Hi all,
I am attempting to build the latest matplotlib but it is failing to
install python3-wxpython4 [1]:
- nothing provides python3-sip-api(12)(x86-64) = 12.5 needed by
python3-wxpython4-4.0.1-9.fc29.x86_64
I attempted to rebuild python-wxpython4 [2], but that did not help. It
was then
On 10/26/2018 07:47 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
On Fri, 2018-10-26 at 19:39 -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
Building now. I'll be rebuilding dependent packages when it
completes
tomorrow.
Some packages (InsightToolkit, DiffusionKurtosisFit, and petpvc) are
failing to build due to an issue with vxl
On Fri, 2018-10-26 at 19:39 -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> Building now. I'll be rebuilding dependent packages when it
> completes
> tomorrow.
>
> Some packages (InsightToolkit, DiffusionKurtosisFit, and petpvc) are
> failing to build due to an issue with vxl and C++11. I've filed
>
Building now. I'll be rebuilding dependent packages when it completes
tomorrow.
Some packages (InsightToolkit, DiffusionKurtosisFit, and petpvc) are
failing to build due to an issue with vxl and C++11. I've filed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1637255
--
Orion Poplawski
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 4:43 AM, Christian Dersch
>
> I understand the complaint in isolation, but in relation to the
> existing processes and release criteria I do not follow. What solution
> do you propose?
>
> Right now release criteria explicitly does not block the release even
> if all
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 4/133 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm)
ID: 301579 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso modularity_tests
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/301579
ID: 301636 Test: arm Minimal-raw_xz-raw.xz
install_arm_image_deployment_upload
URL:
The Xfce image built for aarch64, but not for x86_64 so that's how we got
here.
Geoff Marr
IRC: coremodule
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 2:10 PM Chris Murphy
wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 6:23 AM, Thomas Woerner
> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > there is no Xfce live iso in RC-1.2:
> >
> >
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 2:09 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 6:23 AM, Thomas Woerner wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> there is no Xfce live iso in RC-1.2:
>>
>> https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/29_RC-1.2/Spins/x86_64/iso/
>
> Isn't Xfce a release blocking desktop for ARM or
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 6:23 AM, Thomas Woerner wrote:
> Hello,
>
> there is no Xfce live iso in RC-1.2:
>
> https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/29_RC-1.2/Spins/x86_64/iso/
Isn't Xfce a release blocking desktop for ARM or something?
--
Chris Murphy
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 6:22 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> On 25/10/2018 20:58, Ben Cotton wrote:
>> > The Fedora 29 Final RC1.2 compose [1] is GO and will to be shipped
>> > live on Tuesday, October 30, 2018.
>> >
>> > For more information please check the Go/No-Go meeting minutes [2] or logs
>>
On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 15:16, Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 12:59:24PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > > Just a query, Does XFCE Fedora 29 spin is removed?
> > > It is not visible here
> > > https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/29_RC-1.2/Spins/x86_64/iso/
> > See
> >
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 4:43 AM, Christian Dersch
wrote:
> On 25/10/2018 20:58, Ben Cotton wrote:
>>
>> The Fedora 29 Final RC1.2 compose [1] is GO and will to be shipped
>> live on Tuesday, October 30, 2018.
>>
>> For more information please check the Go/No-Go meeting minutes [2] or logs
>> [3].
https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/pull-request/49996
___
389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 389-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 3:16 PM Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 12:59:24PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > > Just a query, Does XFCE Fedora 29 spin is removed?
> > > It is not visible here
> > > https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/29_RC-1.2/Spins/x86_64/iso/
> > See
> >
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 12:25 PM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 12:59:24PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
>> > Just a query, Does XFCE Fedora 29 spin is removed?
>> > It is not visible here
>> > https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/29_RC-1.2/Spins/x86_64/iso/
>> See
>>
OLD: Fedora-29-20181025.n.0
NEW: Fedora-29-20181026.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:1
Dropped images: 5
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 Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 12:59:24PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > Just a query, Does XFCE Fedora 29 spin is removed?
> > It is not visible here
> > https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/29_RC-1.2/Spins/x86_64/iso/
> See
>
The following Fedora EPEL 6 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
138 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-b6c663378c
unrtf-0.21.9-8.el6
29 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-6bc3a525a2
libmad-0.15.1b-26.el6
0
The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
138 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-3835d39d1a
unrtf-0.21.9-8.el7
89 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-f9d6ff695a
bibutils-6.6-1.el7 ghc-hs-bibutils-6.6.0.0-1.el7
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 12:09 PM chandan kumar
wrote:
> Just a query, Does XFCE Fedora 29 spin is removed?
> It is not visible here
> https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/29_RC-1.2/Spins/x86_64/iso/
>
See
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20181025.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20181026.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:3
Dropped images: 4
Added packages: 5
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 55
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 9.34 MiB
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Hello,
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 8:37 PM Ben Cotton wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 8:23 AM Peter Robinson wrote:
>
> > Yes, I agree, I am at a loss as to why it was signed off as well,
> > there was blockers like "Be able to apply updates using the desktop
> > mechanism" that were seemingly
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 72/133 (x86_64), 19/24 (i386), 1/2 (arm)
New failures (same test did not fail in Rawhide-20181025.n.0):
ID: 301443 Test: i386 Everything-boot-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/301443
ID: 301502 Test: x86_64
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 8:23 AM Peter Robinson wrote:
> Yes, I agree, I am at a loss as to why it was signed off as well,
> there was blockers like "Be able to apply updates using the desktop
> mechanism" that were seemingly ignored with broken gnome-software,
> plus numerous other issues. I
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1643405
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
CC|
Thomas Woerner wrote on 2018/10/26 21:23:
Hello,
there is no Xfce live iso in RC-1.2:
https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/29_RC-1.2/Spins/x86_64/iso/
It has been available in beta-1.5:
Hello,
there is no Xfce live iso in RC-1.2:
https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/29_RC-1.2/Spins/x86_64/iso/
It has been available in beta-1.5:
https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/29_Beta-1.5/Spins/x86_64/iso/Fedora-Xfce-Live-x86_64-29_Beta-1.5.iso
It is also available in
> On 25/10/2018 20:58, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > The Fedora 29 Final RC1.2 compose [1] is GO and will to be shipped
> > live on Tuesday, October 30, 2018.
> >
> > For more information please check the Go/No-Go meeting minutes [2] or logs
> > [3].
> >
> > Thank you to everyone who has worked on this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1643413
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
Ah, okay. Thanks.
On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 11:33, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 5:11 AM Silvia Sánchez wrote:
>
>>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> This didn't happen to me with the last version (F28) but I didn't
>> install Workstation, I installed KDE Spin. So now my question
On 25/10/2018 20:58, Ben Cotton wrote:
The Fedora 29 Final RC1.2 compose [1] is GO and will to be shipped
live on Tuesday, October 30, 2018.
For more information please check the Go/No-Go meeting minutes [2] or logs [3].
Thank you to everyone who has worked on this release.
[1]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1643412
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1643406
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System ---
perl-Config-Model-TkUI-1.368-1.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora
29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-a701a7dac4
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 5:11 AM Silvia Sánchez wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> This didn't happen to me with the last version (F28) but I didn't
> install Workstation, I installed KDE Spin. So now my question is: Does
> this affect to all Fedoras, including Spins and Labs, or is it an issue
> that
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 14:43:21 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> > "AS" == Ankur Sinha writes:
>
> AS> The package review process suggests the use of "Trivial" on the
> AS> Whiteboard for simpler tickets to aid new-comers. So, they seem to
> AS> serve the same purpose as EasyFix. Would it
Hello all,
This didn't happen to me with the last version (F28) but I didn't install
Workstation, I installed KDE Spin. So now my question is: Does this
affect to all Fedoras, including Spins and Labs, or is it an issue that for
some reason affects Workstation only?
Kind regards.
Silvia
FAS:
On Friday, 26 October 2018 at 07:24, Kefu Chai wrote:
> hey guys,
>
> i am pushing fmt 5.2.1 to rawhive (f30)[1]. and plan to push this
> updated change to fc29 and then fc28. as fmt-static is no longer
> packaged in fmt-5.2.1, kodi package will need to dynamically linked
> against libfmt at
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1643406
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1643406
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
It was discovered[1] a short while ago that, due to a packaging
mistake in the fedora-workstation-repos package, upgrades from Fedora
28->Fedora 29 would replace the /etc/yum.repos.d/*.repo files provided
from that package with their default configuration.
What this meant in practice is that
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1643413
Bug ID: 1643413
Summary: Upgrade perl-Statistics-Descriptive to 3.0702
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: perl-Statistics-Descriptive
Assignee: jples...@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1643412
Bug ID: 1643412
Summary: Upgrade perl-Linux-Inotify2 to 2.1
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: perl-Linux-Inotify2
Assignee: jples...@redhat.com
Reporter:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1643406
Bug ID: 1643406
Summary: Upgrade perl-Config-Model-TkUI to 1.368
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: perl-Config-Model-TkUI
Assignee: david.hanneq...@gmail.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1643405
Bug ID: 1643405
Summary: Upgrade perl-Clone to 0.41
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: perl-Clone
Assignee: tcall...@redhat.com
Reporter: jples...@redhat.com
Hi all,
Quick note to mention the Redis 5.0 release builds are
available in testing now for all current Fedora versions.
This release is backward compatible with the 4.x series
and adds a series of new features:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/antirez/redis/5.0/00-RELEASENOTES
I've been
On Fri, 26 Oct 2018, Aaron Gray wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am trying to get Xen working properly on rawhide / F29 Beta.
>
> I had one instillation on F29 that worked straight away with :-
>
> sudo yum groupinstall 'Virtualization' sudo yum install xen
>
> I cannot seem to reproduce this now
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 2:09 AM Dalton Miner wrote:
>
> Hey all,
>
> My name is Dalton. I'm a "DevOps" engineer primarily doing operational work
> and maintaining build/release pipelines. Part of this involves creating new
> packages or backports for our infrastructure, and wherever possible I
47 matches
Mail list logo
