[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
[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
[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
[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
[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
[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