No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 10/137 (x86_64), 3/24 (i386), 1/2 (arm)
New failures (same test did not fail in Rawhide-20180517.n.1):
ID: 239248 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_update_graphical
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/239248
ID: 239254 Te
On May 2, 2018, at 9:14 AM, Frantisek Zatloukal wrote:
Hans,
can't this be affected also by different disk vendors (drive vendor in
Lenovo laptop can vary even in same model) and different firmware of disks?
Also, drive FW is upgradeable in Lenovo laptops.
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 5:39 PM, Hans de
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20180517.n.1
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20180519.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:8
Dropped images: 1
Added packages: 14
Dropped packages:1
Upgraded packages: 160
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 27.75 MiB
Size of dropped packages
On 05/19/2018 03:21 PM, Philip Kovacs wrote:
> Is there a workaround or fix forthcoming for fedpkg?
>
>
> $ fedpkg --helpTraceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/bin/fedpkg",
> line 6, in from pkg_resources import load_entry_point File
> "/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/pkg_resource
Is there a workaround or fix forthcoming for fedpkg?
$ fedpkg --helpTraceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/bin/fedpkg", line
6, in from pkg_resources import load_entry_point File
"/usr/lib/python3.6/site-packages/pkg_resources/__init__.py", line 3088, in
@_call_aside File
"/
Announcing the creation of a new nightly release validation test event
for Fedora 29 Rawhide 20180519.n.0. Please help run some tests for this
nightly compose if you have time. For more information on nightly
release validation testing, see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki
On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 05:55:16PM +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Sat, 2018-05-19 at 15:08 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 02:38:13PM +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2018-05-18 at 17:54 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> > > > > > > > > "ES" == Eric
On Sat, 2018-05-19 at 15:08 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 02:38:13PM +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > On Fri, 2018-05-18 at 17:54 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> > > > > > > > "ES" == Eric Smith writes:
> > >
> > > ES> What macro(s) should I use in an RPM
On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 02:38:13PM +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-05-18 at 17:54 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> > > > > > > "ES" == Eric Smith writes:
> >
> > ES> What macro(s) should I use in an RPM spec to refer to a directory
> > ES> like /usr/lib/modules-load.d, which is unde
On Fri, 2018-05-18 at 17:54 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> > > > > > "ES" == Eric Smith writes:
>
> ES> What macro(s) should I use in an RPM spec to refer to a directory
> ES> like /usr/lib/modules-load.d, which is under /usr/lib even if
> libdir
> ES> is /usr/lib64? Is there something bet
For the record,I am going with the kernel Lts given that it has patches for
meltdown & spectre.
On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 1:21 PM, Manas Mangaonkar wrote:
>
> On Thu, 17 May 2018, 1:08 p.m. Peter Robinson,
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 8:25 AM, Manas Mangaonkar
>> wrote:
>> >> Put the pa
11 matches
Mail list logo
