On 15.10.2018 08:38, Vascom wrote:
Hi all.
I need the advice of experienced maintainers.
I found that kdiff3 in Fedora repo requires KDE 4 libs. But exist
Qt5/KF5 version:
https://github.com/KDE/kdiff3
I am received admin rights on this package and I want upgrade it. But
old version has pure Q
Hi all.
I need the advice of experienced maintainers.
I found that kdiff3 in Fedora repo requires KDE 4 libs. But exist
Qt5/KF5 version:
https://github.com/KDE/kdiff3
I am received admin rights on this package and I want upgrade it. But
old version has pure Qt4 subpackage kdiff3-qt and it is abs
On 10/14/18 12:49 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1603193
>
> Hello, this record has been open since July with no response from the
> maintainer. I'm not actually sure if this has dedicated maintainer or
> is just reliant on proven packagers.
>
> Another us
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 12/133 (x86_64), 2/24 (i386), 1/2 (arm)
New failures (same test did not fail in Rawhide-20181009.n.0):
ID: 295358 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_default_upload
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/295358
ID: 295359 Test
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 4/133 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm)
ID: 295493 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso modularity_tests
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/295493
ID: 295506 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso base_services_start
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/29
On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 12:21 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 1:58 PM Chris Murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 13, 2018 at 6:24 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
>> > This is a really interesting idea...
>>
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/CAJCQCtTPwQnzwkpk=4zszxfwtc7hymyetxp-9xuu_tsv
Hello, Casper!
On Friday, 12 October 2018 at 16:52, Casper Meijn wrote:
> Hi, my name is Casper.
> I am a software developer by trade and in my free time I am developing an
> open-source application [1].
> During the development I noticed that the library I use (KDSoap) is not
> available in Fedor
OLD: Fedora-29-20181013.n.0
NEW: Fedora-29-20181014.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 0
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0 B
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size of upgraded
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 05:29:44PM -0400, Paul Frields wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 12:54 PM Josh Boyer wrote:
> > I believe it's time for me to move on from my current role as the
> > Council Engineering representative. When I resigned from FESCo a bit
> > ago, I thought I could still fulfil
On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 1:58 PM Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 13, 2018 at 6:24 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 13, 2018 at 8:17 PM Chris Murphy
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 5:26 PM, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 03:44:38PM -06
Announcing the creation of a new nightly release validation test event
for Fedora 29 Branched 20181014.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, Oct 13, 2018 at 6:24 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 13, 2018 at 8:17 PM Chris Murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 5:26 PM, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki
>> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 03:44:38PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>
>> >> mkfs.btrfs has --rootdir and --shrink f
Le dimanche 14 octobre 2018 à 18:56 +0200, Fabio Valentini a écrit :
>
> You know that GitHub has supported the same thing for a long time?
> The URL "
> https://github.com/project/repo/archive/$REF/whatever-I-feel-like-1.0.tar.gz
> "
> will produce an archive of ref $REF (be it a tag, commit, or
On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 6:14 PM Nicolas Mailhot
wrote:
>
> Le dimanche 14 octobre 2018 à 15:37 +0200, Fabio Valentini a écrit :
> >
> > It looks like the forge macros weren't tested to be backwards
> > compatible, because packages that build successfully now fail to build
> > on rawhide (see, for
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1603193
Hello, this record has been open since July with no response from the
maintainer. I'm not actually sure if this has dedicated maintainer or
is just reliant on proven packagers.
Another user has even provided a spec file which builds fine, so it
Le dimanche 14 octobre 2018 à 18:13 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot a écrit :
> Le dimanche 14 octobre 2018 à 15:37 +0200, Fabio Valentini a écrit :
> > It looks like the forge macros weren't tested to be backwards
> > compatible, because packages that build successfully now fail to
> > build
> > on rawhide
Le dimanche 14 octobre 2018 à 15:37 +0200, Fabio Valentini a écrit :
>
> It looks like the forge macros weren't tested to be backwards
> compatible, because packages that build successfully now fail to build
> on rawhide (see, for example, build [0]).
Fabio,
You can’t assume the archive name ret
On Sun, Oct 14, 2018 at 9:53 AM Francisco J. Tsao Santin wrote:
>
> Hello,
> These days I'm reviewing my python packages, in order to remove python2
> dependencies [0], and we have a problem with supervisor [1]. As we can read in
> the current stable version 3.3.4:
>
> "Supervisor is known to work
Hello,
These days I'm reviewing my python packages, in order to remove python2
dependencies [0], and we have a problem with supervisor [1]. As we can read in
the current stable version 3.3.4:
"Supervisor is known to work with Python 2.4 or later but will not work under
any version of Python 3."
S
Just a heads-up for anyone experiencing build failures like me.
Recently the forge macros were ported to use distprefix on f30. An
unrelated change followed and a new build was pushed to rawhide (maybe
without realising that it would also push the forge macro changes).
This change was introduced w
20 matches
Mail list logo
