[releng] Issue #8291: Fedora flatpak remote is not GPG verified
by Michal Konečný
zlopez reported a new issue against the project: `releng` that you are following:
``
* Describe the issue
I recently started using Fedora flatpak remote in Fedora 30 Silverblue, but now I'm facing issue with GPG verification.
I didn't had any issue when installing the application from the remote few days ago, but when I'm trying to do `flatpak update` I'm getting "Error: Can't pull from untrusted non-gpg verified remote"
* When do you need this? (YYYY/MM/DD)
As soon as possible
* When is this no longer needed or useful? (YYYY/MM/DD)
When Fedora flatpak remote is no longer available
* If we cannot complete your request, what is the impact?
Can't download updates from Fedora flatpak remote
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8291
5 years
[releng] Issue #7763: define and implement retention policy for nightly
composes
by Dan Horák
sharkcz reported a new issue against the project: `releng` that you are following:
``
* Describe the issue
Right now we have only last 14 days of the nightly composes. Which makes it impossible to compare current compose with an old one to see what changed (mainly functionally). The polocy could be time based (like keep 1 compose per week for 4 weeks preceding the 14 days, then keep 1 per month, until previous GA). Or it can be based on the openqa testing and keep composes "nominated for further testing". Or something else.
One of the reason for this request is https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1623547 where I'm almost sure I had a F-29 nightly compose behaving sanely on s390x in the past, but have nothing I could compare with the current state.
* When do you need this? (YYYY/MM/DD)
soon
* When is this no longer needed or useful? (YYYY/MM/DD)
never
* If we cannot complete your request, what is the impact?
Difficult to find out what changed (functionally) in the composes as the previous compose is the GA compose of the last release. AFAIK it's almost impossible to recreate an old compose from a given date on demand.
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7763
5 years
[releng] Issue #7802: Several EPEL7 package conflicts with RHEL/CentOS 7.5
by Eli Young
elyscape reported a new issue against the project: `releng` that you are following:
``
#### Describe the issue
The releases of RHEL and CentOS 7.5 (and likely earlier versions) brought with them new packages that were previously provided by EPEL7. Some of these are still present in EPEL, potentially causing conflicts. Particularly problematic are various packages that are provided in EPEL as python2-* and provided in upstream as python-*. While fully-overlapping names are suboptimal, these partially-overlapping names that provide the same actual package leads to issues like [certbot #6314][certbot] and [RHBZ #1578071][bugzilla].
I have attached 4 files containing lists of problematic packages:
filename|description|impact if unresolved
-|-|-
base-and-updates-full.txt|EPEL7 packages also in upstream base or updates|moderate
base-and-updates-partial.txt|EPEL7 packages also in upstream base or updates as python-*|significant
extras-full.txt|EPEL7 packages also in upstream extras|moderate
extras-partial.txt|EPEL78 packages also in upstream extras as python-*|significant
#### When do you need this? (YYYY/MM/DD)
No specific date, but sooner is better.
#### When is this no longer needed or useful? (YYYY/MM/DD)
N/A
#### If we cannot complete your request, what is the impact?
EPEL-provided packages with full name overlap may potentially override upstream packages. EPEL-provided packages with partial name overlap may cause issues like [certbot #6314][certbot] and [RHBZ #1578071][bugzilla].
<!!image>
<!!image>
<!!image>
<!!image>
[certbot]: https://github.com/certbot/certbot/issues/6314
[bugzilla]: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1578071
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7802
5 years
[releng] Issue #8297: Fedora Media Writer 4.1.3 released
by Martin Bříza
mbriza reported a new issue against the project: `releng` that you are following:
``
* Describe the issue
Fedora Media Writer 4.1.3 has been released today. Koji builds for Windows have been finished and a Bodhi update has been submitted - the `mingw-mediawriter-4.1.3.-1` package for f28 through f31.
Basically nothing except some binary dependencies for Windows has changed (libcrypto soname bump) - you can see the history of the build.sh files in the upstream repo here for Windows:
https://github.com/FedoraQt/MediaWriter/blob/master/dist/win/build.sh
and here for Mac:
https://github.com/FedoraQt/MediaWriter/blob/master/dist/mac/build.sh
I'm pretty reachable on my Telegram account (@martinbriza) in case of any questions or on irc (mbriza) but there it's better to let me know beforehand - I don't watch the window very often.
* When do you need this?
If the release process is automated, it should be possible to just run it before 2019/04/30. If not, some time after the F29 release because I can imagine you don't have a lot of time these days.
* When is this no longer needed or useful? (YYYY/MM/DD)
When FMW 4.1.4 or 4.2.0 gets released.
* If we cannot complete your request, what is the impact?
FMW hosted on getfedora.org will continue to be only 4.1.1 with some flaws that have been fixed in the update.
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8297
5 years
[releng] Issue #7738: fedpkg build - Connection aborted.
by Vít Ondruch
vondruch reported a new issue against the project: `releng` that you are following:
``
* Describe the issue
The fedpkg connection with server fails during build almost every time:
~~~
$ fedpkg scratch-build --srpm
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/fedora/client/bodhi.py:48: DeprecationWarning: fedora.client.bodhi has been deprecated. Please use bodhi.client.bindings instead.
DeprecationWarning)
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/fedpkg/__init__.py:235: DeprecationWarning: dist() and linux_distribution() functions are deprecated in Python 3.5
runtime_os, runtime_version, _ = platform.linux_distribution()
Zapsáno: /home/vondruch/fedora-scm/own/ruby/ruby-2.5.1-99.fc30.src.rpm
/usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/koji/__init__.py:1704: DeprecationWarning: This method will be removed in future versions. Use 'parser.read_file()' instead.
config.readfp(f)
[====================================] 100% 00:00:03 10.90 MiB 3.16 MiB/sec
Building ruby-2.5.1-99.fc30.src.rpm for rawhide
Created task: 29377062
Task info: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=29377062
Watching tasks (this may be safely interrupted)...
Could not execute scratch_build: ('Connection aborted.', RemoteDisconnected('Remote end closed connection without response'))
~~~
This happens already for some time and it is quite annoying.
~~~
$ rpm -q fedpkg
fedpkg-1.35-1.fc30.noarch
~~~
``
To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7738
5 years
[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
5 years
[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
5 years
[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
5 years
[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
5 years