https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1829089
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2020-eb269aa65e has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1829102
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2020-51484a5980 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1829119
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2020-a611ef944a has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1829102
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2020-2330b48960 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1829089
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2020-ead5206668 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1829119
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2020-0ee23e1a1d has been pushed to the Fedora 30 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade
On 4/27/20 1:39 PM, Miro Hrončok 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:
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1829089
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #5 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1829119
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #7 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1829102
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #4 from
On 4/29/20 8:04 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
Sure, that's valid. Although for installations contained to just
Fedora content, the upgrade from release to release has been downright
boring (that's a good thing). It's almost equivalent to a reboot.
Perhaps there are other reasons, like some third
https://fedorapeople.org/groups/389ds/ci/nightly/2020/04/30/report-389-ds-base-1.4.4.1-20200429gitc7da66e.fc31.x86_64.html
___
389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
On 4/29/20 5:26 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
It seems that if I try and file a bug against 0install, I still get to pick
all of 30, 31, 32, and rawhide under Version. Is this expected?
Unfortunately yes. Bugzilla can only disable a component for bugs, not
specific versions of a component.
If this
On 4/29/20 6:58 PM, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
sh-4.4# rpm -q python-rpm-macros
python-rpm-macros-3-37.el8.noarch
```
Is the epel8-playground builder somehow using an different version of
python-rpm-macros? Happy to file a bug if I know where this should go.
root.log says
On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 3:05 AM Josh Boyer wrote:
> Perhaps there are other reasons, like some third party software not
> working on F32, for example. I'm generally curious about how people
> actually use our distributions and what prevents them from just
> drinking from the firehose.
Well,
python38-rpm-macros brought into EPEL8.2 buildroot causing problems. See:
https://pagure.io/epel/issue/103
--
Orion Poplawski
Manager of NWRA Technical Systems 720-772-5637
NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane or...@nwra.com
python-mimeparse fails to build in Koji for the epel8-playground target:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=43923150
from build.log (as an aside, Koji often prompts to look at root.log even
when that's not where the error lies, weird):
error: line 48: Unknown tag:
On Thu, 2020-04-30 at 00:38 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 29. 04. 20 21:42, Lloyd Kvam wrote:
> > > What you say is true. I still don't agree that "python3.9" as a package
> > > name
> > > annoys humans.
> >
> > I am not a package pro, but simply reading along as an interested human
> > user.
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 5:20 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2020-04-29 at 16:59 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 4:24 PM Alex Scheel wrote:
> > > Let's try this with the right Florian...
> > >
> > >
> > > Sorry!
> > >
> > > - Original Message -
> > > > From:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 02:06:06PM -0700, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
>
>
> On 4/29/20 10:14 AM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> > Good Morning Everyone,
> >
> > This is something that was asked a while ago and that we finally tackled.
> > If a
> > package is retired in Fedora, it will now be
On 4/29/20 4:12 PM, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
On 4/29/20 3:06 AM, Petr Pisar wrote:
That's probably because of Carl George deleted the
package.cfg configuration from epel8 branch to mirror the builds into
epel8-buildroot:
commit dd46fcc88a92241e2aa776208cf7ef0dddbab541
Author: Carl George
On Thu, 2020-04-30 at 01:10 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 30. 04. 20 1:07, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > my usual mistake is where I do a stupid programming and do something like
> > >
> > > ls -1 | awk '{split($0,a,"."); print a[1]}' | whatever I needed for just
> > > the names of rpms
> > >
> > >
On 4/29/20 3:06 AM, Petr Pisar wrote:
That's probably because of Carl George deleted the
package.cfg configuration from epel8 branch to mirror the builds into
epel8-buildroot:
commit dd46fcc88a92241e2aa776208cf7ef0dddbab541
Author: Carl George
Date: Fri Apr 24 01:06:33 2020 -0500
On 30. 04. 20 1:07, Neal Gompa wrote:
my usual mistake is where I do a stupid programming and do something like
ls -1 | awk '{split($0,a,"."); print a[1]}' | whatever I needed for just the
names of rpms
which for most packages will give me the Name-Ver[.sion removed]. it is lazy
script
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 7:04 PM Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 at 18:44, Miro Hrončok wrote:
>>
>> On 29. 04. 20 21:42, Lloyd Kvam wrote:
>> >> What you say is true. I still don't agree that "python3.9" as a package
>> >> name
>> >> annoys humans.
>> > I am not a
On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 at 18:44, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 29. 04. 20 21:42, Lloyd Kvam wrote:
> >> What you say is true. I still don't agree that "python3.9" as a package
> name
> >> annoys humans.
> > I am not a package pro, but simply reading along as an interested human
> user. To me, adding
> >
Hi,
Does anybody know how to contact Pavel Alexeev (fas: hubbitus) ?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1829117
Last comment on the most recent ticket on bugzilla:
#1737349 2019-09-08 pahan
#1215344 2016-01-01 pahan
#1200038 2015-10-04 pahan
#1130101 2014-09-09 pahan
List
On 29. 04. 20 21:42, Lloyd Kvam wrote:
What you say is true. I still don't agree that "python3.9" as a package name
annoys humans.
I am not a package pro, but simply reading along as an interested human user.
To me, adding
periods in package names can be confusing.
My sentence was about
On 29. 04. 20 21:42, Lloyd Kvam wrote:
What you say is true. I still don't agree that "python3.9" as a package name
annoys humans.
I am not a package pro, but simply reading along as an interested human user.
To me, adding
periods in package names can be confusing.
My sentence was about
On 30. 04. 20 0:14, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 29. 04. 20 21:11, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 08:25:42PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 29. 04. 20 20:24, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
We may need/want to track this in another script than this one. Could you
open a
ticket for
On 29. 04. 20 21:11, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 08:25:42PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 29. 04. 20 20:24, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
We may need/want to track this in another script than this one. Could you open a
ticket for this? I know there is some automation once a
Once upon a time, James Cassell said:
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2020, at 6:51 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> > Now that Fedora 32 has fstrim.timer enabled by default... how about
> > discards for the things that fstrim doesn't get? Two main things I know
> > of:
> >
> > - swap: Do discard at swapon time by
On Wed, 2020-04-29 at 16:59 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 4:24 PM Alex Scheel wrote:
> > Let's try this with the right Florian...
> >
> >
> > Sorry!
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > > From: "Alex Scheel"
> > > To: "Florian Weimer"
> > > Cc: "Development
You need @fmuellner i suppose. :)
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List
On 4/29/20 10:14 AM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
Good Morning Everyone,
This is something that was asked a while ago and that we finally tackled. If a
package is retired in Fedora, it will now be "disabled" in bugzilla, meaning no
one can open new bugs against it.
The script doing this ensures
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 4:24 PM Alex Scheel wrote:
>
> Let's try this with the right Florian...
>
>
> Sorry!
>
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Alex Scheel"
> > To: "Florian Weimer"
> > Cc: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
> >
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 4:02:48 PM
* Alex Scheel:
> Hi Florian,
>
> I've hit numerous bugs in GNOME in F31. Some of these are fixed in F32,
> such as this one against mutter:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1770296
>
>
> Could we get some of these fixes backported? I've not heard from you on
> this bug at all,
https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/pull-request/51061
--
389 Directory Server Development Team
___
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:
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 10:24:03PM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Wednesday, 29 April 2020 at 19:14, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> > Good Morning Everyone,
> >
> > This is something that was asked a while ago and that we finally tackled.
> > If a
> > package is retired
Hi!
On Wednesday, 29 April 2020 at 19:14, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> Good Morning Everyone,
>
> This is something that was asked a while ago and that we finally tackled. If a
> package is retired in Fedora, it will now be "disabled" in bugzilla, meaning
> no
> one can open new bugs against it.
Let's try this with the right Florian...
Sorry!
- Original Message -
> From: "Alex Scheel"
> To: "Florian Weimer"
> Cc: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 4:02:48 PM
> Subject: Backports of fixes from F32 -> F31?
>
> Hi Florian,
>
>
Hi Florian,
I've hit numerous bugs in GNOME in F31. Some of these are fixed in F32,
such as this one against mutter:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1770296
Could we get some of these fixes backported? I've not heard from you on
this bug at all, despite a needinfo request since
On Mon, Apr 27, 2020, at 7:19 AM, Petr Šabata wrote:
> Details in the gist:
> https://gist.github.com/contyk/0f0585c57976ca18a293b3566408
How about s/use/globalbuildopt/ ?
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send
On Wed, 2020-04-29 at 19:57 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> What you say is true. I still don't agree that "python3.9" as a package name
> annoys humans.
I am not a package pro, but simply reading along as an interested human user.
To me, adding
periods in package names can be confusing.
I will
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 08:25:42PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 29. 04. 20 20:24, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> > We may need/want to track this in another script than this one. Could you
> > open a
> > ticket for this? I know there is some automation once a package is retired,
> > so
> > that
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 05:57:48PM +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> In fact, we do that in branching time. And you can enable building for F32
> in settings. And if you check the "Follow branching" option in settings,
> then we automatically enable new version of Fedora for you at branching
> time.
Le mercredi 29 avril 2020 à 19:57 +0200, Miro Hrončok a écrit :
> And I don't understand what kind of automation are we
> talking about that needs to parse the "3.9" part and figure out it is
> a "qualifier".
It mostly hits you in the package creation code. The Go macro code will
just dump
On 29. 04. 20 20:24, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
We may need/want to track this in another script than this one. Could you open a
ticket for this? I know there is some automation once a package is retired, so
that may be one place where we could do this.
Or we'll have to find another place for
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 07:32:01PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 29. 04. 20 19:14, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> > This is something that was asked a while ago and that we finally tackled.
> > If a
> > package is retired in Fedora, it will now be "disabled" in bugzilla,
> > meaning no
> > one
Le mercredi 29 avril 2020 à 19:43 +0200, Miro Hrončok a écrit :
> On 29. 04. 20 19:37, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > Le mercredi 29 avril 2020 à 19:18 +0200, Miro Hrončok a écrit :
> >
> > > All [compat packages] MUST include the base name suffixed by
> > > either:
> > Well we are not creating a
Le mercredi 29 avril 2020 à 19:57 +0200, Miro Hrončok a écrit :
> Such automation is broken anyway, because it cannot tell if python-
> requests is a
> Python library or a Python "qualifier".
It is no more broken than automation that "knows" test means
is a version. Of course before you apply
On 29. 04. 20 19:50, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
I don't agree that "python3.9" as a package name annoys humans or
break automation scripts. How does it?
As soon as you have a different naming convention for numeric and non
numeric qualifiers all the code that manipulates your package names
must
On 29. 04. 20 19:50, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
I don't agree that "python3.9" as a package name annoys humans or
break automation scripts. How does it?
As soon as you have a different naming convention for numeric and non
numeric qualifiers all the code that manipulates your package names
must
On 29. 04. 20 19:37, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le mercredi 29 avril 2020 à 19:18 +0200, Miro Hrončok a écrit :
All [compat packages] MUST include the base name suffixed by either:
Well we are not creating a compat package here and not adding an hyphen
creates an artificial numeric/non numeric
On 29. 04. 20 19:37, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le mercredi 29 avril 2020 à 19:18 +0200, Miro Hrončok a écrit :
All [compat packages] MUST include the base name suffixed by either:
Well we are not creating a compat package here and not adding an hyphen
creates an artificial numeric/non numeric
Le mercredi 29 avril 2020 à 19:18 +0200, Miro Hrončok a écrit :
> All [compat packages] MUST include the base name suffixed by either:
Well we are not creating a compat package here and not adding an hyphen
creates an artificial numeric/non numeric special case.
But, I see someone formalised
On 29. 04. 20 19:14, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
This is something that was asked a while ago and that we finally tackled. If a
package is retired in Fedora, it will now be "disabled" in bugzilla, meaning no
one can open new bugs against it.
Thanks!
Can we please also close all the open
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 4:28 PM Tomas Orsava wrote:
> Hello everyone.
> I’m working on a change to rename pythonXY packages to pythonX.Y, e.g.
> python39 to python3.9.
>
Changing it to pythonX.Y makes sense I think. It's likely going to be a lot
of work for little gain, but I appreciate that
On 29. 04. 20 18:51, Neal Gompa wrote:
What do you think? Do you foresee any problems?
I'm good with this plan, except for one thing I thought of we need to
address: How do we do comparisons for python versions?
In spec %ifs? I've been doing it with %python3_version_nodots. That'll work
On Wed, 2020-04-29 at 19:19 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 29. 04. 20 19:14, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> > Good Morning Everyone,
> >
> > This is something that was asked a while ago and that we finally
> > tackled. If a
> > package is retired in Fedora, it will now be "disabled" in
> >
On 29. 04. 20 19:14, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
Good Morning Everyone,
This is something that was asked a while ago and that we finally tackled. If a
package is retired in Fedora, it will now be "disabled" in bugzilla, meaning no
one can open new bugs against it.
The script doing this ensures
On 29. 04. 20 18:41, Nicolas Mailhot via devel wrote:
Le mercredi 29 avril 2020 à 16:27 +0200, Tomas Orsava a écrit :
Hi,
I’m working on a change to rename pythonXY packages to pythonX.Y,
e.g. python39 to python3.9.
Motivation:
When you install an additional Python interpreter, the command
On 29. 04. 20 18:41, Nicolas Mailhot via devel wrote:
Le mercredi 29 avril 2020 à 16:27 +0200, Tomas Orsava a écrit :
Hi,
I’m working on a change to rename pythonXY packages to pythonX.Y,
e.g. python39 to python3.9.
Motivation:
When you install an additional Python interpreter, the command
Good Morning Everyone,
This is something that was asked a while ago and that we finally tackled. If a
package is retired in Fedora, it will now be "disabled" in bugzilla, meaning no
one can open new bugs against it.
The script doing this ensures that the package is retired on all active branches
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 10:28 AM Tomas Orsava wrote:
>
> Hello everyone.
> I’m working on a change to rename pythonXY packages to pythonX.Y, e.g.
> python39 to python3.9.
>
> Motivation:
> When you install an additional Python interpreter, the command that runs it
> contains a dot (e.g.
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 10:28 AM Tomas Orsava wrote:
>
> Hello everyone.
> I’m working on a change to rename pythonXY packages to pythonX.Y, e.g.
> python39 to python3.9.
>
> Motivation:
> When you install an additional Python interpreter, the command that runs it
> contains a dot (e.g.
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 11:47 am, Kalev Lember
wrote:
I agree; it's time to let GConf2 and the rest of the GNOME 2 libraries
go. If anyone disagrees and should pick it up, please only keep it for
F33 and then retire it in F34, so that we don't keep the old baggage
in
the distro forever.
Le mercredi 29 avril 2020 à 16:27 +0200, Tomas Orsava a écrit :
Hi,
> I’m working on a change to rename pythonXY packages to pythonX.Y,
> e.g. python39 to python3.9.
>
> Motivation:
> When you install an additional Python interpreter, the command that
> runs it contains a dot (e.g.
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 08:02:15AM -0400, Martin Kolman wrote:
>
>
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Kevin Fenzi"
> > To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
> >
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 12:26:46 AM
> > Subject: Re: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers
Dne 29. 04. 20 v 18:07 Miroslav Suchý napsal(a):
> Dne 27. 04. 20 v 13:19 Petr Šabata napsal(a):
>> Based on the recent discussions around %fedora/%rhel macros and ELN,
>> and %bcond generally being confusing to work with, I came up with a
>> distribution-wide feature that defines generic feature
Dne 27. 04. 20 v 13:19 Petr Šabata napsal(a):
> Based on the recent discussions around %fedora/%rhel macros and ELN,
> and %bcond generally being confusing to work with, I came up with a
> distribution-wide feature that defines generic feature keywords and
> associated helper macros that packages
Dne 28. 04. 20 v 15:55 Matthew Miller napsal(a):
> It’s here! We’re proud to announce the release of Fedora 32.
> Thanks to the hard work of thousands of Fedora community
> members and contributors, we’re celebrating yet another
> on-time release!
>
> Read the official announcement at:
>
> *
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1829493
Bug ID: 1829493
Summary: perl-Text-Aligner-0.16 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Text-Aligner
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
> >FreeIPA depends on uglify-js to minimize its JS code. Do we have any
> >other alternative that doesn't change meaning of the code?
>
> I quickly hacked on to use python3-rjsmin, seems to work fine for our
> use case.
Okay. It's good to know it.
I tried to suggest bundling your uglify-js in
I did an epel8 build yesterday. I've added you to the list of maintainers.
Thanks!
On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 03:26:49PM -0500, Martin Jackson wrote:
I would be happy to maintain it -and it looks like it needs an epel8
build. (FAS: mhjacks)
Thanks,
Marty
On 4/27/20 2:13 PM, David Cantrell
On 4/29/20 4:12 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Steven A. Falco:
I'd like to request a rebuild for F32. Is it sufficient to request
that here, or is there some other procedure that I should use?
I've merged the F33 change (dropping termcap-devel) and kicked off a new
build. Please test the
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 10:12:06AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Steven A. Falco:
I'd like to request a rebuild for F32. Is it sufficient to request
that here, or is there some other procedure that I should use?
I've merged the F33 change (dropping termcap-devel) and kicked off a new
On ke, 29 huhti 2020, Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
On ke, 29 huhti 2020, Jun Aruga wrote:
Hi,
I orphaned the package.
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/uglify-js
because
* I removed the uglify-js dependency from rubygem-uglifier.
* When I asked the co-maintainers, there was no response.
* The
Hello everyone.
I’m working on a change to rename pythonXY packages to pythonX.Y, e.g.
python39 to python3.9.
*Motivation:*
When you install an additional Python interpreter, the command that runs
it contains a dot (e.g. /usr/bin/python3.9) but the package name does
not (e.g. dnf install
On ke, 29 huhti 2020, Jun Aruga wrote:
Hi,
I orphaned the package.
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/uglify-js
because
* I removed the uglify-js dependency from rubygem-uglifier.
* When I asked the co-maintainers, there was no response.
* The difficulty of the management. uglify-js requires
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1829102
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2020-0caffaf370 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-0caffaf370
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1829102
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2020-51484a5980 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-51484a5980
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1829102
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2020-2330b48960 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-2330b48960
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
- Original Message -
> From: "Kevin Fenzi"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 12:26:46 AM
> Subject: Re: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers (anaconda also
> affected)
>
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 11:30:46PM +0200, Dominik
Hi,
I orphaned the package.
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/uglify-js
because
* I removed the uglify-js dependency from rubygem-uglifier.
* When I asked the co-maintainers, there was no response.
* The difficulty of the management. uglify-js requires nodejs-acorn,
which requires
On 29. 04. 20 11:47, Kalev Lember wrote:
GConf2 is orphan, why ? no maintainers or a task force to be removed ?
GConf2 has been deprecated for well over a decade and afaik unmaintained
for nearly half a decade. Thus: please just remove it from your
dependencies and use gsettings instead (the
No missing expected images.
Passed openQA tests: 1/1 (x86_64)
--
Mail generated by check-compose:
https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
No missing expected images.
Passed openQA tests: 8/8 (x86_64)
New passes (same test not passed in Fedora-IoT-32-20200428.2):
ID: 588969 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/588969
ID: 588970 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/1 (x86_64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
ID: 588977 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/588977
--
Mail generated by check-compose:
Hello,
I am Iago Rubio and I work as software developer in Spain. I have been
involved with fedora some years ago and on the FOSS movement as well.
I have had some packages on Fedora, and back in 2005 I was the upstream
developer of cssed and colorcombinate, two small projects for web
On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 09:22:56PM -0700, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
> My epel8 build for python-extras succeeded just fine (using python-testtools
> from a build override as a dependency -
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/overrides/python-testtools-2.4.0-3.el8), but
> the epel8-playground
No missing expected images.
Passed openQA tests: 1/1 (x86_64)
--
Mail generated by check-compose:
https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 11:47:33AM +0200, Kalev Lember wrote:
>
> On 4/28/20 22:15, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 08:01:31AM +0200, Dan Čermák wrote:
> > > Sérgio Basto writes:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, 2020-04-27 at 12:39 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > > > > GConf2
> > > >
> > >
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1829119
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2020-0ee23e1a1d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-0ee23e1a1d
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1829119
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2020-35ae08b351 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-35ae08b351
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1829119
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2020-a611ef944a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-a611ef944a
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
On 4/28/20 22:15, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 08:01:31AM +0200, Dan Čermák wrote:
Sérgio Basto writes:
On Mon, 2020-04-27 at 12:39 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
GConf2
GConf2 is orphan, why ? no maintainers or a task force to be removed ?
GConf2 has been deprecated for well
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1829119
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1829119
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1829089
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2020-e9eb62e871 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-e9eb62e871
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
1 - 100 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
