On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 07:37:32PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> Nope. We have talked about having some kind of fast track, but IMHO, we
>> should just get the normal process faster.
>
> Getting the normal process faster would help in a large
Hello there,
I have 2 packages under review now:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369708
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369720
Some reviews and updates have been done, and now it has been quiet for some
days.
Could someone help with the review and approve? Since it's my
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC
meeting Thursday at 2016-10-27 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on
irc.freenode.net.
Local time information (via. rktime):
2016-10-27 09:00 Thu US/Pacific PDT
2016-10-27 12:00 Thu US/Eastern EDT
2016-10-27 1
There are some good thoughts in this thread. A few people have
suggested that getting the update process to go faster would really
help with these problems, and I agree.
Patrick Uiterwijk has recently made quite a few contributions to Bodhi
that a) make it more reliable, and b) allow it to gate on
On 10/26/2016 12:32 PM, Bryan Smith wrote:
PREFACE: My apologies as this may be off-topic. But I figured this
might be the best set of SMEs to ask this question, especially since
I'm drawing a blank from when I had to do this a few years ago.
Environment:
- Disconnected systems (no or very li
I use e10 all the time. Works fine.
--
Bojan
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 6:08 PM, Adrian Sevcenco
wrote:
> does anyone have any idea about this? is my ram dying?
If you suspect a problem with your RAM, you should try testing it with
memtest86+ and something like Prime95 before filing a bug report (if
there is indeed a bug).
For future referenc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1370061#c7
--
Bojan
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
I guess I must have misread this as all kernels built in koji, not just
scratch builds. Ouch.
--
Bojan
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Hello toghether,
I have Odoo waiting for review [1]. It is the package for my change
proposal for Fedora 26 [2]. Anyone interested to swap reviews?
Cheers,
Björn
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379432
[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Odoo
PREFACE: My apologies as this may be off-topic. But I figured this
might be the best set of SMEs to ask this question, especially since
I'm drawing a blank from when I had to do this a few years ago.
Environment:
- Disconnected systems (no or very limited Internet access)
- Apache Ant build ma
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 12/101 (x86_64), 3/17 (i386), 1/2 (arm)
New failures (same test did not fail in Rawhide-20161025.n.0):
ID: 44327 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_notifications_live
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/44327
ID: 44328 T
kerberos support for Fedora infra would be an amazing step forward.
Charalampos Stratakis
Associate Software Engineer
Python Maintenance Team, Red Hat
- Original Message -
From: "Amanda Carter"
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 8:04:40 PM
Subject: F26 prop
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 12:39 AM, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
> We implemented HTTPS proxying of the Kerberos protocol, based on
> MS-KKDCP specification. It is in MIT Kerberos 1.13+.
Oh, fantastic! I didn't know that standard, or that MIT Kerberos supported it.
- Ken
__
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 4/101 (x86_64), 1/17 (i386)
New failures (same test did not fail in 25-20161025.n.0):
ID: 44499 Test: x86_64 universal install_multi@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/44499
ID: 44524 Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_deskto
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 5:07 AM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>
> Is anybody interested in reviewing captagent?
>
I was going to take it, but it looks like someone beat me to the punch.
-Jared
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubsc
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 07:37:32PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Nope. We have talked about having some kind of fast track, but IMHO, we
> should just get the normal process faster.
Getting the normal process faster would help in a large number of other
areas. Right now, when we have issues in a sp
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 05:59:24PM -0700, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
> 1. Updates, even critical security updates, are very slow. Getting an
> update out involves creating a build and an update (which is
> reasonably fast for most packages), pushing the update to
There are two open tickets on issue
> On 10/25/2016 09:35 PM, David Shea wrote:
>
> Well then, who exactly should set the RPM standard if not RPM itself?
>
> FWIW, the change in question occurred in the transition from RPM V3
> packages to V4 packages which involved much more than just file name
> storage and RPM still transparen
Hi! I have a laptop with fedora 24 and today i encountered a strange thing :
beside various crashes in kde (apps crashing at logout or shutdown, suspend to
ram not working)
i tried to use yumex-dnf through ssh -XY and i got a stern :
[root@t420 ~]# yumex-dnf
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
tryin
OLD: Fedora-25-20161025.n.0
NEW: Fedora-25-20161026.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:2
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 1
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 79
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 69.71 KiB
Size of dropped packages:0.00 B
Size
On 26 October 2016 at 07:33, Florian Weimer wrote:
> For Fedora, I would suggest to replicate the separate security archive with
> its push mirrors. The way the Fedora updates repository is updated seems to
> cause far more delays than what is lost due to build delays (the only part
> the embarg
On Tue, 2016-10-25 at 09:06 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> That wouldn't really bother me, so I'm only curious, but why do you
> find having a big changelog at the end of the file so annoying? It's
> at
> the end and you pretty much never have to look at it. Is it just
> because it tends to match
On martes, 11 de octubre de 2016 10:50:44 AM CDT William Moreno wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Looking at the pkgdb looks like python3 it is not included in the Fedora
> critical path:
>
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python3/
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/python
On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 1:33:34 PM CEST Florian Weimer wrote:
> Debian does not build from SCM, but directly from maintainer-uploaded
> source packages, so there is no need to have a private SCM.
Do we have a good marketing for the fact that we are that "superior"
compared to Debian then?
On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 2:03:20 PM CEST Florian Weimer wrote:
> > However, extending Koji to support "hidden builds" is certainly a good
> > idea.
>
> Trust me, it's not. Embargoes are against the spirit of Fedora, and a
> general hassle for everyone involved.
Vague argument, sorry. Plea
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 7:37:32 PM CEST Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> > 3. AFAIK Fedora has no means by which it can participate in embargoed
>> > updates. For this to work, I think there ought to be private git
>> > branches, a way to get Koj
On 10/26/2016 01:45 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
For Fedora, I would suggest to replicate the separate security archive with
its push mirrors. The way the Fedora updates repository is updated seems to
cause far more delays than what is lost due to build delays (the only part
the embargoed builders cou
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 7:45 AM, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 7:33 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>
>>
>> Debian has a completely separate installation of its equivalent to Koji (the
>> dak part, the builders are separate from archive management). Nowadays, it's
>> source code is mostl
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 7:33 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
>
> Debian has a completely separate installation of its equivalent to Koji (the
> dak part, the builders are separate from archive management). Nowadays, it's
> source code is mostly up-to-date to what the main archive uses, but there
> are
On 10/26/2016 12:23 PM, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 7:37:32 PM CEST Kevin Fenzi wrote:
3. AFAIK Fedora has no means by which it can participate in embargoed
updates. For this to work, I think there ought to be private git
branches, a way to get Koji to make a private build
On 10/25/2016 09:35 PM, David Shea wrote:
Please, no, don't do that. RPM is a standard
lol.
* The representation of file names in package headers changed in rpm-4.0.
* Originally, file names were stored as an array of absolute paths.
* In rpm-4.0, file names are stored as separate arrays of
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 10:00 PM, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> If there existed updates-urgent and updates-urgent-testing repositories
> for packages like kernel (example: Dirty COW patch-to-testing wait time
> was rather long; note that some people cannot install unsigned kernel
> packages from koji du
On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 7:37:32 PM CEST Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > 3. AFAIK Fedora has no means by which it can participate in embargoed
> > updates. For this to work, I think there ought to be private git
> > branches, a way to get Koji to make a private build from a private git
> > branch, and
Thanks for pointing it here, I miss that minor update. Btw. a new #BZ at
bugzilla.redhat.com would work even better.
There are two security bugs marked as "High" which means "Moderate" in
Fedora terms. The big ones has "Critical" rating and there's none fixed
in this release.
AFAIK the main
- Mail original -
De: "Adam Williamson"
> Sure, it's arbitrary. Arbitrary doesn't necessarily mean 'bad'. The
> 96dpi consensus worked perfectly well: hardware manufacturers knew what
> sizes and resolutions to make their monitors
That's pretty disingenious. Hardware manufacturers have
> On 10/26/2016 02:45 AM, Bojan Smojver wrote:
>
> And it seems that Fedora builds do not enable e10s, so the cache leak
> might actually affect users.
>
> Florian
i dont think e10s are actually stable enough for users to actually use, but as
i said above, i really dont think 49.0.2 warrants bu
On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 09:20:30 +0200, Adam Williamson
wrote:
On Wed, 2016-10-26 at 08:30 +0200, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
But, GTK core maintainers have always insisted those didn't exist
(just like they insisted on hardcoding 96 dpi, on the eve of Apple
showing the world it was arbit
On Wed, 2016-10-26 at 08:30 +0200, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
> But, GTK core maintainers have always insisted those didn't exist
> (just like they insisted on hardcoding 96 dpi, on the eve of Apple
> showing the world it was arbitrary and obsolete).
...by releasing displays carefully tune
39 matches
Mail list logo
