On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 21:05:19 +0100, Robert-André Mauchin wrote:
> Hi,
Hi Robert,
> i need help reviewing these packages:
>
> - golang-contrib-opencensus-exporter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/
> show_bug.cgi?id=1649059
> - golang-github-census-instrumentation-opencensus-proto
Just to make sure this reaches all interested parties, we have some
important discussions about Modularity going on in Pagure tickets:
Distribution Upgrades (reaching decision) — Handling modules, streams, and
defaults during major distribution upgrades.
* Tracker:
> Please do not drag Go into this if you want to handwave Go away
> problems. Yes modules will be useful in Go but only to blow away in EPEL
> the rotten Go codebase RHEL ships.
>
> But anyway, since you referred to GO.
>
> Go is the perfect example of why bundling as a general approach does not
I just created the topic on Travis community page.
https://travis-ci.community/t/multiarch-testing-tips/862
Jun
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of
On Tue, 2018-11-13 at 07:56 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 12. 11. 18 22:37, Patrick Creech wrote:
> > The pulp team is orphaning the pulp 2 stack in fedora's repositories.
> >
> > The upstream project is focusing the majority of it's development efforts
> > on pulp 3, and is removing fedora
Dne 05. 11. 18 v 16:22 Justin Forbes napsal(a):
> It
> is possible that some of this could be alleviated with a fairly simple
> change to mock.
There is no need for a change in Mock. Mock can consume modules for looong
time. You can put in mock config something like:
# This is executed just
=
#fedora-meeting-3: Weekly Meeting of the Modularity Working Group
=
Minutes:
A new Fedora Atomic Host update is available via an OSTree update:
Version: 29.20181113.0
Commit(x86_64): 89bfa708d349a5856cc5cd3be441c07e1f96d0be2aa97e2b676f6004e7f6abed
Commit(aarch64):
d0e58aa379b37a39fd5e29b8d87d747b5a3a6aeaef91de751f7abd39fbbe2d51
Commit(ppc64le):
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 90/142 (x86_64), 24/24 (i386), 1/2 (arm)
New failures (same test did not fail in Rawhide-20181112.n.0):
ID: 308260 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_repository_nfs_graphical
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/308260
ID: 308266
> Thoughts on how to proceed, since a good portion are already 'orphaned', and
> the rest are waiting on action from the other 'owner'
I did a little more digging this morning, and found the retire steps. I have
retired on master the same packages listed below. Apologies for the confusion.
On Sat, 2018-11-10 at 12:41 -0500, Randy Barlow wrote:
> Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the
> FESCo meeting Monday at 15:00UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on
> irc.freenode.net.
We did not reach quorum yesterday, so the meeting was canceled.
signature.asc
Description: This
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20181112.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20181113.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:3
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 9
Dropped packages:1
Upgraded packages: 173
Downgraded packages: 1
Size of added packages: 93.32 MiB
Size of dropped packages
On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 at 09:39, Patrick Creech wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2018-11-13 at 07:56 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > On 12. 11. 18 22:37, Patrick Creech wrote:
> > > The pulp team is orphaning the pulp 2 stack in fedora's repositories.
> > >
> > > The upstream project is focusing the majority of
On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 10:14 PM wrote:
>
> A new Fedora Atomic Host update is available via an OSTree update:
>
> Version: 29.20181113.0
> Commit(x86_64):
> 89bfa708d349a5856cc5cd3be441c07e1f96d0be2aa97e2b676f6004e7f6abed
> Commit(aarch64):
>
On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 3:35 PM Jaroslav Mracek wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> There was an announcement of release libsolv-0.7.0 ([HEADS UP] libsolv 0.7)
> into rawhide, but the rebase also ended up in stable branches of Fedora 28
> and 29. This release could affect not only libsolv users, but
This email is a hail mary pass.
I posted the following message to the Fedora forum:
https://ask.fedoraproject.org/en/question/129083/could-fedora-please-reverse-its-policy-re-end-of-life/
Part of the _closing_ response was for me to redirect the message to a
fedora.org mailing list. No
Hi everyone! Let's talk about something new and exciting. Since its
first release fifteen years ago, Fedora has had a 13-month lifecycle
(give or take). That works awesomely for many cases (like, hey, we're
all here), but not for everyone. Let's talk about how we might address
some of the users
On Tue, 2018-11-13 at 15:00 +, Fedora compose checker wrote:
> No missing expected images.
>
> Failed openQA tests: 90/142 (x86_64), 24/24 (i386), 1/2 (arm)
>
> New failures (same test did not fail in Rawhide-20181112.n.0):
Pretty much every failure today was caused by:
On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 at 19:27, Matthew Miller wrote:
>
>
> Hi everyone! Let's talk about something new and exciting. Since its
> first release fifteen years ago, Fedora has had a 13-month lifecycle
> (give or take). That works awesomely for many cases (like, hey, we're
> all here), but not for
On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 9:14 PM steve schooler wrote:
>
>
> I am currently using Fedora 26. When I first heard of your (new) End-Of-Life
> policy, I hoped that the Fedora developer community would be so inundated
> with complaints that the policy would be reversed. Instead however, the
>
We, as a distro, just take a different approach.
To be bleeding edge requires to have releases often.
That allow us to manage changes like GCC, OpenSSL and so on quickly.
Struggling with upstream who don't adapt, can't adapt or don't want to
adapt at the same speed. (And OpenSSL patch isn't
steve schooler wrote:
> I am currently using Fedora 26. When I first heard of your (new)
> End-Of-Life policy,
That policy is not new. It has been like that for years, and before that the
lifetime was even shorter.
> If you agree but need to first alleviate current burdens, then I suggest
>
Hi all,
Due to requests from folks on the North America west coast, I've
changed the time of the retrospective to 11am Eastern (1600 UTC). The
meeting will still be in
https://meet.jit.si/GuiltyCherriesSearchLoyally with notes taken in
#fedora-meeting-2 (this is a change). I apologize for the
On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 1:42 PM Peter Robinson wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 3:35 PM Jaroslav Mracek wrote:
> >
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > There was an announcement of release libsolv-0.7.0 ([HEADS UP] libsolv 0.7)
> > into rawhide, but the rebase also ended up in stable branches of
On Tue, 2018-11-13 at 13:43 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> It wasn't a random rebase. A FESCo ticket was submitted and
> approved[1]. However, there was a miscommunication that led to the
> DNF
> team not being aware it happened.
>
> [1]: https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2009
This was not approved -
On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 4:45 PM Jaroslav Mracek wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> There was an announcement of release libsolv-0.7.0 ([HEADS UP] libsolv 0.7)
> into rawhide, but the rebase also ended up in stable branches of Fedora 28
> and 29. This release could affect not only libsolv users, but
On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 7:49 PM Peter Robinson wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 3:35 PM Jaroslav Mracek wrote:
> >
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > There was an announcement of release libsolv-0.7.0 ([HEADS UP] libsolv 0.7)
> > into rawhide, but the rebase also ended up in stable branches of
On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 8:49 PM Randy Barlow
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2018-11-13 at 13:43 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > It wasn't a random rebase. A FESCo ticket was submitted and
> > approved[1]. However, there was a miscommunication that led to the
> > DNF
> > team not being aware it happened.
> >
> >
The following commits were pushed to the repo rpms/perl-Tree on branch
master, which you are following:
42c8d16c673abc115b2080af2da7f27f17117bb0Petr Písař1.12 bump
To view more about the commits, visit:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Tree/commits/master
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1648489
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||needinfo?(luk...@wsisiz.edu
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1649259
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1649259
Bug ID: 1649259
Summary: Upgrade perl-Tree to 1.12
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: perl-Tree
Assignee: ppi...@redhat.com
Reporter: jples...@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1649258
Bug ID: 1649258
Summary: Upgrade perl-WWW-Mechanize to 1.90
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: perl-WWW-Mechanize
Assignee: emman...@seyman.fr
Reporter:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1648509
--- Comment #4 from Paul E. Jones ---
I installed the 0.84-2 build and the reported issue appears to be resolved.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
Dear all,
You are kindly invited to the meeting:
EPEL Steering Co on 2018-11-14 from 17:00:00 to 18:00:00 GMT
At fedora-meet...@irc.freenode.net
The meeting will be about:
This is the weekly EPEL Steering Committee Meeting. Agenda is in the
Dear all,
You are kindly invited to the meeting:
EPEL Steering Co on 2018-11-14 from 17:00:00 to 18:00:00 GMT
At freenode@fedora-meeting
The meeting will be about:
This is the weekly EPEL Steering Committee Meeting. Agenda is in the
The following commits were pushed to the repo rpms/perl-Text-Hunspell on branch
master, which you are following:
166c911c134ae70ef68444be8b6d716966adeadbPaul HowarthRebuild for
hunspell 1.7.x
To view more about the commits, visit:
https://fedorapeople.org/groups/389ds/ci/nightly/2018/11/14/report-389-ds-base-1.4.0.16-1.fc29.x86_64.html
___
389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 389-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1648489
Łukasz Trąbiński changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(luk...@wsisiz.edu |
|.pl)
39 matches
Mail list logo
