https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1674288
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1678205
--- Comment #3 from Sergio Monteiro Basto ---
A simple bump to 3.006 and build, build fails on make test [1]
[1]
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/sergiomb/debs/build/863223/
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
Let's try this again, but CC'ing the package owners.
On 2019-02-17 9:12 p.m., Elliott Sales de Andrade wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sorry for resurrecting a long-dead thread, but a few things happened recently:
> 1. v8 was just retired last week or so,
> 2. R-V8 just ported itself from v8-314 to v8 LTS 6/7.
> On 28 Feb 2019, at 01:06, Matus Honek wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 9:10 AM Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 02/26/2019 04:42 PM, Matus Honek wrote:
>>> This kinda leads me to thinking we should implement ACIs management
>>> within the DSLdapObjects like this (probably specific to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1678205
--- Comment #2 from Sergio Monteiro Basto ---
(In reply to Petr Pisar from comment #1)
> This release should fix a build failure triggered by upgrading
> perl-Mail-Message to 3.008 in Fedora 30.
Petr, you wrote 3.008 ? is 3.006 what you
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC
meeting Thursday at 2019-02-28 17:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on
irc.freenode.net.
Local time information (via. uitime):
= Day: Thursday ==
2019-02-28 09:00 PST US/Pacific
2019-02-28
On Wed, 2019-02-27 at 15:35 -0500, Irina Boverman wrote:
> I have a number of qpid packages promoted to "stable" that depend on
> qpid-proton-0.26.0-1.f28. However, someone blocked this package from
> being promoted, and as a result, updated qpid packages cannot be
> installed. We need to either:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 10:18 AM Rex Dieter wrote:
> Richard Shaw wrote:
>
> > So I'm pretty much out of my league at this point. I can commit the
> > Q_FOREACH patch if needed.
>
> please do commit (or at least submit pull request).
>
Pull request submitted, but it looks like pagure is having
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1683811
Bug ID: 1683811
Summary: perl-RDF-NS-20190227 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-RDF-NS
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
I have a number of qpid packages promoted to "stable" that depend on
qpid-proton-0.26.0-1.f28. However, someone blocked this package from being
promoted, and as a result, updated qpid packages cannot be installed. We
need to either:
- Push qpid-proton-0.26.0-1.f28 to "stable" ASAP, or
- Remove
On 27. 02. 19 15:34, Robert-André Mauchin wrote:
On lundi 25 février 2019 21:49:32 CET you wrote:
The following packages are orphaned and will be retired when they
are orphaned for six weeks, unless someone adopts them. If you know for sure
that the package should be retired, please do so now
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 2:20 PM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>
> Dne 27. 02. 19 v 12:30 Lukas Ruzicka napsal(a):
> >
> > However, you cannot upgrade from Fedora 29 to Fedora 30 with Modular
> > repositories allowed. It fails with an error
> > similar to what Mirek has reported. Disabling modular
Dne 27. 02. 19 v 12:30 Lukas Ruzicka napsal(a):
>
> However, you cannot upgrade from Fedora 29 to Fedora 30 with Modular
> repositories allowed. It fails with an error
> similar to what Mirek has reported. Disabling modular repositories fixed the
> problem and an upgrade was possible, but I
>
There is an issue with qpid-proton-0.26.0-1.fc28. It should be in
"stable", but it was blocked. This is creating a problem with qpid packages
in F28. Can someone advise or assist in moving this package to "stable"
ASAP?
--
Regards, Irina.
___
devel
I have orphaned rubygem-riot and rubygem-rabl as I have no use for them.
Regards,
--
Pavel Valena
Software Engineer, Red Hat
Brno, Czech Republic
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
Richard Shaw wrote:
> So I'm pretty much out of my league at this point. I can commit the
> Q_FOREACH patch if needed.
please do commit (or at least submit pull request).
-- Rex
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 9:10 AM Ludwig Krispenz wrote:
>
>
> On 02/26/2019 04:42 PM, Matus Honek wrote:
> > This kinda leads me to thinking we should implement ACIs management
> > within the DSLdapObjects like this (probably specific to a particular
> > subclass, to a degree). One that would take
On lundi 25 février 2019 21:49:32 CET you wrote:
> The following packages are orphaned and will be retired when they
> are orphaned for six weeks, unless someone adopts them. If you know for sure
> that the package should be retired, please do so now with a proper reason:
>
Dne 27. 02. 19 v 10:57 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
> If not, why do we have them in mock, that is certainly not OK.
Mock has them because fedora-repos has them.
Miroslav
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email
On 27. 02. 19 12:30, Lukas Ruzicka wrote:
Why people disable the repo, I do not know. I might have a slight notion.
However, you cannot upgrade from Fedora 29 to Fedora 30 with Modular
repositories allowed. It fails with an error similar to what Mirek has reported.
Disabling modular
Why people disable the repo, I do not know. I might have a slight notion.
However, you cannot upgrade from Fedora 29 to Fedora 30 with Modular
repositories allowed. It fails with an error similar to what Mirek has
reported. Disabling modular repositories fixed the problem and an upgrade
was
Todd Zullinger wrote on 2019/02/27 14:00:
Orion Poplawski wrote:
With current koji buildroot I end up with:
+ ls -l /usr/bin/ld /usr/bin/ld.bfd /usr/bin/ld.gold /usr/bin/ldd
--w---. 1 root root 3814880 Feb 27 04:00 /usr/bin/ld
-rwxr-xr-x. 1 root root 1841608 Feb 26 15:02 /usr/bin/ld.bfd
> Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 17:21:50 -0700
> From: Rich Megginson
> Message-ID:
> On 2/26/19 4:26 PM, William Brown wrote:
>>> I think the recursive/nested transaction on the database level are not the
>>> problem, we do this correctly already, either all or no change becomes
>>> persistent.
On 27. 02. 19 11:09, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
I think those messages are just informational, because nothing uses those
modules to build packages.. or am I wrong?
It aborts the build.
---
Modular dependency problems with Defaults:
Problem 1: conflicting requests
- nothing provides
I think those messages are just informational, because nothing uses those
modules to build packages.. or am I wrong?
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019, 14:32 Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> From:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1680320#c2
>
> When you try to run:
> mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64
* Sérgio Basto:
> OK , I made another patch [1] not touching ./Source/Common/gdcmString.h
> and instead use definition of EOL, I use the default char of template
> ...
>
> [1]
>
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/fork/sergiomb/rpms/gdcm/blob/master/f/gdcm-2.8.8-dont_use_EOF.patch
That looks much
On 26. 02. 19 15:08, Petr Šabata wrote:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 02:41:56PM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019, 14:24 Miroslav Suchý wrote:
From:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1680320#c2
When you try to run:
mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 shell
You will
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 03:23:19PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 26. 02. 19 15:07, Petr Šabata wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 02:23:35PM +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> > > From:
> > >https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1680320#c2
> > >
> > > When you try to run:
> > >mock -r
On 02/26/2019 04:42 PM, Matus Honek wrote:
This kinda leads me to thinking we should implement ACIs management
within the DSLdapObjects like this (probably specific to a particular
subclass, to a degree). One that would take care of this added
requirement for objectclass ACIs because of hidden
29 matches
Mail list logo
