

Greetings everyone. You all may have noticed that we planned to do do Phase 2 of our change ( https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/GitRepos-master-to-main ) on the 13th. However, we have decided to delay changes to src.fedoraproject.org repos until 2021-01-27, for the following reasons: *

Re: libelf now depends on openssl

On Fri, 2021-01-15 at 10:25 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek: > > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 08:24:03AM -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 12:52 am, Kevin Kofler via devel > > > wrote: > > > > Do the boringssl symbols not have hidden

Re: libelf now depends on openssl

On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 9:47 am, Simo Sorce wrote: Which is one of the reasons we do not admit boringssl in RHEL. There is of course no problem to have it in Fedora, but if this is something that is going to end up in RHEL one day, it would be better to do the work now to make it use OpenSSL

Re: Migrating the Fedora Developer Portal to Fedora Docs

- Original Message - > From: "Ankur Sinha" > To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" > > Cc: "For participants of the Documentation Project" > > Sent: Friday, January 15, 2021 2:03:46 PM > Subject: Re: Migrating the Fedora Developer Portal to Fedora Docs > > On Fri, Jan 15,

Re: Self Introduction: Jan Zerdik

On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 09:29:24PM -0800, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote: > > Hi. My name is Jan and I'm a new red hatter. I'll be a TuneD co- > > maintainer. My experience with open source projects is mostly just as > > a user, but I'm looking forward to joining the community. > Welcome! I'm an

Re: Is there interest in Quantum computing in Fedora?

On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 12:58:28PM +, Stephen Coady wrote: > I've recently been experimenting with Quantum computing and learning > about its uses and benefits. There are currently libraries available > in python to experiment with this technology so I thought it would be > interesting to see

CPE Weekly: 2021-01-15

Hi Everyone, New Year, same CPE weekly(ish) :) If you would like to see this report and toggle to the section you are most interested in, I would suggest visiting this link https://hackmd.io/8iV7PilARSG68Tqv8CzKOQ?view and use the header bar on your left to skip to where you want to go! ##

Re: turning off ELN build failure notifications

On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 10:12:46PM +0100, Alexander Ploumistos wrote: > Hello, > > Could someone please help me figure out which rule I need to edit over > at Fedora Notifications, to stop receiving messages like this one? > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 9:53 PM wrote: > > > > Notification time

Re: [ELN] "eln-sig" group is missing from dist-git

On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 10:13:53AM +0100, Igor Raits wrote: > I have a package where ELN SIG is supposed to be a co-maintainer because > there is something specific to their needs but there is no such group on > dist-git "@eln-sig". > > Can somebody add it there? It's not that simple. The eln

Re: turning off ELN build failure notifications

Kevin Fenzi writes: > On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 10:12:46PM +0100, Alexander Ploumistos wrote: >> Hello, >> >> Could someone please help me figure out which rule I need to edit over >> at Fedora Notifications, to stop receiving messages like this one? >> >> On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 9:53 PM wrote:

First round of nodejs libraries retiring

The following "applications" source rpm's start with nodejs, and have a binary in /usr/bin/ They have either had their dependencies bundled, or did not have any nodejs library dependencies. nodejs-buble nodejs-linefix nodejs-nodemon nodejs-replace-require-self nodejs-shelljs

Re: turning off ELN build failure notifications

On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 01:15:47PM -0500, Robbie Harwood wrote: > Kevin Fenzi writes: > > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2021 at 10:12:46PM +0100, Alexander Ploumistos wrote: > >> Hello, > >> > >> Could someone please help me figure out which rule I need to edit over > >> at Fedora Notifications, to stop

Re: Is there interest in Quantum computing in Fedora?

On Friday, January 15, 2021 4:10:42 PM WET Matthew Miller wrote: > I'd love to see us in this area. Matthew, I can understand your point of view. Since the platforms that we support are mostly 64-bit you would like also to see Fedora support (pure) 64 qubits systems. ;-) And yes, I am aware

Re: Is there interest in Quantum computing in Fedora?

On Friday, January 15, 2021 12:58:28 PM WET Stephen Coady wrote: > For the moment, I'm concentrating on getting the QISKIT [1] libraries > packaged in Fedora. I should hopefully have some updates together for > this very soon. That would be nice to have. Are there any new requirements, other

Re: Is there interest in Quantum computing in Fedora?

On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 06:41:40PM +, José Abílio Matos wrote: > On Friday, January 15, 2021 4:10:42 PM WET Matthew Miller wrote: > > I'd love to see us in this area. > Matthew, I can understand your point of view. Since the platforms that we > support are mostly 64-bit you would like also to

Re: libelf now depends on openssl

On Fri, 2021-01-15 at 09:33 -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 9:47 am, Simo Sorce wrote: > > Which is one of the reasons we do not admit boringssl in RHEL. > > > > There is of course no problem to have it in Fedora, but if this is > > something that is going to end up in

Re: libelf now depends on openssl

On Fri, Jan 15, 2021, at 9:47 AM, Simo Sorce wrote: > > There is of course no problem to have it in Fedora, but if this is > something that is going to end up in RHEL one day, it would be better > to do the work now to make it use OpenSSL rather than scramble later. Isn't it at least part of

[ELN] How to handle RHEL-specific changes when it fails in ELN?

Hello, My friendly co-maintainers pushed https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/stratisd/c/32d87697075a846f9a3feb9ee66058287a91ccde?branch=master that claims that it makes spec compatible with RHEL (ignore parts that they violate packaging guidelines). However, it might make it RHEL compatible but

Fedora 34 Mass Rebuild

Hi all, Per the Fedora 34 schedule[1] we will start a mass rebuild for Fedora 34 on Jan 20th 2021. We will run a mass rebuild for Fedora 34 for the changes listed in: https://pagure.io/releng/issues?status=Open=mass+rebuild Mass rebuild will be done in a side tag (f34-rebuild) and moved over

Re: Is there interest in Quantum computing in Fedora?

Count me in for sure. Answer to Matthew inline! On Fri, Jan 15, 2021, 16:11 Matthew Miller wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 12:58:28PM +, Stephen Coady wrote: > > I've recently been experimenting with Quantum computing and learning > > about its uses and benefits. There are currently

Re: libelf now depends on openssl

On Fri, 2021-01-15 at 14:22 -0500, Colin Walters wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2021, at 9:47 AM, Simo Sorce wrote: > > There is of course no problem to have it in Fedora, but if this is > > something that is going to end up in RHEL one day, it would be better > > to do the work now to make it use

[Bug 1916713] perl-Sys-Virt-7.0.0 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916713 Bug 1916713 depends on bug 1916768, which changed state. Bug 1916768 Summary: libvirt 7.0.0 is available https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916768 What|Removed |Added

[389-devel] please review: PR 4549 - dsconf add validation checks for root DN access control settings

https://github.com/389ds/389-ds-base/pull/4549 -- 389 Directory Server Development Team ___ 389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to 389-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct:

Fedora 34 Mass Rebuild

Hi all, Per the Fedora 34 schedule[1] we will start a mass rebuild for Fedora 34 on Jan 20th 2021. We will run a mass rebuild for Fedora 34 for the changes listed in: https://pagure.io/releng/issues?status=Open=mass+rebuild Mass rebuild will be done in a side tag (f34-rebuild) and moved over

Fedora 35 Change: Retire python3.5 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RetirePython3.5 == Summary == The {{package|python3.5}} package will be retired without replacement from [[Releases/35|Fedora 35]]. Python 3.5 has been End of Life since September 2020 and was kept around only to test software targeting Ubuntu 16.04 “Xenial

Fedora 34 Change: Make selinux-policy up-to-date with the latest kernel (Self-Contained Change proposal)

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Make_selinux_policy_uptodate_with_current_kernel == Summary == Add new permissions, classes, and capabilities to the selinux policy so that system recognizes them, can boot without an error message, and use them in the actual policy for confined services.

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

The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing: Age URL 29 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-4a9fc09599 openjpeg2-2.3.1-10.el7 11 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-143227c7ed sympa-6.2.60-1.el7 5

[Bug 1916613] perl-Log-Report-Optional-1.07 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916613 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-9cf9da915d has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing

[Bug 1913143] perl-Gnome2-GConf-1.047 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913143 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|perl-Gnome2-GConf-1.047-1.f |perl-Gnome2-GConf-1.047-1.f

[Bug 1913160] perl-Gnome2-VFS-1.084 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913160 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|perl-Gnome2-VFS-1.084-1.fc3 |perl-Gnome2-VFS-1.084-1.fc3

[Bug 1913558] perl-Gtk2-GladeXML-1.008 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913558 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In

[Bug 1913574] perl-Gtk2-Spell-1.05 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913574 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In

[Bug 1913111] perl-Gnome2-1.048 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913111 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|perl-Gnome2-1.048-1.fc34|perl-Gnome2-1.048-1.fc34

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

The following Fedora EPEL 8 Security updates need testing: Age URL 10 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-bd945e3b55 adplug-2.3.3-1.el8 audacious-plugins-4.0.5-3.el8 4 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-e976495093 coturn-4.5.2-1.el8 1

[Bug 1916613] perl-Log-Report-Optional-1.07 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916613 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #4 from

[Bug 1913558] perl-Gtk2-GladeXML-1.008 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913558 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|perl-Gtk2-GladeXML-1.008-1. |perl-Gtk2-GladeXML-1.008-1.

[Bug 1913574] perl-Gtk2-Spell-1.05 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913574 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|perl-Gtk2-Spell-1.05-1.fc34 |perl-Gtk2-Spell-1.05-1.fc34

[Bug 1916613] New: perl-Log-Report-Optional-1.07 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916613 Bug ID: 1916613 Summary: perl-Log-Report-Optional-1.07 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-Log-Report-Optional Keywords:

[Bug 1916613] perl-Log-Report-Optional-1.07 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916613 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug 1916613] perl-Log-Report-Optional-1.07 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916613 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED Fixed In Version|

[Bug 1916613] perl-Log-Report-Optional-1.07 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916613 --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-9edeaaba1a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-9edeaaba1a -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list

[Bug 1916613] perl-Log-Report-Optional-1.07 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916613 --- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-9cf9da915d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-9cf9da915d -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list

[Bug 1916696] New: perl-Log-Report-1.30 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916696 Bug ID: 1916696 Summary: perl-Log-Report-1.30 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-Log-Report Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged

[Bug 1916696] perl-Log-Report-1.30 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916696 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug 1916613] perl-Log-Report-Optional-1.07 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916613 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1916696 Referenced Bugs:

[Bug 1916696] perl-Log-Report-1.30 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916696 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1916613 Referenced Bugs:

[Bug 1906256] perl-Cache-FastMmap-1.56 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1906256 Jan Pazdziora changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version|

[Bug 1916696] perl-Log-Report-1.30 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916696 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED Fixed In Version|

[Bug 1916713] New: perl-Sys-Virt-7.0.0 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916713 Bug ID: 1916713 Summary: perl-Sys-Virt-7.0.0 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-Sys-Virt Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged

[Bug 1916713] perl-Sys-Virt-7.0.0 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916713 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug 1916713] perl-Sys-Virt-7.0.0 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916713 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1916768 Referenced Bugs:

[Bug 1916713] perl-Sys-Virt-7.0.0 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916713 --- Comment #1 from Petr Pisar --- Waiting on libvirt upgrade in Fedora (bug #1916768). This is an enhancement release suitable for Fedora ≥ 34. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 1916856] New: perl-Log-Report-1.31 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1916856 Bug ID: 1916856 Summary: perl-Log-Report-1.31 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-Log-Report Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged