Re: whatever happened to yum + btrfs snapshotting?

On 02/17/2015 07:53 AM, Neal Becker wrote: > Some time back there was discussion of being able to rollback yum updates via > btrfs snapshotting. As I recall, it turned out that the default btrfs > install > was not setup correctly to make this feasible (I had briefly tested it on my > machine

[Fedocal] Reminder meeting : Modularity Office Hours

Dear all, You are kindly invited to the meeting: Modularity Office Hours on 2017-03-14 from 15:00:00 to 16:00:00 UTC At https://meet.jit.si/fedora-modularity The meeting will be about: This is where you ask the Fedora Modularity Team questions (and we try to answer them)! Join us [per vid

Voice recognition packages need a new maintainer

Hello everybody, I am the primary point of contact for a handful of voice recognition-related packages: - cmusphinx3 - irstlm - openfst - opengrm-ngram - pocketsphinx - sphinxbase - sphinxtrain I have not used these packages myself for quite some time, and am unlikely to start using them again an

[Help Wanted] PPC64LE build for thrift

Hi, I'm trying to build the latest version of thrift, and am running into a problem with one of the build tests, which has a dependency on boost-static for "%{_libdir}/libboost_unit_test_framework.a" I really have no expertise with PPC at all, and also very limited knowledge of autotools, but it

Fedora Rawhide-20170313.n.0 compose check report

Missing expected images: Server dvd i386 Server boot i386 Failed openQA tests: 10/107 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm) New failures (same test did not fail in Rawhide-20170312.n.0): ID: 63778 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_default@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/63778 ID: 63784

Fedora 26-20170313.n.0 compose check report

Missing expected images: Atomic qcow2 x86_64 Server dvd i386 Server boot i386 Atomic raw-xz x86_64 Failed openQA tests: 14/107 (x86_64), 1/2 (i386), 1/2 (arm) ID: 64303 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_role_deploy_domain_controller URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/64303 ID: 64

Review Swaps: (mostly) very simple golang packages

Hi everybody, I've been putting together package Review Requests for all the golang package dependencies of syncthing (an open source file synchronization service). Some of them have already been reviewed (thank you, Jan! I feel much more confident about my golang packaging now), but there are sti

Re: Unresponsive packager process and reviews

On 03/13/2017 03:23 PM, Parag Nemade wrote: On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 5:23 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 03/13/2017 10:38 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Is this not enough [1] or you want to make the reviews part of orphaning process? [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_rev

Re: Unresponsive packager process and reviews

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 5:23 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 03/13/2017 10:38 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: >> >> Is this not enough [1] or you want to make the reviews part of orphaning >> process? > > >> [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews > > > The latter. [1] is not e

Re: How to ask for package co-maintaining

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 10:32:09AM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: > BTW it is always good idea to contact package maintainer prior asking > ACLs. Most of the maintainers are interested in your intentions ... A couple weeks ago someone said one tends do ignore random ACL requests not followed by an emai

Firefox 52 - ALSA backend disabled

Hi, ALSA backend is no longer available in official Fedora Firefox builds [1] since it has been deprecated by Mozilla and no longer maintained [2]. If you still want to use ALSA on Fedora builds, you just need to rebuild Firefox with such option. Just set "alsa_backend" to 1 and run the build

[no subject]

this is the working patch for the cmst.pro file: --- cmst-5be4ce6f9a733e609cfcf37492f5c025f80d36c9/cmst.pro.orig 2017-03-02 20:47:34.985348086 +0100 +++ cmst-5be4ce6f9a733e609cfcf37492f5c025f80d36c9/cmst.pro 2017-03-02 20:48:10.965692212 +0100 @@ -56,7 +56,9 @@ # desktop file desktop.path

Reviews Weekly

Start Date: 2017-03-06 10:08:01.920688 End Date: 2017-03-13 10:08:01.920688 Shawn Iwinski : 4 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1428908 php-sebastian-recursion-context3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1420381 phpunit6 https://bugzilla.redhat.

Re: [Test-Announce] Re: 2017-03-13 @ ** 1600 ** UTC - Fedora 26 Blocker Review

So I have to join at 17:00?  Germany +01 UTC On Mo, 2017-03-13 at 10:03 +0100, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 09:55:48AM +0100, Silvia Sanchez wrote: > >    Now I'm confused...  Is it 17:00 UTC  or  16:00 UTC?   > >    I'm in Germany so at what time should I join? > > > Sin

Re: Has anybody seen Jose Pedro Oliveira (jpo) package maintainer

On 2017-03-03, Petr Pisar wrote: > Perl SIG struggle for more than a year to retire some jpo's packages > that need to be removed from Fedora because of broken dependencies: > Orphanning requested . -- Petr ___ devel

Re: Unresponsive packager process and reviews

On 03/13/2017 10:38 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Is this not enough [1] or you want to make the reviews part of orphaning process? [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews The latter. [1] is not enough, because it leaves stalled reviews as "assigned" with most persons

Re: Unresponsive packager process and reviews

Dne 11.3.2017 v 19:06 Orion Poplawski napsal(a): > Christopher Meng (cicku) was declared unresponsive a while back. > However, there are still a lot of reviews associated with him: > > Submitted by him (60): > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=P

Re: How to ask for package co-maintaining

It depends what you want. If you want just Fedora commit bit, then you should go with "Request commit ACL?". If you choose everything there, the end result is the same as "Request commit access". BTW it is always good idea to contact package maintainer prior asking ACLs. Most of the maintainers ar

Re: [Test-Announce] Re: 2017-03-13 @ ** 1600 ** UTC - Fedora 26 Blocker Review

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 09:55:48AM +0100, Silvia Sanchez wrote: >Now I'm confused... Is it 17:00 UTC or 16:00 UTC? >I'm in Germany so at what time should I join? Since Europe hasn't changed time, the meeting is at 16:00 UTC for you, ie: one hour earlier. In three weeks when Europe ch

Re: [Test-Announce] Re: 2017-03-13 @ ** 1600 ** UTC - Fedora 26 Blocker Review

Now I'm confused...  Is it 17:00 UTC  or  16:00 UTC?   I'm in Germany so at what time should I join? On So, 2017-03-12 at 18:57 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Sun, 2017-03-12 at 10:13 -0400, Mike Ruckman wrote: > > # F26 Blocker Review meeting > > # Date: 2017-03-13 > > # Time: 17:00 UTC > >