Thank you Kalev!
If that soname bump is needed, please rebuild glade and all affected
packages in a side tag next time.
Thanks!
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 7:19 AM Kalev Lember wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 6:56 AM Igor Gnatenko
> wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> it seems that glade-3.36.0-1.fc33
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1831970
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #5 from
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 6:56 AM Igor Gnatenko <
ignatenkobr...@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> it seems that glade-3.36.0-1.fc33 changes SONAME from libglade-2.so.6
> to libglade-2.so.12.
>
Yes, sorry, already untagged from rawhide. I'll investigate what's up with
the soname bump and
Hi,
I attended PWG meetup this week - due COVID-19 the meetup was completely
virtual.
The notes from the first day are attached, new PWG standards were
discussed during next days - proposals can be found here
https://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/ipp/wd/?C=M;O=D .
--
Zdenek Dohnal
Software Engineer
Red
Hello,
it seems that glade-3.36.0-1.fc33 changes SONAME from libglade-2.so.6
to libglade-2.so.12.
That is breaking:
* anaconda-widgets-devel (anaconda) -
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1832687
* anjuta - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1832688
* gnome-builder -
https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/pull-request/51073
https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/issue/51072
—
Sincerely,
William Brown
Senior Software Engineer, 389 Directory Server
SUSE Labs
___
389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828235
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Fixed In
https://fedorapeople.org/groups/389ds/ci/nightly/2020/05/07/report-389-ds-base-1.4.4.1-20200506git151a967.fc31.x86_64.html
___
389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1830464
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Fixed In
On 5/6/20 4:31 AM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 06. 05. 20 3:39, Orion Poplawski wrote:
This is related to my breaking of various packages by dropping
python34-six. Should we:
- re-add python34-six
For now, yes please. This will need a big announcement and coordination,
in the meantime, users
Would anyone like to swap a review?
psi-notify - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1832623
psi-notify is a minimal unprivileged notifier for system-wide resource
pressure using PSI.
This can help you to identify misbehaving applications on your machine
before they start to
Hi folks,
Hope you all are doing well. Nice to meet ya'll. I'm Purusharth. I've been
using Fedora for 3-4 good years now.I'm working at a project in IITB
(FOSSEE- Free and Open Source software for education), wherein my part is
to visualize mathematical concepts. As the name suggests, being a
On Wed, 2020-05-06 at 20:59 +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 08:39:19PM +0200, clime wrote:
> > But I would like to note that exploded repos (or source-git repos)
> > have at least two other advantages.
> >
> > 1) they consume less space than tarballs for each version
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 9:01 AM Ankur Sinha wrote:
> I can review these. Would you be able to review these two if you have
> some time please?
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1827957
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828079
Will do. Thank you, Ankur!
--
Jerry James
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1780871
James Smith changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ddf-...@redhat.com
--- Comment #6 from
On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 21:00, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 08:39:19PM +0200, clime wrote:
> > But I would like to note that exploded repos (or source-git repos)
> > have at least two other advantages.
> >
> > 1) they consume less space than tarballs for each version
On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 08:39:19PM +0200, clime wrote:
> But I would like to note that exploded repos (or source-git repos)
> have at least two other advantages.
>
> 1) they consume less space than tarballs for each version because
> objects in git repo are deduplicated
> 2) instead of
On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 13:21, Fabio Valentini wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 10:37 AM Vít Ondruch wrote:
> >
> >
> > Dne 05. 05. 20 v 18:37 Fabio Valentini napsal(a):
> > > On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 5:06 PM Tomas Tomecek wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Tomas,
> > >
> > > I'll respond below with some of my
Hi all,
I am trying to get a hold of "jfch", since I need "inih" to be
updated in order to update gamemode:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1810355
Anybody knows how to contact them?
Cheers,
CK
___
devel mailing list --
+1
___
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 Guidelines:
On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 08:04:35PM +0200, Petr Viktorin wrote:
> Zbyszek said:
> >Please don't advertise macros like %distname, %srcname, %origname, and
> >the countless other variants in use. They made sense when people used >
> >editors which didn't support search easily. Having the name
>
On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 04:53:58PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 06. 05. 20 16:31, Ben Cotton wrote:
> >On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 4:03 AM Vít Ondruch wrote:
> >>I don't know, I am somewhat ambivalent on this. I am not sure who is
> >>going to collect the feedback there. Will it be the owner of the
On Wednesday, May 6, 2020 4:35:11 PM CEST Vít Ondruch wrote:
> I am not concerned about remote branches disappearing. I am concerned
> about the complete opposite, when the remote branches appearing in my
> local copy and not disappearing once the remote copies go.
Isn't this exactly what `git
Hi Jerry,
On Tue, May 05, 2020 15:16:03 -0600, Jerry James wrote:
> The latest version of gap-pkg-semigroups has two new dependencies.
> Who would like to swap reviews? I need these two:
>
> gap-pkg-ferret: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1830322
> gap-pkg-images:
On 06. 05. 20 16:31, Ben Cotton wrote:
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 4:03 AM Vít Ondruch wrote:
I don't know, I am somewhat ambivalent on this. I am not sure who is
going to collect the feedback there. Will it be the owner of the change
or somebody else?
The owner of the change would be responsible
On 06.05.2020 15:12, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> Hello, as a Fedora user, who doesn't consume any modules, I'd like an
> easy way to disable modular repos to save some traffic (both for myself
> and on the mirrors).
I think this is a great idea.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
Dne 06. 05. 20 v 16:15 Robbie Harwood napsal(a):
> Vít Ondruch writes:
>
>> Dne 05. 05. 20 v 21:26 Robbie Harwood napsal(a):
>>> Tomas Tomecek writes:
>>>
Thank you all for raising all the questions and concerns.
Before I reply, I'd like to stress that we are still in a prototype
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 4:03 AM Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
> I don't know, I am somewhat ambivalent on this. I am not sure who is
> going to collect the feedback there. Will it be the owner of the change
> or somebody else?
The owner of the change would be responsible for it, but they may
delegate that
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 9:13 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> Hello, as a Fedora user, who doesn't consume any modules, I'd like an easy way
> to disable modular repos to save some traffic (both for myself and on the
> mirrors).
>
> Disclaimer: I do not propose to change any defaults, just the delivery
I'm not the author of the proposal, but my take on this:
On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 10:02:19AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> I don't know, I am somewhat ambivalent on this. I am not sure who is
> going to collect the feedback there. Will it be the owner of the change
> or somebody else? What will be
Vít Ondruch writes:
> Dne 05. 05. 20 v 21:26 Robbie Harwood napsal(a):
>> Tomas Tomecek writes:
>>
>>> Thank you all for raising all the questions and concerns.
>>>
>>> Before I reply, I'd like to stress that we are still in a prototype
>>> phase - not everything is solved (clearly) and at this
On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 03:12:08PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> Can we please have modular repos in separate package again?
>
> Basically revert this plus some extra comps/kickstarts changes:
>
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fedora-repos/c/7b32bee388d093c446017f1e33309d9b96b24e15
>
>
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 9:39 AM Dan Čermák
wrote:
>
> Miro Hrončok writes:
>
> >
> > Side note: It would be great if DNF supported system-repos in /usr/share and
> > override options in /etc, but that is not (yet) the case.
>
> slightly off-topic, but I'm just going to leave libeconf (a library
On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 12:10 PM Kamil Paral wrote:
> Hello,
> Fedora Infra Ansible is now available on Pagure [1], which means people
> can finally submit and review pull requests. That means we no longer have a
> use case for our own fedora-qa/qa-ansible mirror [2], which we created just
> for
Miro Hrončok writes:
>
> Side note: It would be great if DNF supported system-repos in /usr/share and
> override options in /etc, but that is not (yet) the case.
slightly off-topic, but I'm just going to leave libeconf (a library to
achieve exactly that easily) here:
Dne 06. 05. 20 v 13:20 Fabio Valentini napsal(a):
> On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 10:37 AM Vít Ondruch wrote:
>>
>> Dne 05. 05. 20 v 18:37 Fabio Valentini napsal(a):
>>> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 5:06 PM Tomas Tomecek wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Tomas,
>>>
>>> I'll respond below with some of my experiences and
Hello, as a Fedora user, who doesn't consume any modules, I'd like an easy way
to disable modular repos to save some traffic (both for myself and on the mirrors).
Disclaimer: I do not propose to change any defaults, just the delivery
mechanism.
Currently, I can do it by editing all
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
Dne 04. 05. 20 v 17:05 Tomas Tomecek napsal(a):
> The main reason I am sending this is to gather feedback from all of
> you whether there is an interest in such a workflow.
I am +1 as long as:
a) this is opt-in (cannot imagine anything else)
b) you resolve the gordic knot of easy sync of changes
In this change:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Make_ambiguous_python_shebangs_error
We have advised the following:
pathfix.py -pni "%{__python3} %{py3_shbang_opts}"
To fix the shebangs.
-p preserves timestamps
-n prevents creating ~backup files
-i specifies the interpreter for
Dne 05. 05. 20 v 18:37 Fabio Valentini napsal(a):
> So, in my experience, source-git might be a workable solution for
> packages with *big* downstream modifications.
Big +1. Been there, done that (with Tito).
> In the rare occasion that I need to make downstream-only changes with
> patches, I
On 27. 04. 20 11:34, Miro Hrončok wrote:
Hello Python packagers,
since there is no upstream supported universal test invocation for Python
(`python setup.py test` is deprecated and the de-facto-standard `tox` doesn't
always do what we want in RPM's %check and/or is not always used by
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 10:37 AM Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
>
> Dne 05. 05. 20 v 18:37 Fabio Valentini napsal(a):
> > On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 5:06 PM Tomas Tomecek wrote:
> >
> > Hi Tomas,
> >
> > I'll respond below with some of my experiences and opinions ...
> >
> >> Let’s talk about dist-git, as a
On 06. 05. 20 11:19, Felix Schwarz wrote:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_id=1797129_id_type=anddependson=tvp_id=11041137#
(click "Expand all" for the full horror show
Or if you need another horror show, see:
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/1 (x86_64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
ID: 593706 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/593706
--
Mail generated by check-compose:
On 06. 05. 20 11:24, Lumir Balhar wrote:
I've took a look and the new guidelines look good to me.
The only thing I am afraid of is that there is a lot of magic behind new macros.
Previously, macros were a way how to use standard Python commands like "python3
setup.py build" without memorizing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1832203
Bug ID: 1832203
Summary: Upgrade perl-Type-Tiny to 1.010002
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Type-Tiny
Assignee: rc040...@freenet.de
On 06. 05. 20 3:39, Orion Poplawski wrote:
This is related to my breaking of various packages by dropping python34-six.
Should we:
- re-add python34-six
For now, yes please. This will need a big announcement and coordination, in the
meantime, users are impacted.
- Make an announcement
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1831970
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2020-e14e2b414a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-e14e2b414a
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1831970
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2020-18a1ca9f3f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-18a1ca9f3f
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1831970
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2020-1d954f2f05 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-1d954f2f05
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
> Well, if you don't push the tag and you do a build, you will get N-V-R
> like foo-1.0-1.git.3.abcdef12. E.g. it won't be a clean N-V-R because
I meant "I.e." there, not "E.g."...just to be clear.
> it doesn't come from a tagged commit. If you push a tag and repeat a
> build from that same
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1831970
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1831970
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 11:00, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> >> >> Tags can also be added retroactively and backdated. These things
> >> >> conflict with the advantages you list (in particular, with NVR
> >> >> auto-generation, git is not the sole source of truth).
> >> >
> >> > If the tag ordering
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 11:31 AM Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
> This is a bit of irony:
>
> ~~~
>
> post-upstream-clone:
> - curl -O
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python3/raw/master/f/python3.spec
> - curl -O
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python3/raw/master/f/idle3.appdata.xml
> -
On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 7:25 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> Hello Tomas,
>
> I have a fair bit of experience with operating in both so-called
> "source-git" and "dist-git" workflows. I've known them by the names of
> "merged-source" and "split-source" trees respectively, so forgive me
> if I use that
Dne 06. 05. 20 v 11:19 Tomas Tomecek napsal(a):
> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 6:16 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
In what way does keeping the spec file in our fork help us?
>>> (speechless for like a minute)
>> I don't really understand this comment. Speechless because our workflow is
>> tedious?
> I
Hi,
Also Fedora is driving a lot of spec syntax enhancements, both at the
rpm and the macro layer. Pushing spec files upstream is a sure way to
freeze spec syntax in stone and have everything behave in rpm 3.x mode
(with rpm 3.x limitations) 20 years from now.
The whole thing is just a variation
I've took a look and the new guidelines look good to me.
The only thing I am afraid of is that there is a lot of magic behind new
macros. Previously, macros were a way how to use standard Python
commands like "python3 setup.py build" without memorizing them and
without a fear that you forget
Hi Jens,
Am 05.05.20 um 21:28 schrieb Adrian Adrian:
> I was looking to join Fedora development, and as I'm most familiar with
> Python, I thought the Python SIG would be my way to go. Following the
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Python/JoinSIG guide, it suggests to post
> a
On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 6:16 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> >> In what way does keeping the spec file in our fork help us?
> > (speechless for like a minute)
>
> I don't really understand this comment. Speechless because our workflow is
> tedious?
I just couldn't understand why you are asking me
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1831904
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
>> >> Tags can also be added retroactively and backdated. These things
>> >> conflict with the advantages you list (in particular, with NVR
>> >> auto-generation, git is not the sole source of truth).
>> >
>> > If the tag ordering function is done properly, I believe even
>> > retroactive tagging
Dne 05. 05. 20 v 18:37 Fabio Valentini napsal(a):
> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 5:06 PM Tomas Tomecek wrote:
>
> Hi Tomas,
>
> I'll respond below with some of my experiences and opinions ...
>
>> Let’s talk about dist-git, as a place where we work. For us,
>> packagers, it’s a well-known place. Yet
On 07. 01. 20 19:20, Fabian Affolter wrote:
On 1/3/20 3:08 PM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
The "python-sig" FAS group [3] is something slightly different. It's
confusingly named (IIRC only groups with "-sig" in their name can get
some permissions). It's there for people who want to fix Python-related
Dne 05. 05. 20 v 18:42 Adam Williamson napsal(a):
> On Tue, 2020-05-05 at 17:45 +0200, Tomas Tomecek wrote:
>> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 1:41 PM Petr Pisar wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 12:41:06PM +0200, Tomas Tomecek wrote:
Petr, I should have probably stressed that our target is Fedora
I don't know, I am somewhat ambivalent on this. I am not sure who is
going to collect the feedback there. Will it be the owner of the change
or somebody else? What will be the structure? Will it be just bunch or
quotes from random sources?
Wouldn't it be better to utilize the "discussion"
It is a good idea to have a fast operating system when you buy a device.
I don't think it will be bought like that due to the price in Europe.
It was a Fedora wiki with hardware requirements, I don't know if it still
exists.
My opinion is that we still fit into this answer:
What are the cheap
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828915
Upstream Release Monitoring
changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|perl-Net-ARP-1.0.10 is |perl-Net-ARP-1.0.11 is
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1828915
--- Comment #4 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
An unexpected error occurred while creating the scratch build and has been
automatically reported. Sorry!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Dne 05. 05. 20 v 21:26 Robbie Harwood napsal(a):
> Tomas Tomecek writes:
>
>> Thank you all for raising all the questions and concerns.
>>
>> Before I reply, I'd like to stress that we are still in a prototype
>> phase - not everything is solved (clearly) and at this point, we
>> experiment with
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1831660
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1832089
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
630 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-3c9292b62d
condor-8.6.11-1.el7
372 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2019-c499781e80
python-gnupg-0.4.4-1.el7
370
The following Fedora EPEL 6 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
13 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-2e91626690
php-horde-horde-5.2.22-1.el6
13 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2020-ed97a34306
qt5-qtbase-5.6.1-6.el6
13
On Tue, 5 May 2020 at 18:46, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> > Hey Florian,
> >
> > On Mon, 4 May 2020 at 10:03, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >>
> >> > as part of https://hackmd.io/kIje9yXTRdWITwP7cFK2pA (annotated tags
> >> > pushed by package maintainers) effort, I revisited the sorting
> >> > algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1831326
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2020-e0c3e92cc5 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
79 matches
Mail list logo
