No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 14/132 (x86_64), 4/24 (i386), 1/2 (arm)
New failures (same test did not fail in Rawhide-20180912.n.0):
ID: 279381 Test: x86_64 Workstation-boot-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/279381
ID: 279384 Test:
https://fedorapeople.org/groups/389ds/ci/nightly/2018/09/14/report-389-ds-base-1.4.0.16-20180913gite59b309.fc28.x86_64.html
___
389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20180912.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20180913.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 3
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 53
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 371.45 KiB
Size of dropped packages:0
On Mon, 2018-08-20 at 19:06 +1000, William Brown wrote:
> Hey everyone,
>
> I was talking to mkosek earlier, and he informed me that the FreeIPA
> project have adopted a Coc - which is great!
>
> I remember that last year we implemented the fedora coc in our
> project.
> I think that given our
On 13/09/18 22:16, Danishka Navin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am working on a project that require a fedora spin with firefox which point
> to specific web url as the default home page.
> This will be applicable to all users and I could not find anything on skell
> directory against mozilla.
>
> I have
On 13.9.2018 22:44, Petr Šabata wrote:
On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 04:43:15PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
Hi,
I was thinking about this for a while and I got the impression that this is
something I don't know the answer for. The question is a bit harder to
formulate simply, so let put it in
Release status of the Fedora 29 Beta is NO-GO.
Due to in-progress RC2 for the F29 Beta release and presence of
blocker bugs, the decision is “No Go”. The Beta release slips for one
week to “Target #1” date (September 25th)[1]. We are not going to slip
the Final GA yet.
For more information
Release status of the Fedora 29 Beta is NO-GO.
Due to in-progress RC2 for the F29 Beta release and presence of
blocker bugs, the decision is “No Go”. The Beta release slips for one
week to “Target #1” date (September 25th)[1]. We are not going to slip
the Final GA yet.
For more information
On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 04:43:15PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was thinking about this for a while and I got the impression that this is
> something I don't know the answer for. The question is a bit harder to
> formulate simply, so let put it in examples:
I see no one's really
Hi,
I am working on a project that require a fedora spin with firefox which
point to specific web url as the default home page.
This will be applicable to all users and I could not find anything on skell
directory against mozilla.
I have manually altered (just for testing) vim
Hi all.
I'm going to retire the packages 'nini' and 'smuxi' on rawhide within
24h since now. Both upstream project look like over.
--
---
Antonio Trande
Fedora Project
mailto 'sagitter at fedoraproject dot org'
GPG key: 0x5E212EE1D35568BE
GPG key server: https://keys.fedoraproject.org/
On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 12:15 AM, Manas Mangaonkar
wrote:
>> Fedora is already in glibc 2.28 it is possible to do the > > same approach
>
> TBH I don't really know how that'd be done with the current package,would
> love to learn.
>
Please take a look at my slides :
> "ZJ" == Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek writes:
ZJ> Heh, I don't think the FPC policy is very robust.
It's as robust as is reasonable to implement.
When fedora-obsolete-packages was introduced, there was considerable
controversy over whether it is remotely acceptable to remove installed
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 9:17 AM, Tomas Orsava wrote:
> Hi!
> We'd like to propose a new functionality for dnf: When a user tries to
> install a package XYZ and dnf doesn't find it, dnf would recommend them
> alternative packages. These offered packages would advertise that they are
> an
On Thu, 2018-09-13 at 16:07 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 10-09-18 14:40, Abhiram Kuchibhotla wrote:
> > According to the LICENSE file in their git repo, the code in the repo seems
> > to be gplv2. Not sure if that proves anything. I'll do the licensecheck -r
> > later and update you
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1628414
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #2 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1628413
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System ---
ctstream-29-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing
The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
95 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-3835d39d1a
unrtf-0.21.9-8.el7
46 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-f9d6ff695a
bibutils-6.6-1.el7 ghc-hs-bibutils-6.6.0.0-1.el7
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1628413
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System ---
ctstream-29-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 12:58 PM Tomas Orsava wrote:
>
> On 09/13/2018 06:43 PM, Mathieu Bridon wrote:
> > On Thu, 2018-09-13 at 18:17 +0200, Tomas Orsava wrote:
> >> We'd like to propose a new functionality for dnf: When a user tries
> >> to install a package XYZ and dnf doesn't find it, dnf
On 09/13/2018 06:43 PM, Mathieu Bridon wrote:
On Thu, 2018-09-13 at 18:17 +0200, Tomas Orsava wrote:
We'd like to propose a new functionality for dnf: When a user tries
to install a package XYZ and dnf doesn't find it, dnf would recommend
them alternative packages. These offered packages would
On 09/13/2018 06:43 PM, Mathieu Bridon wrote:
On Thu, 2018-09-13 at 18:17 +0200, Tomas Orsava wrote:
We'd like to propose a new functionality for dnf: When a user tries
to install a package XYZ and dnf doesn't find it, dnf would recommend
them alternative packages. These offered packages would
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 06:17:39PM +0200, Tomas Orsava wrote:
> Hi!
> We'd like to propose a new functionality for dnf: When a user tries to
> install a package XYZ and dnf doesn't find it, dnf would recommend them
> alternative packages. These offered packages would advertise that they are
> an
On Thu, 2018-09-13 at 18:17 +0200, Tomas Orsava wrote:
> We'd like to propose a new functionality for dnf: When a user tries
> to install a package XYZ and dnf doesn't find it, dnf would recommend
> them alternative packages. These offered packages would advertise
> that they are an alternative
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1623268
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System ---
mod_perl-2.0.10-3.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1623265
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System ---
mod_perl-2.0.10-3.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You
Hi!
We'd like to propose a new functionality for dnf: When a user tries to
install a package XYZ and dnf doesn't find it, dnf would recommend them
alternative packages. These offered packages would advertise that they
are an alternative for XYZ using a specially formatted Provides tag.
For
Hi!
We'd like to propose a new functionality for dnf: When a user tries to
install a package XYZ and dnf doesn't find it, dnf would recommend them
alternative packages. These offered packages would advertise that they
are an alternative for XYZ using a specially formatted Provides tag.
For
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1628413
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #6 from
While rebasing indent package to a fresh new 2.2.12 release (done
after 8 years), I corrected license declaration from "GPLv3+" to
"GPLv3+ and BSD and Verbatim".
-- Petr
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an
Hi,
On 10-09-18 14:40, Abhiram Kuchibhotla wrote:
According to the LICENSE file in their git repo, the code in the repo seems to
be gplv2. Not sure if that proves anything. I'll do the licensecheck -r later
and update you guys.
On Mon 10 Sep, 2018, 6:08 PM Richard Shaw,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1628552
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
On Thu, 13 Sep 2018, Miro Hrončok wrote:
Hello.
In line with
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/No_more_automagic_Python_bytecompil
ation_phase_2
I plan to mass push the following 3 lines on the top of your package spec:
I updated my packages to set _python_bytecompile_extra to 0, but
Hi all,
It turns out mozjs60 60.2.0 (in F29 updates-testing and rawhide)
silently broke ABI and that broke gjs that gnome-shell uses. I've
rebuilt gjs; if you've already updated and can't log in, then
gjs-1.54.0-3.fc29 and gjs-1.54.0-3.fc30 should help.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1628552
Bug ID: 1628552
Summary: perl-Archive-Tar-2.32 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: perl-Archive-Tar
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
Assignee:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1628551
Bug ID: 1628551
Summary: perl-Config-IniFiles-3.00 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: perl-Config-IniFiles
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1628550
Bug ID: 1628550
Summary: perl-BSON-v1.8.0 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: perl-BSON
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
Assignee: ppi...@redhat.com
On 13.9.2018 05:27, Scott Talbert wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2018, Miro Hrončok wrote:
Hello.
In line with
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/No_more_automagic_Python_bytecompil
ation_phase_2
I plan to mass push the following 3 lines on the top of your package
spec:
I updated my
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1628413
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System ---
ctstream-29-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-7f2b1bc3e5
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1628413
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System ---
ctstream-29-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-f77039ed26
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1628413
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System ---
ctstream-29-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-2ce47ca6ac
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1628413
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System ---
ctstream-29-1.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-ad15c39249
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1628414
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System ---
perl-Archive-Zip-1.64-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-a922bd5761
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1628413
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1628414
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1626980
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
46 matches
Mail list logo