> But there's not anything actually wrong anymore?\
>I'm not sure what else you would like me to do here...>kevin
Yeah it's all good now -- f30 and f29 are all in testing now. Thanks for
checking.Phil___
devel mailing list --
On 8/10/19 5:34 PM, Philip Kovacs via devel wrote:
> UTC 00:00:00 has come and gone and nothing was pushed to testing, yet again.
Updates pushes are not instant. You shouldn't expect them all to finish
at 00:00:01. They did indeed fire off as expected at 00:00 and finished
some hours later, as
https://fedorapeople.org/groups/389ds/ci/nightly/2019/08/11/report-389-ds-base-1.4.1.6-20190810git21ba842.fc30.x86_64.html
___
389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
The following builds have been pushed to Fedora EPEL 8 updates-testing
aom-1.0.0-8.20190810git9666276.el8
drbdlinks-1.28-7.el8
libmodplug-0.8.9.0-9.el8
pdns-4.1.13-1.el8
python-bsddb3-6.2.6-5.el8
python-pymilter-1.0.4-3.el8
squidGuard-1.4-35.el8
Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> Maintaining python 2 requires maintaining a *lot* of infrastructure.
What kind of infrastructure do you need to maintain a package that is (will
be) no longer updated upstream? This takes almost no work. The only thing to
do is to backport some security fixes from
I'll take python-goto. FAS: limb.
Sent from ProtonMail mobile
Original Message
On Aug 10, 2019, 8:06 PM, Garrett Holmstrom wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My time to work on Fedora cloud-related things has diminished in
> recent months, so I have not been able to give the cloud-init and
>
Hi,
My time to work on Fedora cloud-related things has diminished in
recent months, so I have not been able to give the cloud-init and
python-boto packages the care they deserve. They are free to a good
home.
Thanks,
--
Garrett Holmstrom
___
devel
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 at 17:12, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 10. 08. 19 21:23, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > While I really tried to do my best, it seems that I broke CentOS by
> retiring
> > python36. Should it be unretired? Or is it reasonable to say: Please
> wait for
> > CentOS 7.7?
> >
> >
UTC 00:00:00 has come and gone and nothing was pushed to testing, yet again.
My reference to "7 days" was the time I have to wait until I can request
stable.That timer cannot start until the packages hit testing.
There really should be more than one guy who happens to be at a
conferencetaking
On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 7:33 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> On 11. 08. 19 0:34, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Miro Hrončok wrote:
> >> Obviously, we can prevent this by only orphaning packages with NEW bugz,
> >> but that doesn't really solve anything, because lot of the retired
> >> packages were actually
On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 7:47 PM Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > Why we would retire childsplay or gcompris or gdesklets ? IMHO we still
> > haven't a replacement .
> >
> > From [1] I strongly disagree with the text, why all python 2 packages
> > will be removed automatically and
Miro Hrončok wrote:
> If the only reason to set the status to ASSIGNED/POST/MODIFIED is to
> prevent **me** from retiring the package, something is fundamentally
> broken.
This is not about you personally, but about the FTBFS process. :-)
> If somebody has a legitimate reason to have a FTBFS
On Sun, 2019-08-11 at 01:35 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 11. 08. 19 1:05, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Why we would retire childsplay or gcompris or gdesklets ? IMHO we
> > still
> > haven't a replacement .
>
> If the maintainer wants to, they can request an exception for the
> package
Sérgio Basto wrote:
> Why we would retire childsplay or gcompris or gdesklets ? IMHO we still
> haven't a replacement .
>
> From [1] I strongly disagree with the text, why all python 2 packages
> will be removed automatically and why I would have a lot of work if I
> want keep one package alive
On 11. 08. 19 1:05, Sérgio Basto wrote:
Hi,
Why we would retire childsplay or gcompris or gdesklets ? IMHO we still
haven't a replacement .
If the maintainer wants to, they can request an exception for the package to be
kept.
From [1] I strongly disagree with the text, why all python 2
On 11. 08. 19 0:34, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Miro Hrončok wrote:
Obviously, we can prevent this by only orphaning packages with NEW bugz,
but that doesn't really solve anything, because lot of the retired
packages were actually ASSIGNED/POST/MODIFIED (for months).
Of course they were, to prevent
On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 10:28 PM Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > Because if we don't, people just gonna ignore FTBFS forever.
>
> And this would be a problem why exactly?
>
> Packages built for older Fedora releases tend to run on newer Fedora
> releases just fine. If the package:
Miro Hrončok wrote:
> What would you want to do instead? Keep shipping th Fedora 26 package
> forever?
Since this is actually an MSI blob that is a drop-in replacement for the MSI
blob from WINE upstream (where the version number expected by WINE is
hardcoded and has not changed for years) and
Hi,
Why we would retire childsplay or gcompris or gdesklets ? IMHO we still
haven't a replacement .
From [1] I strongly disagree with the text, why all python 2 packages
will be removed automatically and why I would have a lot of work if I
want keep one package alive . why not the opposite ? .
Miro Hrončok wrote:
> Obviously, we can prevent this by only orphaning packages with NEW bugz,
> but that doesn't really solve anything, because lot of the retired
> packages were actually ASSIGNED/POST/MODIFIED (for months).
Of course they were, to prevent you from retiring them even sooner.
Miro Hrončok wrote:
> Because if we don't, people just gonna ignore FTBFS forever.
And this would be a problem why exactly?
Packages built for older Fedora releases tend to run on newer Fedora
releases just fine. If the package:
* has no broken dependencies, and
* is not reported as completely
Hello,
I need your help to review these Go packages:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW_status=ASSIGNED=Fedora=Package%20Review=zebob.m%40gmail.com=1=substring_id=10401033=Fedora_format=advanced
They are needed to update others or fix FTBFS. I'd love to be able to get
Robert-André Mauchin wrote:
> How long would that wait be?
>
RHEL7.7 is only 4 days old. Everyone running CentOS should be planning
their patching cycles around the lull between a brand new RHEL Update and
the CentOS build/catch-up.
- bjs
___
On Saturday, 10 August 2019 21:23:55 CEST Miro Hrončok wrote:
> While I really tried to do my best, it seems that I broke CentOS by retiring
> python36. Should it be unretired? Or is it reasonable to say: Please wait
> for CentOS 7.7?
>
How long would that wait be?
On 10. 08. 19 21:23, Miro Hrončok wrote:
While I really tried to do my best, it seems that I broke CentOS by retiring
python36. Should it be unretired? Or is it reasonable to say: Please wait for
CentOS 7.7?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1739804
If any EPEL expert thinks the
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> This was the purpose of the various branching proposals. The main issue
> there are
>
not enough time/manpower resources to make any of the proposals work as it
> needs
>
build system changes, a full time release manager and packagers who want to
> deal with it.
>
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 at 16:18, Andrew C Aitchison
wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Aug 2019, Richard Grainger wrote:
>
> >> On 10 Aug 2019, at 20:23, Miro HronÄ ok wrote:
> >>
> >> While I really tried to do my best, it seems that I broke CentOS by
> >> retiring python36. Should it be unretired? Or is it
On 8/10/19 12:48 PM, Björn Persson wrote:
> Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> On 8/10/19 4:12 AM, Björn Persson wrote:
>>> Rafal Luzynski wrote:
9.08.2019 22:10 Jerry James wrote:
> Source: https://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/gettext/%{name}-%{version}.tar.xz
Do we need to change ftp to
On 8/10/19 11:33 AM, Philip Kovacs via devel wrote:
> Just look at the updates pending pages. Here are f30 and f29, resp:
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?releases=F30=pending
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?releases=F29=pending
Updates are pushed every single day at
Hi,
I'm a software developer from Istanbul, Turkey. I want to include some of my
open source projects to Fedora and I submitted my first package review[1].
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1739816
--
Ege Gunes
https://ege.dev/publickey.txt
Hi All,
So what I've been reading from the rawhide gating mailthread,
creating the gating rules unfortunately is somewhat convoluted /
involved.
As such I was wondering if maybe it is an idea to automatically
enabled the rpmlint gating test for packages which have a
.rpmlint rc. ?
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On 8/10/19 4:12 AM, Björn Persson wrote:
> > Rafal Luzynski wrote:
> >> 9.08.2019 22:10 Jerry James wrote:
> >>> Source: https://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/gettext/%{name}-%{version}.tar.xz
> >>
> >> Do we need to change ftp to https?
> >
> > That's the wrong question to
> On 10 Aug 2019, at 20:23, Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> While I really tried to do my best, it seems that I broke CentOS by retiring
> python36. Should it be unretired? Or is it reasonable to say: Please wait for
> CentOS 7.7?
This is why I believe we need a “CentOS-EPEL” repo that mirrors EPEL
While I really tried to do my best, it seems that I broke CentOS by retiring
python36. Should it be unretired? Or is it reasonable to say: Please wait for
CentOS 7.7?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1739804
Also after retiring python-rpm-macros, Koji doesn't seem to see the RHEL
Just look at the updates pending pages. Here are f30 and f29, resp:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?releases=F30=pending
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?releases=F29=pending
On Saturday, August 10, 2019, 02:29:24 PM EDT, Stephen John Smoogen
wrote:
On Sat, 10 Aug
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 at 13:22, Philip Kovacs via devel <
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> Why does it take days sometimes just to start the 7 day timer?
>
Can we have some examples to track this down? Because without that.. no
idea and no way to fix.
>
Sorry for the top posting, "smart" phone...
What about Qubes OS? Isn't their dom0 using xen, based on Fedora?
Do they use Xen as packaged by Fedora? If not, couldn't they contribute
whatever they do that Fedora doesn't here?
It might be worth getting in touch with them. They look like a
Why does it take days sometimes just to start the 7 day timer? ___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 03:50:43PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
[..]
> Problem and thesis statement:
> Certain workloads, such as building webkitGTK from source, results in
> heavy swap usage eventually leading to the system becoming totally
> unresponsive. Look into switching from disk based swap,
On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 12:48 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> On 8/10/19 4:12 AM, Björn Persson wrote:
> > Rafal Luzynski wrote:
> >> 9.08.2019 22:10 Jerry James wrote:
> >>> Source: https://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/gettext/%{name}-%{version}.tar.xz
> >>
> >> Do we need to change ftp to https?
> >
> >
On 8/10/19 4:12 AM, Björn Persson wrote:
> Rafal Luzynski wrote:
>> 9.08.2019 22:10 Jerry James wrote:
>>> Source: https://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/gettext/%{name}-%{version}.tar.xz
>>
>> Do we need to change ftp to https?
>
> That's the wrong question to ask. The right question is: What reason is
On 8/10/19 2:20 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 10:09:50AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>>
>> This package was built over 24 hours ago:
>>
>> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1349103
>>
>> but it hasn't appeared in Rawhide yet.
>
> It seems the
On Sat, 2019-08-10 at 17:01 +0300, Matt Wilson wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 05:56:11PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> [...]
> > So it seems like this would also be a good opportunity to revisit and
> > nail down more specifically exactly what our cloud requirements are.
> > bcotton suggested
The package are correctly retired, but the ones from RHEL are not available,
which breaks building for EPEL7:
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/9826/36909826/mock_output.log
Error: Package: epel-rpm-macros-7-20.noarch (build)
Requires: python-srpm-macros
Error: Package:
> "The release must boot successfully as Xen DomU with releases providing
> a functional, supported Xen Dom0 and widely used cloud providers
> utilizing Xen."
I am a long time Xen/Fedora user. In fact, I rely on Fedora as my Dom0. I
acknowledge that there are not too many of us, and I further
You meant more like "rebuilding" modules rather than branching, right?
On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 3:09 PM Mohan Boddu wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> There is a Mass Branching scheduled for next Tuesday, that is on Aug 13th
> 2019. There were some modules that are stuck in rawhide that shouldn't be
>
On Friday, 09 August 2019 at 17:40, Robert-André Mauchin wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Next week I will update dav1d to version 0.4.0 which includes a SONAME bump,
> and will do a GIT snapshot of aom, whose library is unstable.
>
> I will push these updates both on F31 and F30, so consumers of these
>
Hi all,
There is a Mass Branching scheduled for next Tuesday, that is on Aug 13th
2019. There were some modules that are stuck in rawhide that shouldn't be
there, please create a ticket in https://pagure.io/releng with the list of
module builds that shouldn't be there and we will remove them from
Hi all,
There is a Mass Branching scheduled for next Tuesday, that is on Aug 13th
2019. There were some modules that are stuck in rawhide that shouldn't be
there, please create a ticket in https://pagure.io/releng with the list of
module builds that shouldn't be there and we will remove them from
Hi,
> That only works properly on distros that implement the boot loader
> spec and the boot loader interface properly:
>
> https://systemd.io/BOOT_LOADER_SPECIFICATION
> https://systemd.io/BOOT_LOADER_INTERFACE
Thanks for the links, I looked briefly when you replied but figured
I'd need a quiet
10.08.2019 13:12 Björn Persson wrote:
> [...]
> Anyway, the answer is yes:
>
> 220 GNU FTP server ready.
> USER anonymous
> 230-NOTICE (Updated October 13 2017):
> 230-
> 230-Because of security concerns with plaintext protocols, we still
> 230-intend to disable the FTP protocol for downloads on
Rafal Luzynski wrote:
> 9.08.2019 22:10 Jerry James wrote:
> > Source: https://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/gettext/%{name}-%{version}.tar.xz
>
> Do we need to change ftp to https?
That's the wrong question to ask. The right question is: What reason is
there to choose an insecure protocol when HTTPS
On 10. 08. 19 11:53, Antonio Trande wrote:
When will it happen?
I did that right after that e-mail:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-rpm-macros/c/b6f2fa0c7616565c964e5c72ecfddb6e712c2266?branch=epel7
If ti doesn't work, maybe some Koji admins need to do stuff?
Or it just takes a
When will it happen?
On 09/08/19 15:39, Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> Will do. I was waiting for the release to happen.
>
--
---
Antonio Trande
Fedora Project
mailto 'sagitter at fedoraproject dot org'
GPG key: 0x6e0331dd1699e4d7
GPG key server: https://keys.openpgp.org/
signature.asc
On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 10:09:50AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> This package was built over 24 hours ago:
>
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1349103
>
> but it hasn't appeared in Rawhide yet.
It seems the problem may only apply to this package, as I've just
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 7:17 AM Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 01:13:50PM -0400, Tim Zabel wrote:
> >Hello,
> >I'm a little late to this conversation, but is fpaste in Category 4 due
> > to
> >the high legal costs, or because of a lack of a maintainer?
> >
This package was built over 24 hours ago:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1349103
but it hasn't appeared in Rawhide yet.
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming and virtualization blog:
On Fri, 09 Aug 2019 23:50:43 +0200, Chris Murphy wrote:
> $ cmake -DPORT=GTK -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=RelWithDebInfo -GNinja
RelWithDebInfo is -O2 -g build. That is not suitable for debugging, for
debugging you should use -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Debug (that is -g).
RelWithDebInfo is useful for final rpm
Hi Pierre,
On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 at 14:35, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
>
> Good Morning Everyone,
>
> I think it's time I make amends and recognize that I've been a terrible
> maintainer for a number of my packages.
> So I'd like to orphan the following packages hoping they can find a better
> home.
On 8/10/19 2:56 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Hey folks! I'm starting a new thread for this to trim the recipient
list a bit and include devel@ and coreos@.
The Story So Far: there is a Fedora release criterion which requires
Fedora to boot on Xen:
"The release must boot successfully as Xen DomU
On Sat, 2019-08-10 at 00:53 -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 8:57 PM Adam Williamson
> wrote:
> > Hey folks! I'm starting a new thread for this to trim the recipient
> > list a bit and include devel@ and coreos@.
> >
> > The Story So Far: there is a Fedora release
61 matches
Mail list logo
