On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 10:09:34AM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On 4 August 2015 at 04:33, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> > As for updating the ncurses package, my current plan is to build the
> > libs in both ABIs (so there are four builds total with the wide and
> > narrow versions), use the
On 04.08.2015 19:38, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 22:16:39 +0200, Marcin Haba wrote:
>>> Btw, rpmlint does not override Fedora's packaging guidelines:
>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Configuration_files
>>
>> Not override, but good when rpmlint follows on pac
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 07/29/2015 12:09 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Mukundan,
> can you please decide whether you want to:
>
> i) patch out the #error and keep building against wxGTK 3 against
> upstream's advice ii) revert to building against wxGTK 2
>
> and then mak
On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 03:30:13PM +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Seg, 2015-07-27 at 15:28 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > On Seg, 2015-07-27 at 15:23 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Matthew Miller
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 01:00:26PM +, Z
Here are the recent changes to the packaging guidelines.
-
The big change is that the Python guidelines have been extensively
reorganized and partially rewritten, and new macros are available which
simplify packaging by removing some of the boilerplate which was
previously required.
The main
On Fri, 31 Jul 2015 03:51:12 -0400, Christopher Meng wrote:
> >> Broken deps for x86_64
> >
> > Surprisingly, the report is incomplete and doesn't find some unresolvable
> > dependencies. DNF doesn't either.
> >
> > An undefined %{epoch} in a dependency is not found. This has been reported
> > to
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 22:16:39 +0200, Marcin Haba wrote:
> > If not marking the files below /etc as %config, any update would overwrite
> > them.
> >
> > Marking them as %config signals RPM to handle the update more gracefully.
>
> Yes, true. It will handle the update more gracefully, however it do
On 08/04/2015 08:38 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
A lot of the users of i686 that I know use it from live images or
installing live images which, and I've not followed the issue too
closely so might be a little off here, wouldn't have hit the bug that
was being seen by the installer side of things. A
On 04.08.2015 18:54, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Tue, 4 Aug 2015 18:47:43 +0200
Sandro Mani wrote:
On 04.08.2015 18:43, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 22:18:58 +0200
Sandro Mani wrote:
On 03.08.2015 19:14, Sandro Mani wrote:
Hello
I'm about to update to ucommon-6.4.4 in rawhide. Ther
On Tue, 4 Aug 2015 18:47:43 +0200
Sandro Mani wrote:
>
>
> On 04.08.2015 18:43, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 22:18:58 +0200
> > Sandro Mani wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On 03.08.2015 19:14, Sandro Mani wrote:
> >>> Hello
> >>>
> >>> I'm about to update to ucommon-6.4.4 in rawhide. There i
On 04.08.2015 18:43, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 22:18:58 +0200
Sandro Mani wrote:
On 03.08.2015 19:14, Sandro Mani wrote:
Hello
I'm about to update to ucommon-6.4.4 in rawhide. There is a soname
bump, but affected packages rebuild fine. These are:
- ccrtp
- libzrtcpp
- sflphone
On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 22:18:58 +0200
Sandro Mani wrote:
>
>
> On 03.08.2015 19:14, Sandro Mani wrote:
> > Hello
> >
> > I'm about to update to ucommon-6.4.4 in rawhide. There is a soname
> > bump, but affected packages rebuild fine. These are:
> > - ccrtp
> > - libzrtcpp
> > - sflphone (which I'l
On 4 August 2015 at 04:33, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> The ncurses upstream has released a first 6.0 version few months ago.
> The default ABI version has changed to 6, which enables some
> extensions to allow more colors, mouse wheel, etc. The ABI version 5
> is still supported and can be selected
>> > Perhaps it is time that we evaluate where i686 stands in Fedora more
>> > closely. For a starting suggestion, I would recommend that we do not
>> > treat it as a release blocking architecture. This is not the same as
>> > demotion to secondary architecture status. That has broader
>> > impl
Paul W. Frields (sticks...@gmail.com) said:
> On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 09:47:27AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> [...snip...]
> > Perhaps it is time that we evaluate where i686 stands in Fedora more
> > closely. For a starting suggestion, I would recommend that we do not
> > treat it as a release bloc
Hey folks,
in connection with the "Python 3 as the Default Implementation" change [0],
we're giving out badges [1] for helping making Fedora speak Python 3.
Therefore, if you have added Python 3 support to 3 or more packages since
f20, or if you have made significant contributions towards the Chang
On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 09:47:27AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
[...snip...]
> Perhaps it is time that we evaluate where i686 stands in Fedora more
> closely. For a starting suggestion, I would recommend that we do not
> treat it as a release blocking architecture. This is not the same as
> demotion
On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 10:40:28AM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> "Ambivalent" is probably understated here. It's hard to imagine
> people securing i686 hardware these days to run a Workstation
> experience, after all.
The question, I think, is how much we want to prioritize the
"Workstation exp
On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 01:48:16PM +0200, Christian Dersch wrote:
> due to a lack of time in last two weeks I want to move the Astronomy
> Spin to Fedora 24: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1242917#c
> 6
Ah well -- thanks for working on this!
> I think for 23 a Fedora Remix is the bet
Hi Orion
On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 2:36 PM, David Herrmann wrote:
>> sendmsg(4, {msg_name(0)=NULL,
>> msg_iov(2)=[{"l\1\0\1<\21\0\0\2\0\0\0\223\0\0\0\1\1o\0\25\0\0\0/org/freedesktop/DBus\0\0\0\6\1s\0\24\0\0\0org.freedesktop.DBus\0\0\0\0\2\1s\0\24\0\0\0org.freedesktop.DBus\0\0\0\0\3\1s\0\33\0\0\0Upda
Hello,
Over the past week, we've been dealing with a kernel bug[1] that
prevents i686 machines from booting. Help was requested and given,
and it has been excellent and most welcome. This email has no
reflection on that, and is instead focused on the reality of where
i686 stands today.
In Febru
- Original Message -
> From: "Jan Kurik"
> To: "Fedora Logistics List" ,
> "ambassadors" ,
> "Fedora Design Team" , "docs"
> , "Fedora Marketing
> team" , "For testing and quality assurance
> of Fedora releases"
> , "Paul W. Frields" ,
> "Matthew Miller"
> , "dennis" , "Fedora Websites
Fedora 23 Alpha Release Readiness Meeting.
date: 2015-08-06 place: irc.freenode.net in #fedora-meeting-2
time: 19:00 UTC (2 PM EST, 11 AM PST, 20:00 CET)
This Thursday, August 06, we will meet to make sure we are coordinated
and ready for the Alpha release of Fedora 23 on Tuesday, August 11, 2015
The Change page [1] has been moved back to ChangePageIncomplete state. The
Change has also been removed from the F23 Changeset [2].
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/23/ChangeSet
[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/23/ChangeSet
Regards,
Jan
- Original Message -
> From
Compose started at Tue Aug 4 07:15:03 UTC 2015
Broken deps for armhfp
--
[apache-scout]
apache-scout-1.2.6-11.fc21.noarch requires mvn(org.apache.juddi:uddi-ws)
apache-scout-1.2.6-11.fc21.noarch requires
mvn(org.apache.juddi:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi all,
due to a lack of time in last two weeks I want to move the Astronomy
Spin to Fedora 24: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1242917#c
6
I think for 23 a Fedora Remix is the better solution to allow more
public testing and feedback.
The ncurses upstream has released a first 6.0 version few months ago.
The default ABI version has changed to 6, which enables some
extensions to allow more colors, mouse wheel, etc. The ABI version 5
is still supported and can be selected with a configure option.
We should switch to the new ABI, b
On 08/04/2015 12:56 AM, William Brown wrote:
>
> I'm not a package maintainer at this point. This would be my first package,
> which is also why I'm asking for help with this process.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
You will need to be sponsored to the packager group first. You can start
with a new packag
28 matches
Mail list logo
