On 2021-04-15 at 06:54 CEST, Miroslav Suchý wrote...
Dne 12. 04. 21 v 18:32 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
cura-lulzbot orphan, spot 6 weeks
ago
fedora-jam-kde-theme jvlomax, orphan 0 weeks ago
gnome-desktop alexl, caolanm, fmuellner, gnome-sig,
0 weeks
Dne 10. 04. 21 v 19:33 Fabio Valentini napsal(a):
I have created the missing bodhi updates where the packagers obviously
just forgot to file one, or missed the announcement of the
updates-testing activation point (i.e. builds for f35 and f34 (and
sometimes f33 or even f32) exist, but no bodhi
Dne 12. 04. 21 v 18:32 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
cura-lulzbot orphan, spot 6 weeks ago
fedora-jam-kde-theme jvlomax, orphan 0 weeks ago
gnome-desktop alexl, caolanm, fmuellner, gnome-sig, 0 weeks ago
orphan, rhughes
How this
Dne 14. 04. 21 v 17:50 Joe Doss napsal(a):
Hey devel,
Is anyone else getting this issue on Fedora 34 beta when using mock with the fedora-34-x86_64 chroot? mock -r
fedora-33-x86_64 shell works just fine on Fedora 34 beta. Also mock -r fedora-34-x86_64 shell works on Fedora 33.
What is the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1949736
--- Comment #2 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
the-new-hotness/release-monitoring.org's scratch build of
perl-Geo-ShapeFile-3.01-1.fc32.src.rpm for rawhide completed
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=65954772
--
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1949736
--- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring
---
Created attachment 1772007
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1772007=edit
[patch] Update to 3.01 (#1949736)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1949736
Bug ID: 1949736
Summary: perl-Geo-ShapeFile-3.01 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Geo-ShapeFile
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
Forwarding to the devel@ list since the entire conversation was using
the wrong address (just noticed the mail bouncing).
Best,
Michel
On Wed, 2021-04-14 at 10:17 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 10:03:46AM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > Hi,
> > liburing upstream
Due to a possible change related to GCC, packages like openxr and
luxcorereneder failed to build with these errors:
/tmp/ccHa7xrs.ltrans2.ltrans.o: in function
`RuntimeManifestFile::CreateIfValid(std::__cxx11::basic_stringstd::char_traits, std::allocator > const&,
Sorry for not responding to this in my previous reply.
On Wed, 2021-04-14 at 15:29 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> I wanted to investigate this, but unfortunately, it's hard to check
> right now, because all builds are non-reproducible (in the sense of
> reproducible-builds.org),
On Wed, 2021-04-14 at 15:29 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> Unfortunately this doesn't work for two important cases:
> - when a binary or shared library has been replaced on disk. E.g.
> it is fairly common for packages to crash on upgrade, and the crash
> could be in the _old_
https://github.com/389ds/389-ds-base/pull/4722
--
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:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1949266
Tom "spot" Callaway changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1947324
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |MODIFIED
--- Comment #1 from
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 04:19:29PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> One example approach to source-git I've used...
>
> Rather than having source-git branch names matching dist-git,
> use a different naming convention that is based off the upstream
> version primarily.
>
> eg if upstream has
Due to outstanding blocker bugs[1], we do not have a release candidate
for Fedora Linux 34. Tomorrow's Go/No-Go meeting is cancelled.
The next Fedora Linux 34 Final Go/No-Go meeting[2] will be held at
1700 UTC on Thursday 22 April in #fedora-meeting-1. We will aim for
the "target date #1"
Due to outstanding blocker bugs[1], we do not have a release candidate
for Fedora Linux 34. Tomorrow's Go/No-Go meeting is cancelled.
The next Fedora Linux 34 Final Go/No-Go meeting[2] will be held at
1700 UTC on Thursday 22 April in #fedora-meeting-1. We will aim for
the "target date #1"
On 14.04.21 10:45, Tomas Tomecek wrote:
> Good morning, I'd like to announce the creation of Fedora Source-git SIG:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Source-git
>
> Our main goal in the SIG right now is to establish a development
> workflow for Fedora Linux packages using repositories with
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 1:38 PM Tomasz Torcz wrote:
>
> Dnia Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 01:12:47PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher napisał(a):
> > Since I figured it might be useful to others, I have made it available
> > publicly. See the Marketplace link[1] for usage examples.
> >
> > [1]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1949641
Bug ID: 1949641
Summary: perl-Net-DAVTalk-0.20 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Net-DAVTalk
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
Dnia Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 01:12:47PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher napisał(a):
> Since I figured it might be useful to others, I have made it available
> publicly. See the Marketplace link[1] for usage examples.
>
> [1] https://github.com/marketplace/actions/get-fedora-releases
#v+
name: Get Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1949293
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-33aca0c1fe 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=1949332
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-02c2e1bda9 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=1949283
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #2 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1949183
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #2 from
I'm sure there are others of you out there like me who are using
Github Actions for continuous integration. Recently, I got tired of
updating my CI workflow definition every time a new Fedora release
branched, so I wrote a reusable Github Action[1] to query Bodhi for
the list of "current" (aka
Missing expected images:
Minimal raw-xz armhfp
Xfce raw-xz armhfp
Failed openQA tests: 8/127 (aarch64), 10/189 (x86_64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-34-20210413.n.0):
ID: 856266 Test: aarch64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud@uefi
URL:
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 11:47:42AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 11:30 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 12:44:42AM +, Matthew Almond via devel wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2021-04-12 at 23:10 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > > > Or in
Hey devel,
Is anyone else getting this issue on Fedora 34 beta when using mock with
the fedora-34-x86_64 chroot? mock -r fedora-33-x86_64 shell works just
fine on Fedora 34 beta. Also mock -r fedora-34-x86_64 shell works on
Fedora 33.
What is the best way to troubleshoot this? I already
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 11:30 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 12:44:42AM +, Matthew Almond via devel wrote:
> > On Mon, 2021-04-12 at 23:10 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > > Or in other words: packaging metadata are sources too. If they change
> > > (and
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1949332
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-5ef434ce27 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing
On 14. 04. 21 15:55, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 5:18 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
Hello Pythonistas.
I'd like to be able to automatically handle Python "namespace" packages from our
packaging macros.
The problem:
Several Python packages share a "namespace", let's take an
On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 12:44:42AM +, Matthew Almond via devel wrote:
> On Mon, 2021-04-12 at 23:10 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > Or in other words: packaging metadata are sources too. If they change
> > (and a version bump constitutes a change) the output might change,
> > and
> >
The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
11 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-dda757d4a5
libopenmpt-0.5.7-1.el7
8 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-93d78fa1a6
perl-Net-CIDR-Lite-0.22-1.el7
5
The following Fedora EPEL 8 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
13 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-58127424cd
perl-Net-Netmask-2.0001-1.el8
11 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-4ceb7b7897
libopenmpt-0.5.7-1.el8
8
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 04:53:06PM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> On 14.04.2021 16:27, Tomas Tomecek wrote:
> > Could you, please, be more constructive and say what the actual
> > problems are for you with such repositories?
>
> 1. Some upstream repositories (Qt, Chromium, Linux kernel)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1949332
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #5 from
No missing expected images.
Compose PASSES proposed Rawhide gating check!
All required tests passed
Failed openQA tests: 8/189 (x86_64), 7/127 (aarch64)
Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20210413.n.0):
ID: 855800 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso modularity_tests
URL:
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 1/15 (aarch64)
Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-IoT-34-20210413.0):
ID: 856508 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_clevis@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/856508
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/16 (x86_64)
(Tests
On 14.04.2021 16:27, Tomas Tomecek wrote:
Could you, please, be more constructive and say what the actual
problems are for you with such repositories?
1. Some upstream repositories (Qt, Chromium, Linux kernel) are very huge
(more than 100 GiB). I don't want to download them from upstream and
comments inline
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 4:09 PM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 10:45:23AM +0200, Tomas Tomecek wrote:
> > Good morning, I'd like to announce the creation of Fedora Source-git SIG:
> >
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Source-git
> >
> > Our main goal
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1949293
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-33aca0c1fe has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-33aca0c1fe
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 2:52 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
>
> On 14.04.2021 10:45, Tomas Tomecek wrote:
> > Our main goal in the SIG right now is to establish a development
> > workflow for Fedora Linux packages using repositories with sources and
> > upstream history (this is what we call
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1949293
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
jplesnik merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-Verilog-Perl` that
you are following.
Merged pull-request:
``
Tests
``
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Verilog-Perl/pull-request/1
___
perl-devel mailing list --
On 4/14/21 3:28 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
Hi,
I got a "pull request" for one of my packages and wanted to make some
changes to discuss with the submitter and see if we could merge it
back with those changes to the rawhide branch. But somehow I did
something wrong and I am not sure what or how to
jplesnik opened a new pull-request against the project: `perl-Verilog-Perl`
that you are following:
``
Tests
``
To reply, visit the link below
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Verilog-Perl/pull-request/1
___
perl-devel mailing list --
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 10:45:23AM +0200, Tomas Tomecek wrote:
> Good morning, I'd like to announce the creation of Fedora Source-git SIG:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Source-git
>
> Our main goal in the SIG right now is to establish a development
> workflow for Fedora Linux packages
On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 1:52 PM Owen Taylor wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 9:55 AM Michael Catanzaro
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Apr 10 2021 at 08:03:09 AM -0400, Owen Taylor
>> wrote:
>> > Did you notice that it also works for the Fedora Flatpaks (thanks,
>> > Frank!) - basic proof of
On 14/04/2021 14:28, Mark Wielaard wrote:
I added the following line to my .git/config at the end of the [remote
"origin"] section to be able to pull it:
fetch = +refs/pull/*/head:refs/remotes/origin/pr/*
Then git pulled and checkout pr/4, made the changes, committed them
and pushed them
Hi,
I got a "pull request" for one of my packages and wanted to make some
changes to discuss with the submitter and see if we could merge it
back with those changes to the rawhide branch. But somehow I did
something wrong and I am not sure what or how to fix it.
So I saw this webpage with the
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 10:45:23AM +0200, Tomas Tomecek wrote:
> Please head to the SIG wiki page to learn more about our proposed MVP.
> We are looking for maintainers of Fedora Linux packages who'd be
> interested in being early adopters and give us feedback during the
> development process. You
Hi Kunal,
good to hear you made it through C19.
Feel free to solve the issue and open pull request when you are done.
Currently we don't assign any issues and we don't merge pull requests. In
this way, everyone can work on any issue and we can compare the
communication, code in pull requests,
OLD: Fedora-34-20210413.n.0
NEW: Fedora-34-20210414.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 1
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 0
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0 B
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size of upgraded
On 14.04.2021 10:45, Tomas Tomecek wrote:
Our main goal in the SIG right now is to establish a development
workflow for Fedora Linux packages using repositories with sources and
upstream history (this is what we call source-git), instead of just
distribution files with links to tarballs
Hello Pythonistas.
I'd like to be able to automatically handle Python "namespace" packages from our
packaging macros.
The problem:
Several Python packages share a "namespace", let's take an artificial example
with food.spam and food.eggs Python packages.
1. the Python packages both have
* Fabio Valentini:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 9:48 AM Honza Horak wrote:
>>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> I found this thing and thought it might be useful for testing depended
>> packages before committing, something similar to the chain scratch
>> builds in koji, that are not available (to my knowledge).
On Wed, 2021-04-14 at 12:58 +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 12:35 PM Sérgio Basto
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2021-04-14 at 12:29 +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
> > wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, 14 April 2021 at 11:57, Ondrej Dubaj wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 11:43
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 12:35 PM Sérgio Basto wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2021-04-14 at 12:29 +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 14 April 2021 at 11:57, Ondrej Dubaj wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 11:43 AM Sérgio Basto
> > > wrote:
[snip]
> > It is arguably better to
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 9:48 AM Honza Horak wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> I found this thing and thought it might be useful for testing depended
> packages before committing, something similar to the chain scratch
> builds in koji, that are not available (to my knowledge).
>
> I didn't realize before
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20210413.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20210414.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 28
Dropped packages:2
Upgraded packages: 62
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 43.70 MiB
Size of dropped packages
On Wed, 2021-04-14 at 12:29 +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
wrote:
> On Wednesday, 14 April 2021 at 11:57, Ondrej Dubaj wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 11:43 AM Sérgio Basto
> > wrote:
> >
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Autoconf_271#How_To_Test
> > >
> > > As I think this
On Wednesday, 14 April 2021 at 11:57, Ondrej Dubaj wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 11:43 AM Sérgio Basto wrote:
>
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Autoconf_271#How_To_Test
> >
> > As I think this is not trivial we should add to How_To_Test paragraph :
> >
> > After:
> > copr
Added, thanks!
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 11:43 AM Sérgio Basto wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Autoconf_271#How_To_Test
>
> As I think this is not trivial we should add to How_To_Test paragraph :
>
> After:
> copr mock-config odubaj/autoconf-2.70 fedora-rawhide-x86_64 >
>
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Autoconf_271#How_To_Test
As I think this is not trivial we should add to How_To_Test paragraph :
After:
copr mock-config odubaj/autoconf-2.70 fedora-rawhide-x86_64 >
odubaj-autoconf-2.70_fedora-34-x86_64.cfg
mv odubaj-autoconf-2.70_fedora-34-x86_64.cfg
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/7 (x86_64), 1/7 (aarch64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-32-20210413.0):
ID: 855750 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1949332
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-601e6856e1 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-601e6856e1
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System ---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1949332
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-02c2e1bda9 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-02c2e1bda9
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1949332
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
Fixed In Version|
ppisar merged a pull-request against the project: `perl-Crypt-OpenSSL-ECDSA`
that you are following.
Merged pull-request:
``
Tests
``
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Crypt-OpenSSL-ECDSA/pull-request/1
___
perl-devel mailing list --
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1949332
--- Comment #1 from Petr Pisar ---
This release merges Fedora patches. Suitable for all Fedoras.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
perl-devel mailing
ppisar opened a new pull-request against the project:
`perl-Crypt-OpenSSL-ECDSA` that you are following:
``
Tests
``
To reply, visit the link below
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Crypt-OpenSSL-ECDSA/pull-request/1
___
perl-devel mailing list
Good morning, I'd like to announce the creation of Fedora Source-git SIG:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Source-git
Our main goal in the SIG right now is to establish a development
workflow for Fedora Linux packages using repositories with sources and
upstream history (this is what we call
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1949293
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1949332
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1949283
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-dfc46681cc has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-dfc46681cc
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 11:27:08 -0400
Trey Dockendorf wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 10:41 AM Dan Horák wrote:
>
> > >
> > > I have Fedora accounts that I setup many years ago and honestly don't
> > > recall if I was ever setup to be a packager for Fedora. If there is a way
> > > to verify if I
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1949283
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
Fixed In Version|
Hi folks,
I found this thing and thought it might be useful for testing depended
packages before committing, something similar to the chain scratch
builds in koji, that are not available (to my knowledge).
I didn't realize before we can use module builds for any package set,
that does not
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/7 (x86_64), 1/7 (aarch64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-33-20210413.0):
ID: 855577 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1949283
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1949183
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-2021-20bd934576 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-20bd934576
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1949183
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |MODIFIED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1838000
Tomas Hoger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||1945144
--
You are receiving this
Hi!
After the initial hint [1] describing the very first steps with
tmt let's have a look at the available test execution options.
The following user story was at the very beginning of tmt:
As a tester or developer, I want to easily run tests
in my preferred environment.
Do you want to
https://fedorapeople.org/groups/389ds/ci/nightly/2021/04/14/report-389-ds-base-2.0.4-20210414git0a504c8e7.fc33.x86_64.html
___
389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
86 matches
Mail list logo
