On 08. 04. 20 4:22, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
Hi all,
I just updated python-hypothesis to the latest 5.8.0 version. It should be fine
for Rawhide, but for Fedora 32 it's probably worth testing (since the previous
version we have in the repo is a bit behind -- 4.23.8).
I'm putting it as a
On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 02:51:43PM -0400, Scott Talbert wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Apr 2020, Paul Howarth wrote:
>
> > > Is there a recommended way for detecting when a package is being
> > > built under mock? I have a package where some tests fail due to
> > > various things not being present in a mock
> On Tue, 2020-04-07 at 20:55 -0400, Paul Dufresne via devel wrote:
> you could discuss it on their mailing lists etc.
There is no need to do that as rpmfusion has already been updated to 440.82
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To
Dne 07. 04. 20 v 20:55 Stephen Gallagher napsal(a):
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 5:53 PM Stephen Gallagher
> wrote:
> > I've just published a fourth version[1] of the ELN proposal. With a
> > lot of input from Miro Hrončok, I think I've finally been able to
> > clarify some of the points that we were
Dne 07. 04. 20 v 17:43 Scott Talbert napsal(a):
> Is there a recommended way for detecting when a package is being built under
> mock?
In Mock, we try as much as possible mimic normal system. So - no, there is no
way I can recommend.
> I have a package where some tests
> fail due to various thi
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 devel-le...@lists.fedorap
On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 7:22 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-04-07 at 13:12 -0400, Alex Scheel wrote:
> > I'm sure we can trust that Red Hat did its
> >
> > due diligence and Google isn't using responses to a customer's form to
> >
> > track those taking the survey.
>
> I don't really kno
On 07. 04. 20 23:31, Ben Cotton wrote:
* Proposal owners: Provide a compat-openssl11 package, identify
dependent packages, provide the rebased openssl package, work with
dependent package owners on rebuilds.
Thanks for doing this.
Will compat-openssl11-devel be provided? For how long you inten
> * How to manage a RPM spec file on the upstream repository,
synchronizing it with Fedora rawhide's one.
As my first step, I am trying to use Packit, having separately managed
the RPM spec file that is only used to run the %check section on the
Fedora scratch build at the pull-request in the upst
On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 01:41:48PM -0500, Brandon Nielsen wrote:
> It doesn't make much sense to me for this to default to on if we still
> "trust" the DNS servers provided over DHCP.
What is the issue with using untrusted DNS servers here? An NTS client
is supposed to verify the certificates. Loc
On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 05:36:44PM -0400, Mohan Boddu wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 2:56 AM Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >
> >
> > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d120de33c5
>
> I guess it should be a fixed in bodhi. But for now you can remove the
> builds that it's complainin
On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 08:53:38AM +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> I agree, if this would not happen then everything would just blow up.
Wouldn't the lower NVR builds simply be ignored?
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming and
Hi Jun, thanks for reaching out! I'd suggest CCing someone from our
team in future to make sure we see your message. It's good though you
started the discussion on fedora-devel.
On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 8:54 PM Jun Aruga wrote:
>
> I am considering using Packit-as-a-Service [1] for an upstream
> pr
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020, 11:27 Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 05:36:44PM -0400, Mohan Boddu wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 2:56 AM Richard W.M. Jones
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d120de33c5
> >
> > I guess it should be a fixed
On 08. 04. 20 11:33, Tomas Tomecek wrote:
My questions are
* How to manage a RPM spec file on the upstream repository,
synchronizing it with Fedora rawhide's one.
Ideally, you'd maintain the spec upstream and packit will copy [1] it
for you when you perform releases.
Once again I would like to
On 17. 03. 20 14:45, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
If you are logged in and on a package where you have admin rights, there should
be an "update" button underneath, clicking it makes a pop-up (a modal) appear,
in which you can update the settings.
It appears you need to be main admin to do this. Is
On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 11:38, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2020, 11:27 Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 05:36:44PM -0400, Mohan Boddu wrote:
>> > On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 2:56 AM Richard W.M. Jones
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/upda
On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 11:29, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 08:53:38AM +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> > I agree, if this would not happen then everything would just blow up.
>
> Wouldn't the lower NVR builds simply be ignored?
>
The merging a side tag is not considering NVRs
On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 11:56:01AM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 17. 03. 20 14:45, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> > > > If you are logged in and on a package where you have admin rights,
> > > > there should
> > > > be an "update" button underneath, clicking it makes a pop-up (a modal)
> > > > app
On 4/6/20 1:14 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
Installation fails like this:
Running transaction
Preparing: 1/1
Installing : perf-debuginfo-5.5.15-200.fc31.x86_64 1/1
Error unpacking rpm package perf-debuginfo-5.
On Wed, 2020-04-08 at 11:39 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 08. 04. 20 11:33, Tomas Tomecek wrote:
> > > My questions are
> > > * How to manage a RPM spec file on the upstream repository,
> > > synchronizing it with Fedora rawhide's one.
> > Ideally, you'd maintain the spec upstream and packit will
On 08. 04. 20 12:26, Ernestas Kulik wrote:
As someone who also maintains the code for multiple packages, I say
tough luck. The workflow for keeping upstream changes buildable (and
having the ability to test the changes) and downstream package
specification in sync with said changes could not be w
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 devel-le...@lists.fedorap
On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 11:57:27AM +0200, Clement Verna wrote:
> >> > > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d120de33c5
> You need to edit the update and remove these builds. You can click on the
> "edit" button on the left side of the update status, then you will have a
> list build
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 11:58 AM Clement Verna wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 11:38, Fabio Valentini wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 8, 2020, 11:27 Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 05:36:44PM -0400, Mohan Boddu wrote:
>>> > On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 2:56 AM Richard W.M. Jones
On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 13:15, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 11:57:27AM +0200, Clement Verna wrote:
> > >> > > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d120de33c5
> > You need to edit the update and remove these builds. You can click on the
> > "edit" button on the
On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 13:42, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 11:58 AM Clement Verna
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 11:38, Fabio Valentini
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Apr 8, 2020, 11:27 Richard W.M. Jones
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 05:36:44PM -04
On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 01:41:23PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 11:58 AM Clement Verna
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 11:38, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Apr 8, 2020, 11:27 Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 05:36:
On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 01:43:37PM +0200, Clement Verna wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 13:15, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 11:57:27AM +0200, Clement Verna wrote:
> > > >> > > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-d120de33c5
> koji untag f3x-build-side-
On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 05:31:39PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/OpenSSL3.0
There was a plan to make the licensing more permissive in 3.0.
Did this happen in the end?
Zbyszek
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedo
Oh actually it's just started being pushed to stable. Thanks all.
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com
virt-builder quickly builds VMs from scratch
http://libguestfs.org/vir
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64)
Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-IoT-32-20200407.0):
ID: 570254 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso base_services_start
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/570254
Passed openQA tests: 7/8 (x86_64)
--
Mail generated
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 8:14 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 05:31:39PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/OpenSSL3.0
>
> There was a plan to make the licensing more permissive in 3.0.
> Did this happen in the end?
>
OpenSSL is now
(I had several replies to Adam, but I ultimately got stuck finding
supporting URLs until I revisited it this morning.)
IANAL.
- Original Message -
> From: "Kamil Paral"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 4:25:55 AM
> Subject: Re: Modul
Il 07/04/20 17:31, Till Hofmann ha scritto:
>
> It looks like 1821497 [1] is displayed incorrectly (currently at the
> bottom of the page), maybe bccause of the unusual title ("Review
> Request: - ")?
>
> [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1821497
Thanks, I've just pushed the fix for
Le mardi 07 avril 2020 à 14:27 -0400, Stephen Gallagher a écrit :
>
> The other piece of it is that there's a UX/psychological piece to it.
> If we call it .eln9.1.0, people are quite likely to skim over the 'n'
> and confuse themselves into thinking it's a RHEL 9.1.0 package.
Then use .el.9.dev
Il 07/04/20 16:52, Mattia Verga ha scritto:
> Il 07/04/20 16:01, Ankur Sinha ha scritto:
>> The list says that there aren't any trivial tickets, but easyfix does
>> show one (only one):
>> https://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/trivial.html
>> vs
>> https://fedoraproject.org/easyfix/
>>
>> C
On 08. 04. 20 14:52, Nicolas Mailhot via devel wrote:
Then use .el.9.dev. That should still order mostly fine
.el9~dev would sort even better.
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.o
On 4/7/20 1:27 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
The other piece of it is that there's a UX/psychological piece to it.
If we call it .eln9.1.0, people are quite likely to skim over the 'n'
and confuse themselves into thinking it's a RHEL 9.1.0 package. That
way lies a support nightmare. We absolutely
On Wed, 8 Apr 2020, Petr Pisar wrote:
Is there a recommended way for detecting when a package is being
built under mock? I have a package where some tests fail due to
various things not being present in a mock container, e.g, /dev/log
doesn't exist. I can just disable these tests downstream, b
Missing expected images:
Iot dvd aarch64
Iot dvd x86_64
Passed openQA tests: 8/8 (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
CubicSDR provides a panadapter experience, showing the RF spectrum for the
band you have selected. I use it with my Yaesu FTDX3000D radio frequently,
along with an inexpensive RTL-SDR adapter.
I've prepared CubicSDR to be unretired from Fedora rawhide (F33), now that
wxGTK 3.1 is available in rawh
On Wed, 2020-04-08 at 10:38 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 07. 04. 20 23:31, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > * Proposal owners: Provide a compat-openssl11 package, identify
> > dependent packages, provide the rebased openssl package, work with
> > dependent package owners on rebuilds.
>
> Thanks for doing
On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 12:03:46PM -0400, Steve Grubb wrote:
Just wanted to share with everyone the results of a data collection on
various metrics of ELF files when installing just @Core group.
http://people.redhat.com/sgrubb/analysis/f32-analysis.slides.html#/
I recommend clicking on the "pop
OLD: Fedora-32-20200407.n.0
NEW: Fedora-32-20200408.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:1
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 8
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 45
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 24.49 MiB
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size of
Thanks Matt!
KD0SMQ
Geoff Marr
IRC: coremodule
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 8:57 AM Matt Domsch wrote:
> CubicSDR provides a panadapter experience, showing the RF spectrum for the
> band you have selected. I use it with my Yaesu FTDX3000D radio frequently,
> along with an inexpensive RTL-SDR adapter
On Wednesday, April 8, 2020 11:11:36 AM EDT David Cantrell wrote:
> >Just wanted to share with everyone the results of a data collection on
> >various metrics of ELF files when installing just @Core group.
> >
> >http://people.redhat.com/sgrubb/analysis/f32-analysis.slides.html#/
> >
> >I recommend
For what it's worth, Jeremy, Randy, and others: I absolutely value your
contributions both now and in the past. Members of the the Fedora
Engineering team and CPE in all previous and current names and incarnations
have done and continue to do amazing things which have beeen *essentially*
valuable t
On Wed, 2020-04-08 at 10:25 +0200, Kamil Paral wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 7:22 PM Adam Williamson
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2020-04-07 at 13:12 -0400, Alex Scheel wrote:
> > > I'm sure we can trust that Red Hat did its
> > >
> > > due diligence and Google isn't using responses to a customer's
On Wed, 2020-04-08 at 08:41 -0400, Alex Scheel wrote:
>
> There's a marketing piece from 2017 that alleges that none of gsuite
> (including their gmail for gsuite!) gets scanned for ads:
>
> https://www.blog.google/products/gmail/g-suite-gains-traction-in-the-enterprise-g-suites-gmail-and-consume
Hey Daniel, do you mind updating the GDPR compliance tag to include
Google?
Thanks!
- Original Message -
> From: "Adam Williamson"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 1:22:27 PM
> Subject: Re: Modularity Survey
>
> On Wed, 2020-04-08 at
On Wed, 2020-04-08 at 13:47 -0400, Alex Scheel wrote:
> Hey Daniel, do you mind updating the GDPR compliance tag to include
> Google?
Right, this is all I intended in the first place :) A simple:
-The raw data will not be provided to anyone else at Red Hat or any 3rd parties
+The raw data will no
Updated.
Thanks both of you for the suggestion.
Dne 08. 04. 20 v 19:59 Adam Williamson napsal(a):
On Wed, 2020-04-08 at 13:47 -0400, Alex Scheel wrote:
Hey Daniel, do you mind updating the GDPR compliance tag to include
Google?
Right, this is all I intended in the first place :) A simple:
-
On 4/8/20 3:42 AM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 01:41:48PM -0500, Brandon Nielsen wrote:
It doesn't make much sense to me for this to default to on if we still
"trust" the DNS servers provided over DHCP.
What is the issue with using untrusted DNS servers here? An NTS client
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020, 21:26 clime, wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 at 17:52, Leigh Griffin wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 4:25 PM Adam Williamson <
> adamw...@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 2020-04-06 at 15:35 +0100, Leigh Griffin wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Does it mean you did
Greetings,
I'm trying to build Geany and the Geany Plugins for EPEL8 currently and
stumble over an issue which seems to be
quite special in some kind for aarch64 and s390x:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=43133907
Basically I merged the epel7 branch into the epel8 branch
On Wed, 8 Apr 2020, Dominic Hopf via devel wrote:
Greetings,
I'm trying to build Geany and the Geany Plugins for EPEL8 currently and
stumble over an issue which seems to be
quite special in some kind for aarch64 and s390x:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=43133907
Basica
What are you using to check for your STACK_PROT
This is annocheck
Alternate:
-
$ readelf --segments ./the_app
Program Headers:
Type Offset VirtAddr PhysAddr
FileSizMemSiz Flags Align
GNU_STACK 0x00
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 9:18 pm, Dominic Hopf via devel
wrote:
```
%if 0%{?rhel}
BuildRequires: webkitgtk4-devel
%else
BuildRequires: webkit2gtk3-devel
%endif
```
FYI: this package was renamed for RHEL 8. webkitgtk4 is the RHEL 7
package. webkit2gtk3 is the equivalent RHEL 8 package. Exact sam
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC
meeting Thursday at 2020-04-09 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on
irc.freenode.net.
Local time information (via. uitime):
= Day: Thursday ==
2020-04-09 09:00 PDT US/Pacific
2020-04-09
Thanks very much for your help Scott and Michael!
I now did both, changed the requirement to webkit2gtk3-devel and as
this one is also not available on the mentioned architectures,
excluded those architectures using ExcludeArch for this specific subpackage.
The package built fine now without any
On Wed, 8 Apr 2020, Dominic Hopf via devel wrote:
Thanks very much for your help Scott and Michael!
I now did both, changed the requirement to webkit2gtk3-devel and as this one
is also not available on the mentioned architectures,
excluded those architectures using ExcludeArch for this specific
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/perl5.32
== Summary ==
A new ''perl 5.32'' version brings a lot of changes done over a year
of development. Perl 5.32 will be released in May 2020. See
[https://metacpan.org/pod/release/XSAWYERX/perl-5.31.10/pod/perldelta.pod
5.31.10 perldelta] for more detai
Thanks very much for pointing that out!
I'm not sure if it's really a big problem if the whole geany-plugins stuff
will not be available on aarch64 and s390x, though.
Unfortunately I was unable to apply that %ifnarch properly off the cuff. I
guess I will have to dive even deeper into that topic
in
On 4/7/20 12:51 PM, Antonio Trande wrote:
On 06/04/20 16:19, David Schwörer wrote:
On 4/5/20 6:06 PM, Antonio Trande wrote:
On 04/04/20 19:23, David S wrote:
On 4/4/20 4:38 PM, Antonio Trande wrote:
Hi all.
`MUMPS-5.3.0` [1] `PETSc-3.13.0` [2] and `Sundials-5.2.0` [3] are coming
on Rawhide;
Hi,
I'm seeing some build failures for i386 and armv7hl when attempting a
scratch build of the gdb package. These problems don't appear to be
at all related to the problem that I was fixing. In each case, a segfault
occurs when running "make".
The koji task is here:
https://koji.fedoraproject.
On Wed, 2020-04-08 at 19:40 -0700, Kevin Buettner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm seeing some build failures for i386 and armv7hl when attempting a
> scratch build of the gdb package. These problems don't appear to be
> at all related to the problem that I was fixing. In each case, a
> segfault
> occurs wh
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 9:57 PM Sérgio Basto wrote:
> I'm having the same problem
>
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=43144692
Me, too. Two packages, both failing on the 32-bit architectures due
to segfaults in find, grep, or xargs in the alt-ergo case (it's hard
to tell) and
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 7:18 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
> > I personally considered it quite clear that the intended meaning was that
> > they are not giving the data away to anyone external deliberately. Your
> > responses will be read and understood by a very small group of people and
> > not pub
On 4/9/20 6:22 AM, Jerry James wrote:
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 9:57 PM Sérgio Basto wrote:
I'm having the same problem
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=43144692
Me, too. Two packages, both failing on the 32-bit architectures due
to segfaults in find, grep, or xargs in the al
On Wed, 2020-04-08 at 21:18 +0200, Dominic Hopf via devel wrote:
> ```
> %if 0%{?rhel}
> BuildRequires: webkitgtk4-devel
> %else
> BuildRequires: webkit2gtk3-devel
> %endif
> ```
Hi,
this is an off topic for this thread, but maybe you'll find it useful.
You can use this (pick the one, whic
I have the same issue with vim's build:
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/8185/43148185/build.log
I did the diff of installed packages between the last successful build
and the failed one and the packages which changed are:
glibc
openssl-libs
krb5-libs
qt5-srpm-macros
graphite2
I filed https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822468 on glibc,
maybe they can direct us to the right way.
On 4/9/20 8:12 AM, Zdenek Dohnal wrote:
> I have the same issue with vim's build:
>
> https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/8185/43148185/build.log
>
> I did the diff of instal
73 matches
Mail list logo
