On 2021-11-06 21:15, Sumit Bhardwaj wrote:
It is not always about speed. There are still plenty of places in the
world where people are on limited data plans and to them using delta
rpms makes a lot of sense. They can work with slow speeds but not with
high data expenses. So i feel turning it
Stephen John Smoogen writes:
> I believe those need to be tied into a couple of other questions
> 1. How does any organization work with these various prominent vendors?
I doubt that this is a very useful question as stated. Even
near-peers like Red Hat itself and Ubuntu are probably
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2020898
Bug ID: 2020898
Summary: perl-Moose-2.2201 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Moose
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
It is not always about speed. There are still plenty of places in the world
where people are on limited data plans and to them using delta rpms makes a
lot of sense. They can work with slow speeds but not with high data
expenses. So i feel turning it on by default and having a setting to turn
it
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2020025
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-294ece8510 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing
On Sun, Nov 7, 2021 at 2:22 AM Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
> I have almost always seen it *increase* download times,
In my experience, while the download times may
be (slightly) reduced, on a number of my (slower)
systems, the rebuild of the rpm itself took longer
then it would have taken to
On 11/6/21 6:47 AM, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 6, 2021 at 3:43 AM Daniel Alley wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 10:03:50PM +0200, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote:
>>> I do think we should drop drpms or make them more useful, but I don't
>>> think there's any security angle here. (see
On 11/6/21 7:42 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On 11/6/21 15:46, Marius Schwarz wrote:
>> Am 11.08.21 um 22:03 schrieb Marek Marczykowski-Górecki:
>>> - there is also argument that people's connection bandwidth nowadays
>>> tends to be fast enough to make the package rebuilding actually
>>>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2020025
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-3c20aa3f56 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2020025
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-b27e4f19bd has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing
repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2020025
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-b79511a9ce has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2020025
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #6 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2020192
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions
changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|robinlee.s...@gmail.com
On 11/6/21 15:46, Marius Schwarz wrote:
Am 11.08.21 um 22:03 schrieb Marek Marczykowski-Górecki:
- there is also argument that people's connection bandwidth nowadays
tends to be fast enough to make the package rebuilding actually
slower than downloading the whole package (but that
Am 11.08.21 um 22:03 schrieb Marek Marczykowski-Górecki:
- there is also argument that people's connection bandwidth nowadays
tends to be fast enough to make the package rebuilding actually
slower than downloading the whole package (but that really vary between
different
On Sun, Oct 31, 2021 at 02:02:11AM +0100, allan2016--- via devel wrote:
> På Sat, 30 Oct 2021 17:59:15 +0200
> Adrian Reber skrev:
> > Just after the protobuf update to 3.18.1 last week finished protobuf
> > 3.19.0 was released and a request to update to that version was made.
> >
> >
On Sat, Oct 30, 2021 at 05:59:15PM +0200, Adrian Reber wrote:
> Just after the protobuf update to 3.18.1 last week finished protobuf
> 3.19.0 was released and a request to update to that version was made.
>
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/protobuf/pull-request/7
>
> At first I was 'not
On Sat, 6 Nov 2021 at 09:42, edmond pilon wrote:
>
> Thanks for your reply.
>
> I have a GTX 1080 and 495.44 drivers.
> The crash happens just after the same warning as you.
> I'm running the 5.15 rc6 kernel without issue.
> The boot problems started since 5.15 rc7 upgrade , and the only
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2020884
Bug ID: 2020884
Summary: perl-PDL-2.058 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-PDL
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
Yeah rsync would be nice for instead at least for repository refreshes. No?
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
That's a fair point, I was actually not aware that
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/drpm contained a completely separate
implementation of applydeltarpm.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
In one week (2021-11-13), or slightly later, I will build
python-starlette 0.17.0 in F36/Rawhide[1]. This release removes
deprecated GraphQL support, which is formally a breaking change.
I’ve tested rebuilding each of the following dependent packages using
starlette 0.17.0 and confirmed they
No missing expected images.
Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check!
24 of 43 required tests failed, 17 results missing
openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING**
below
Failed openQA tests: 108/206 (x86_64), 66/141 (aarch64)
Old failures (same test failed
Hi everybody,
Between versions 1.0.0 and 1.1.0, the buffered-reader crate has been
relicensed from GPLv2+ to LGPLv2+. Since the new license is compatible
and has fewer restrictions, I do not expect this to cause any issues.
The package version with the new license will soon be pushed as an
Thanks for your reply.
I have a GTX 1080 and 495.44 drivers.
The crash happens just after the same warning as you.
I'm running the 5.15 rc6 kernel without issue.
The boot problems started since 5.15 rc7 upgrade , and the only differences
between this versions are :
- Enable
side-tag: f36-build-side-47471
On 11/5/21 21:33, Alexander Ploumistos wrote:
On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 9:23 PM Antonio T. sagitter
wrote:
On 10/24/21 15:11, Alexander Ploumistos wrote:
Hello Antonio,
On Sun, Oct 24, 2021 at 3:05 PM Antonio T. sagitter
wrote:
We are ready to push openbabel3
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20211105.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20211106.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:5
Upgraded packages: 75
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0 B
Size of dropped packages:8.45 MiB
It works ok here.
$ inxi -SG
System:Host: fedora Kernel: 5.15.0-60.fc36.x86_64 x86_64 bits: 64 Desktop:
GNOME 41.0
Distro: Fedora release 35 (Thirty Five)
Graphics: Device-1: NVIDIA GP107 [GeForce GTX 1050 Ti] driver: nvidia v:
495.44
Display: wayland server:
On Sat, Nov 6, 2021 at 3:43 AM Daniel Alley wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 10:03:50PM +0200, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote:
> > I do think we should drop drpms or make them more useful, but I don't
> > think there's any security angle here. (see below)
> >
> > drpms work by downloading
Has anyone tried the last kernel-5.15.0-60.fc36.
I have crashes at boot with this kernel since rc7 , with nvidia rpmfusion
drivers .
I think it's because of this fedora patch : fedora: Disable fbdev drivers and
use simpledrm instead .
I sent a bug report but still no answer .
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64), 1/8 (aarch64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-34-20211105.0):
ID: 1054145 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2020025
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-b27e4f19bd has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-b27e4f19bd
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2020025
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-47e7e66426 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-47e7e66426
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2020025
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-47e7e66426 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-47e7e66426
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System ---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2020025
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |MODIFIED
--- Comment #1 from
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64), 1/8 (aarch64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-35-20211105.0):
ID: 1054129 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL:
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 10:03:50PM +0200, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote:
> I do think we should drop drpms or make them more useful, but I don't
> think there's any security angle here. (see below)
>
> drpms work by downloading the delta, then using it + the version you
> have installed to
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64), 1/8 (aarch64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-33-20211105.0):
ID: 1054113 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL:
38 matches
Mail list logo
