Packager Dashboard out of sync? - https://packager.fedorainfracloud.org

Hi, it seems that the packager dashboard does not synchronize my data anymore: https://packager.fedorainfracloud.org/fschwarz For example it still shows bug #1874669 ("Please build python-cssselect2 for EPEL8") as NEW even though that bug is closed since 2020-09-19. Also a lot of new bugs are not

Fedora-Cloud-32-20201011.0 compose check report

No missing expected images. Soft failed openQA tests: 1/7 (x86_64) (Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug) Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-32-20201010.0): ID: 690720 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL: https://openqa.fedoraproj

Fedora-Cloud-31-20201011.0 compose check report

No missing expected images. Passed openQA tests: 7/7 (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

Re: fawkes

On 10/11/20 1:56 AM, Rich Mattes wrote: On 10/10/20 5:27 PM, Till Hofmann wrote: On 10/10/20 6:24 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Sat, Oct 10, 2020 at 10:59:12AM +0200, Till Hofmann wrote: On 10/10/20 10:54 AM, Till Hofmann wrote: On 10/9/20 11:46 PM, Till Hofmann wrote: On 10/9/20 9:19

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20201011.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20201010.n.0 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20201011.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:0 Dropped images: 0 Added packages: 25 Dropped packages:0 Upgraded packages: 64 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 80.64 MiB Size of dropped packages:0

Fedora-Rawhide-20201011.n.0 compose check report

No missing expected images. Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check! 5 of 43 required tests failed, 8 results missing openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING** below Failed openQA tests: 21/181 (x86_64) Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20201

Re: fawkes

On 10/11/20 1:51 PM, Till Hofmann wrote: On 10/11/20 1:56 AM, Rich Mattes wrote: On 10/10/20 5:27 PM, Till Hofmann wrote: On 10/10/20 6:24 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Sat, Oct 10, 2020 at 10:59:12AM +0200, Till Hofmann wrote: On 10/10/20 10:54 AM, Till Hofmann wrote: On 10/9/20 11:46

Fedora 33 compose report: 20201011.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-33-20201010.n.0 NEW: Fedora-33-20201011.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:0 Dropped images: 0 Added packages: 0 Dropped packages:0 Upgraded packages: 0 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 0 B Size of dropped packages:0 B Size of upgraded

Preferred way to ask for package update

Hello, what ways are there to let other maintainers know that I need them to update a package? What is the preferred way to do it? Some ways that came to my mind are: * PR with the required changes to their package * Blocking on the release monitoring bugzilla bug * Opening a new bug again

Re: Preferred way to ask for package update

On Sun, 11 Oct 2020 at 15:24, Kai A. Hiller wrote: > Hello, > > what ways are there to let other maintainers know that I need them to > update a package? What is the preferred way to do it? Some ways that came > to my mind are: > >- PR with the required changes to their package >- Blockin

Fedora-33-20201011.n.0 compose check report

No missing expected images. Failed openQA tests: 3/181 (x86_64) New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-33-20201010.n.0): ID: 691002 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_background URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/691002 ID: 691035 Test: x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostre

Fedora Account System and Bugzilla Mismatch

Hi, I've changed my mail address of FAS because my old one does not exist anymore. So I've received a mail telling me that "Fedora Account System and Bugzilla Mismatch" Sadly, I forget my bugzilla password, and so if I login using FAS, it tells me: "Would you like to create an account for... (new

Re: Preferred way to ask for package update

On 10/11/20 3:55 PM, Andy Mender wrote: On Sun, 11 Oct 2020 at 15:24, Kai A. Hiller > wrote: Hello, what ways are there to let other maintainers know that I need them to update a package? What is the preferred way to do it? Some ways that came to my mind

Re: fawkes

On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 03:01:06PM +0200, Till Hofmann wrote: > > The build succeeded, here is the update: > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-10d819f69d > > Please give karma if you can! Cool. I've proposed it as a Freeze Break request. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP

[Test-Announce] 2020-10-12 @ 16:00 UTC - Fedora 33 Blocker Review Meeting

# F33 Blocker Review meeting # Date: 2020-10-12 # Time: 16:00 UTC # Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net Hi folks! We have 1 proposed Final blocker and 2 proposed Final freeze exceptions to review (as of now), so we'll have a Fedora 33 blocker review meeting on Monday. If you have

Re: RPM review: jack-mixer

Hello I see that you have a "Requires: jack-audio-connection-kit". I feel because of this, your package will not work with pipewire-jack. Am I wrong ? Best regards, Yann Le 10/10/2020 à 20:41, Erich Eickmeyer a écrit : Hi all, I've brought-over another package from Ubuntu, this time it's J

Re: Fedora Account System and Bugzilla Mismatch

On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 12:12:11PM -0300, Sergio Belkin wrote: > Hi, > I've changed my mail address of FAS because my old one does not exist anymore. > So I've received a mail telling me that "Fedora Account System and > Bugzilla Mismatch" > Sadly, I forget my bugzilla password, and so if I login u

Re: RPM review: jack-mixer

Hi Yann, On 10/11/2020 10:11 AM, Yann Collette wrote: > Hello > > I see that you have a "Requires: jack-audio-connection-kit". > > I feel because of this, your package will not work with pipewire-jack. > > Am I wrong ? > > Best regards, > > Yann > That is 100% incorrect. In fact, pipewire-jack has

Re: RPM review: jack-mixer

OK, thanks a lot for this explanation ... I will fix my packages :) Le 11/10/2020 à 19:29, Erich Eickmeyer a écrit : Hi Yann, On 10/11/2020 10:11 AM, Yann Collette wrote: Hello I see that you have a "Requires: jack-audio-connection-kit". I feel because of this, your package will not work wi

bodhi updates stuck in "pending" state

Hi everybody, To me, it looks like some recent bodhi updates are stuck in "pending" unintentionally. This might be the result of a bodhi bug that let release branch updates created from side tags sit in "pending" without ever going into "testing" state without manually prodding them. This affects

Re: bodhi updates stuck in "pending" state

On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 4:04 PM Fabio Valentini wrote: > Hi everybody, > > To me, it looks like some recent bodhi updates are stuck in "pending" > unintentionally. This might be the result of a bodhi bug that let > release branch updates created from side tags sit in "pending" without > ever goin

Re: bodhi updates stuck in "pending" state

On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 11:46 PM Richard Shaw wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 4:04 PM Fabio Valentini wrote: >> >> Hi everybody, >> >> To me, it looks like some recent bodhi updates are stuck in "pending" >> unintentionally. This might be the result of a bodhi bug that let >> release branch up

Re: Packager Dashboard out of sync? - https://packager.fedorainfracloud.org

On 11. 10. 20 10:14, Felix Schwarz wrote: Hi, it seems that the packager dashboard does not synchronize my data anymore: https://packager.fedorainfracloud.org/fschwarz For example it still shows bug #1874669 ("Please build python-cssselect2 for EPEL8") as NEW even though that bug is closed sinc

Re: bodhi updates stuck in "pending" state

On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 11:03:56PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > Hi everybody, > > To me, it looks like some recent bodhi updates are stuck in "pending" > unintentionally. This might be the result of a bodhi bug that let > release branch updates created from side tags sit in "pending" without >

Re: bodhi updates stuck in "pending" state

On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 1:04 AM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 11:03:56PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > Hi everybody, > > > > To me, it looks like some recent bodhi updates are stuck in "pending" > > unintentionally. This might be the result of a bodhi bug that let > > release

Re: Fedora Account System and Bugzilla Mismatch

El dom., 11 oct. 2020 a las 14:23, Kevin Fenzi () escribió: > > On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 12:12:11PM -0300, Sergio Belkin wrote: > > Hi, > > I've changed my mail address of FAS because my old one does not exist > > anymore. > > So I've received a mail telling me that "Fedora Account System and > > B

Re: our containers with alias vim=vi

On 10/10/20 2:37 PM, clime wrote: > Hello, > > could Fedora and CentOS containers for docker and podman come with > `alias vim=vi` in ~/.bashrc? > > I would very much welcome it as I am used to type vim everywhere but > if vi starts instead I am happy too. I know that the solution is to > create a

Re: our containers with alias vim=vi

On 10/10/20 5:57 PM, Joe Doss wrote: > On 10/10/20 7:37 AM, clime wrote: >> Didn't want to write about this first but maybe there are more people >> with the same problem. > > You are not alone. I had to set the same alias for Fedora CoreOS > because I kept typing vim out of habit and FCOS ships vi

[Test-Announce] Proposal to CANCEL: 2020-10-12 Fedora QA Meeting

Hi folks! Apologies for the late notice, but I'm proposing we cancel the QA meeting for tomorrow. We met last week and I don't have much for the agenda, and also it's a public holiday here in Canada. Thanks! -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi