February 2019 - rel-eng - Fedora Mailing-Lists

[releng] Issue #8046: Rebase the rawhide binutils to version 2.32

by Nicholas Clifton

nickc reported a new issue against the project: `releng` that you are following: `` * Describe the issue I would like to rebase the version of binutils used in rawhide from GNU binutils 2.31.1 to version 2.32. * When do you need this? 2019/01/28 Version 2.32 is due to be released on January 27 2019, so I would like to rebase once this has happened. * When is this no longer needed or useful? (2019/08/31) The release after 2.32 will most likely happen in August 2019. * If we cannot complete your request, what is the impact? Bug fixes present in 2.32 but not in 2.31 will be absent from Fedora. `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8046

4 years, 11 months

3
6
0 / 0

[releng] Issue #8025: Fedora 30 system-wide change: Golang 1.12

by Jakub Čajka

jcajka reported a new issue against the project: `releng` that you are following: `` * Describe the issue This is tracking issue for the [Golang 1.12](https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/golang1.12) change proposal, that would require rebuild of all Go based package(either as side tag rebuild or during mass rebuild). New golang version is not yet available in rawhide. I will update this issue when the new golang version will be available and so rebuild possible. All the dependent/affected packages are [listed](https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/golang1.12#Dependencies) in the change proposal. * When do you need this? By the Fedora 30 freeze * If we cannot complete your request, what is the impact? Block the completion of the change `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8025

4 years, 11 months

3
5
0 / 0

[releng] Issue #8073: Re-write scripts/branching/modulepkg.py with help of libmodulemd

by Andrei Stepanov

astepano reported a new issue against the project: `releng` that you are following: `` `scripts/branching/modulepkg.py` I try to run it in Fedora29. But it says: ./modulepkg.py Traceback (most recent call last): File "./modulepkg.py", line 17, in <module> import modulemd ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'modulemd' I have a lot of different packages installed: # rpm -qa | grep mod python3-module-build-service-copr-0.4-4.fc29.noarch fedmod-0.4.3-1.fc29.noarch python2-module-build-service-copr-0.4-4.fc29.noarch module-build-service-2.11.1-1.fc29.noarch libmodulemd-2.0.0-3.fc29.x86_64 libmodulemd1-1.8.0-3.fc29.x86_64 python3-libmodulemd-2.0.0-3.fc29.noarch Could you please update the script to use modern python modules? Thank you! `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8073

4 years, 11 months

3
4
0 / 0

[releng] Issue #8023: [System-wide change] Fully remove deprecated and unsafe functions from libcrypt

by Björn Esser

besser82 reported a new issue against the project: `releng` that you are following: `` * Describe the issue System-wide change to remove the encrypt, encrypt_r, setkey, setkey_r, and fcrypt functions from the system-default libcrypt library. This includes a so-name bump from `libcrypt.so.1` to `libcrypt.so.2`. A compatibility library for the `libcrypt.so.1` library will still be provided, so there is no fallout or negative impact on the build-roots for Fedora 30. The packages requiring `libcrypt.so.1` can either be rebuild during a planned mass-rebuild or by the requestee. See: TBA * When do you need this? Before the mass-rebuild for Fedora 30 starts. * When is this no longer needed or useful? After the completion deadline of system-wide changes for Fedora 30. * If we cannot complete your request, what is the impact? The change cannot be done nor completed. `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8023

4 years, 11 months

4
6
0 / 0

[releng] Issue #8026: Packages are not retired entirely

by Vít Ondruch

vondruch reported a new issue against the project: `releng` that you are following: `` * Describe the issue There was recently mass retirement of orphaned packages. However, the retirement does not work as expected IMO and not everything is removed. Now I'll continue to speak specifically about rubygem-acts-as-taggable-on \[[1]\], but I suspect that this is a general issue. I have no Idea why there is still "ruby-packagers-sig" listed among committers. Every committer should be removed upon retirement IMO and groups especially. Also, the package is somehow watched by me. I don't know it that is because I am member of ruby-packagers-sig, but I definitely don't want to watch such package. * When do you need this? (YYYY/MM/DD) The sooner the better. * When is this no longer needed or useful? (YYYY/MM/DD) When Pagure is fixed or replaced by something else. * If we cannot complete your request, what is the impact? I am annoyed ;) [1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rubygem-acts-as-taggable-on `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8026

4 years, 11 months

4
7
0 / 0

[releng] Issue #8012: Self-contained change proposal: krb5 crypto modernization

by Robbie Harwood

rharwood reported a new issue against the project: `releng` that you are following: `` * Describe the issue Mandatory check with rel-eng is required for Fedora 30 change proposal [krb5 crypto modernization](https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/krb5_crypto_moderni.... I don't expect any impact, but that's why we do these checks. * When do you need this? (YYYY/MM/DD) Change submission deadline is 2019-01-29 for self-contained changes * When is this no longer needed or useful? (YYYY/MM/DD) Beta freeze is 2019-03-05, but I think it really should be done before the submission deadline of 2019-01-29. * If we cannot complete your request, what is the impact? I'm not actually sure and policy doesn't really say. I think it goes forward anyway without your input? Maybe it doesn't get accepted? Hopefully this isn't an issue. `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8012

4 years, 11 months

5
7
0 / 0

[releng] Issue #7994: Inform module maintainers when their module/stream is going to EOL

by Mohan Boddu

mohanboddu reported a new issue against the project: `releng` that you are following: `` * Describe the issue Currently there is no way right now to intimate the module maintainers when their module/stream is going EOL. It would good if we can send some notifications about it prior to their EOL. This requires parsing through all modules/streams in PDC to get their EOL dates and if its getting EOL'd in a week (or something more, we have to decide on this duration) , then find the maintainer of that module in dist-git and send them an email. * When do you need this? (YYYY/MM/DD) ASAP * When is this no longer needed or useful? (YYYY/MM/DD) Its always useful * If we cannot complete your request, what is the impact? Every time maintainers will have issues pushing to dist-git if their module/stream is EOL'd. `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7994

4 years, 11 months

3
2
0 / 0

[releng] Issue #7215: older drpms not synced

by Kevin Fenzi

kevin reported a new issue against the project: `releng` that you are following: `` As noted in this post: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.o... it seems we are only syncing out the drpms made in that specific compose. We should keep a (ideally configurable) amount of older ones around. I think for rawhide we were keeping 2 weeks, we could start with that. as it is now unless someone updates on the day an update is pushed they won't get the advantage of the drpm. `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7215

4 years, 11 months

3
3
0 / 0

[releng] Issue #7548: Fedora 29 Change: NSS load p11-kit modules by default

by Daiki Ueno

ueno reported a new issue against the project: `releng` that you are following: `` Hello, Could you review your impact with https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/NSSLoadP11KitModules ? `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7548

4 years, 11 months

4
3
0 / 0

[releng] Issue #8120: unretire ladspa-swh-plugins

by Sérgio Monteiro Basto

sergiomb reported a new issue against the project: `releng` that you are following: `` * Describe the issue Someone in 2016-06 orphan ladspa-swh-plugins [1] [1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.o... * If we cannot complete your request, what is the impact? - nothing provides ladspa-swh-plugins needed by flowblade-2.0-1.fc30.noarch `` To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8120

4 years, 11 months

2
8
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

rel-eng February 2019