On 18. 08. 21 17:21, Jan Drögehoff wrote:
I've received 2 automated bugzilla reports for F35[1] and F36[2] that my
package FailsToInstall.
I tried to replicate this with a Fedora 35 and Rawhide VM created from the last
known good ISOs provided by the nightly compose finder and found
Sergio Belkin wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Since a few days ago, the keyboard shortcut Alt+F2 for opening "run
> command" box is not working.
>
> journalctl shows complaints as follows:
>
> plasmashell[231184]: Could not open library 'libkdeinit5_'.
> plasmashell[231184]: Cannot load library
On Wed, 2021-08-18 at 17:21 +0200, Jan Drögehoff wrote:
> I've received 2 automated bugzilla reports for F35[1] and F36[2] that my
> package FailsToInstall.
>
> I tried to replicate this with a Fedora 35 and Rawhide VM created from
> the last known good ISOs provided by the nightly compose
It is better to use the dev (snapshot) release as built on
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/g/design-suite/blender-3d/build/2527373/as
starting point in this case. I haven't got the time to fully update the spec
fixing imath dependency but it seems resolving openexr issue.
Luya
On 8/17/2021 8:45 PM, lijiang wrote:
Hi,
In Fedora crash.spec, currently the LTO is disabled as below:
+# This package has an internal copy of GDB which has broken configure
code for
+# INTDIV0_RAISES_SIGFPE and MUST_REINSTALL_SIGHANDLERS
+# Updating that code properly seems nontrivial and
On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 12:55 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> * Kevin Fenzi:
>
> > On Sun, Aug 15, 2021 at 01:51:16PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> * Kevin Fenzi:
> >>
> >> > Yes. They were mistakenly running the normal kernel (so they had ~3GB
> >> > memory available). I moved them back to the
On 8/18/21 6:02 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2021-08-18 at 17:21 +0200, Jan Drögehoff wrote:
I've received 2 automated bugzilla reports for F35[1] and F36[2] that my
package FailsToInstall.
I tried to replicate this with a Fedora 35 and Rawhide VM created from
the last known good ISOs
On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 2:15 AM Petr Pisar wrote:
> V Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 07:56:38AM -0500, Richard Shaw napsal(a):
> > In the ongoing OpenEXR/Imath 3 disaster I've got all but a couple of
> > packages fixed or moved to the openexr2 compat package.
> >
> > I've had a few packages with this
I guess this is a bug but on
https://packager-dashboard.fedoraproject.org/user/orphan there are
"important" - or at least very used - packages affected by this:
java-1.8.0-openjdk depends on orphaned packages
problematic since Aug 11 2021, 10:23:06 UTC
will have trouble on Sep 22 2021,
On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 at 14:32, Sergio Belkin wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> Since a few days ago, the keyboard shortcut Alt+F2 for opening "run command"
> box is not working.
>
> journalctl shows complaints as follows:
>
> plasmashell[231184]: Could not open library 'libkdeinit5_'.
>
Dne 18. 08. 21 v 15:15 Didik Supriadi napsal(a):
On 8/18/21 6:32 PM, Iago Rubio wrote:
I pointed my browser to the orphaned packages that need new
maintainers(3) page, as it seems the most appropriate for the task, and
it gave me some guidelines and a link to the "Lists of Orphan and
Retired
El mié, 18 ago 2021 a las 12:24, Iñaki Ucar ()
escribió:
> On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 at 14:32, Sergio Belkin wrote:
> >
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > Since a few days ago, the keyboard shortcut Alt+F2 for opening "run
> command" box is not working.
> >
> > journalctl shows complaints as follows:
> >
> >
On 18. 08. 21 18:02, Adam Williamson wrote:
This looks like an unannounced soname bump, which is against the
packaging policy. Tom, please remember to announce soname bumps in
advance and co-ordinate with the packagers of packages that build
against the library. We now have the multi-build
we are talking about it here
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1964630#c27
On Wed, 2021-08-18 at 17:20 +0200, Iago Rubio wrote:
> I guess this is a bug but on
> https://packager-dashboard.fedoraproject.org/user/orphan there are
> "important" - or at least very used - packages affected
On 8/18/21 9:02 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2021-08-18 at 17:21 +0200, Jan Drögehoff wrote:
I've received 2 automated bugzilla reports for F35[1] and F36[2] that my
package FailsToInstall.
I tried to replicate this with a Fedora 35 and Rawhide VM created from
the last known good ISOs
On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 07:55:17AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Kevin Fenzi:
>
> > On Sun, Aug 15, 2021 at 01:51:16PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> * Kevin Fenzi:
> >>
> >> > Yes. They were mistakenly running the normal kernel (so they had ~3GB
> >> > memory available). I moved them back
On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 at 07:32:01PM -, Mikhail Gavrilov wrote:
> Now compilation failing with error: "Error: GPG check FAILED".
> https://pastebin.com/HNGz7N8A
You need the very latest mock-core-configs update.
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=24886
kevin
I'm okay with this, but I don't think I've ever used side tags before (maybe
once),
so I could use a quick run-down on how to actually perform that.
A.FI.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
Am Mittwoch, dem 18.08.2021 um 10:45 +0200 schrieb Ondrej Mosnacek:
> Hello,
>
> I would like to update quazip to version 1.1 in rawhide (i.e. future
> F36) [1][2], but since this update will change sonames (libquazip.so
> -> libquazip1-qt4.so and libquazip5.so -> libquazip1-qt5.so), I will
>
Iago Rubio kirjoitti 18.8.2021 klo 14.32:
Hi all,
Following my messages on the "The Death of Java Packages" thread on
this list(1), Ankur Shina suggested to me to give a go at being a
package maintainer and let the mailing list know how it goes.
I hope this to be a constructive and helful way
Snapshot build from my COPR
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/luya/blender-egl/build/2529655/
Luya Tshimbalanga
Fedora Design Suite maintainer
Fedora Design Team
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek kirjoitti 18.8.2021 klo 12.06:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 08:57:39AM +0300, Otto Urpelainen wrote:
I have problems interpreting the following check from fedora-review:
[ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file
contains translations for supported
Am Mittwoch, dem 18.08.2021 um 18:59 + schrieb Artur Frenszek-
Iwicki:
> I'm okay with this, but I don't think I've ever used side tags before
> (maybe once),
> so I could use a quick run-down on how to actually perform that.
It's quite easy. From the dist-git branch that is going to be
On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 1:12 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 10:32:59AM -0500, Justin Forbes wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 10:27 AM Caolán McNamara wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 2021-08-17 at 08:21 -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> > > > Looks like the vtk build just as it was
Hi everyone,
No major progress on this task yet.
I found out that the compat package needs some more fixing.
I have more time in the coming days, so I should
have an update soon hopefully.
Thank you,
Regards,
Sahana Prasad
On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 7:57 PM Sahana Prasad wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Aug
* Dennis Gilmore:
> We intentionally never looked at enabling that and always had no plans
> to support multi-lib on Arm
It's not multilib. Buildroots aren't multilib.
I'm pretty sure no one but Fedora is building 32-bit Arm binaries on
32-bit Arm kernels. It's very much a dead end.
Debian
On 8/17/21 10:21 AM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
On 8/14/21 10:19 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 09:34:11PM -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
Have there been any recent changes to the arm (32bit) builders? It
seems
like I'm having much more issues there with builds likely running out
Hi,
JPEG XL license changed from ASL 2.0 to BSD with version 0.5.0.
It will be reflected in the next release.
Best regards,
Robert-André
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
Kevin Fenzi kirjoitti 18.8.2021 klo 18.52:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 09:20:46AM -0400, Ben Beasley wrote:
It looks like the project changed version schemes at some point. The 4.02.3
release was in 2015, before 0.9.0; a long list of 4.x and 3.x releases preceded
it.
I don’t see where it got
I've received 2 automated bugzilla reports for F35[1] and F36[2] that my
package FailsToInstall.
I tried to replicate this with a Fedora 35 and Rawhide VM created from
the last known good ISOs provided by the nightly compose finder and
found everything to be working as expected.
Is there
On 2021-08-18 5:09 a.m., Richard Shaw wrote:
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 11:42 PM Luya Tshimbalanga
mailto:l...@fedoraproject.org>> wrote:
On 2021-08-17 1:14 p.m., Richard Shaw wrote:
It looks like OSL relies on exception capabilities that were
provided in the Iex library that has
V Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 05:21:59PM +0200, Jan Drögehoff napsal(a):
> I've received 2 automated bugzilla reports for F35[1] and F36[2] that my
> package FailsToInstall.
>
> I tried to replicate this with a Fedora 35 and Rawhide VM created from the
> last known good ISOs provided by the nightly
So, I have just rebooted all the 32bit arm builders with
5.12.19-300.fc34.armv7hl+lpae
Please let me know if you still see any 'restarts' with this kernel /
after this time.
kevin
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe
On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 09:20:46AM -0400, Ben Beasley wrote:
> It looks like the project changed version schemes at some point. The 4.02.3
> release was in 2015, before 0.9.0; a long list of 4.x and 3.x releases
> preceded it.
>
> I don’t see where it got 0.10.0 as the currently-packaged
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 10:32:59AM -0500, Justin Forbes wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 10:27 AM Caolán McNamara wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2021-08-17 at 08:21 -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> > > Looks like the vtk build just as it was about to finish (after 11+
> > > hours ...) restarted. This is
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 10:51:13AM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 14, 2021 at 09:19:55 -0700,
> Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> >
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1920183
> >
> > basically OOM kills kojid, which restarts kojid, which restarts the
> > build, which kills kojid,
Planned Outage - fedoraproject.org/wiki - 2021-08-19 21:00 UTC
There will be an outage starting at 2021-08-19 21:00UTC,
which will last approximately 1 hour.
To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto
or run:
date -d '2021-08-19
On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 10:27:42AM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 16. 08. 21 9:00, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > On 16. 08. 21 0:29, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > > On Sun, Aug 15, 2021 at 11:43:48AM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > > > On 14. 08. 21 18:19, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > > > > It makes me wonder if we
On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 08:15:36PM +0700, Didik Supriadi wrote:
> On 8/18/21 6:32 PM, Iago Rubio wrote:
>
> > I pointed my browser to the orphaned packages that need new
> > maintainers(3) page, as it seems the most appropriate for the task, and
> > it gave me some guidelines and a link to the
Hi
How to find someone able to push the code in a RPM package ?
Reminder
- Source code : https://github.com/grosjo/fts-xapian/
- Reference : https://doc.dovecot.org/configuration_manual/fts/
- Existing ArchLinux package (not AUR)
:https://archlinux.org/packages/?q=dovecot-fts-xapian
-
Relevant history:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1953340
https://github.com/grosjo/fts-xapian/issues/82
In short, a package was submitted and approved, but the submitter (who
is also the upstream author) is discouraged by the need to seek
sponsorship into the packager group.
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 22:23:32 -, Mikhail Gavrilov wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 16, 2021 19:32:01 -, Mikhail Gavrilov wrote:
> >
> > The new distribution-gpg-keys update should fix this. It only went
> > stable yesterday so may not have reached the mirrors yet. You can grab
> > it from bodhi:
>
On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 2:28 PM lijiang wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 11:02 AM Dave Young wrote:
>
>> Add Kazu in cc list
>> On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 at 10:45, lijiang wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > In Fedora crash.spec, currently the LTO is disabled as below:
>> >
>> > +# This package has
On 18/08/2021 01:32, Mat Booth wrote:
Not within the constraints of Fedora's packaging rules.
Bundling is allowed by Fedora's packaging guidelines.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
___
devel mailing list --
redhat-rpm-config-197-1 fixes the build issues caused by redhat-rpm-config-196-1
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
On 16. 08. 21 9:00, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 16. 08. 21 0:29, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Sun, Aug 15, 2021 at 11:43:48AM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 14. 08. 21 18:19, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
It makes me wonder if we should consider letting 32bit arm go...
(insert pitchforks and torches).
Let's
On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 08:57:39AM +0300, Otto Urpelainen wrote:
> I have problems interpreting the following check from fedora-review:
>
> > [ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file
> contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if
> available.
My
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 22:38:19 +0200, Iago Rubio wrote:
> On Tue, 2021-08-17 at 18:26 +0100, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> > > He got an sponsor right away and became the maintainer of the
> > > package,
> > > without changing a line of what I had in csv.
> >
> > That's very odd. The guidelines remain the
On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 11:02 AM Dave Young wrote:
> Add Kazu in cc list
> On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 at 10:45, lijiang wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > In Fedora crash.spec, currently the LTO is disabled as below:
> >
> > +# This package has an internal copy of GDB which has broken configure
> code for
> >
V Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 07:56:38AM -0500, Richard Shaw napsal(a):
> In the ongoing OpenEXR/Imath 3 disaster I've got all but a couple of
> packages fixed or moved to the openexr2 compat package.
>
> I've had a few packages with this issue but haven't been able to figure
> this one out.
>
> I have
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-33-20210817.0):
ID: 950663 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL:
Hello,
I would like to update quazip to version 1.1 in rawhide (i.e. future
F36) [1][2], but since this update will change sonames (libquazip.so
-> libquazip1-qt4.so and libquazip5.so -> libquazip1-qt5.so), I will
need the dependent packages' maintainers (in Bcc) to rebuild them in a
side tag
On Sun, Aug 15, 2021 at 06:43:29PM -0400, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
...snip...
>
> Mark kojid as non-killable by setting its OOM score to -1000? Adding
> swap might also help, but then the build is by no means guaranteed to
> finish in a reasonable amount of time.
Doing this causes the vm to
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 01:20:25PM +0200, Sandro Mani wrote:
> Hi
>
> After upgrading to redhat-rpm-config-196-1.fc36.noarch, any mingw package
> build fails with
>
> error: /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/macros: line 71: Macro %cc has illegal name
> (%define)
>
> The redhat-rpm-config changelog mentions
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 09:59:38AM -0400, John Florian wrote:
> I'm trying to report success on
> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-ec4a4b2634 but cannot
> login. When I attempt to do so, the page shows:
>
> 500 Internal Server Error
> Could not convert return value of the view
On Wed, 2021-08-18 at 19:09 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 18. 08. 21 18:02, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > This looks like an unannounced soname bump, which is against the
> > packaging policy. Tom, please remember to announce soname bumps in
> > advance and co-ordinate with the packagers of
On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 4:16 PM Jerry James wrote:
> Who would like to swap package reviews? I need these 6:
>
> fontawesome5-fonts
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1989300
> This one has been mentioned previously on this mailing list. It is
> blocking the review of
On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 3:55 PM Sahana Prasad wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> No major progress on this task yet.
> I found out that the compat package needs some more fixing.
> I have more time in the coming days, so I should
> have an update soon hopefully.
Let us know if you need help with
On 8/18/21 3:51 PM, Björn 'besser82' Esser wrote:
Am Mittwoch, dem 18.08.2021 um 10:45 +0200 schrieb Ondrej Mosnacek:
Hello,
I would like to update quazip to version 1.1 in rawhide (i.e. future
F36) [1][2], but since this update will change sonames (libquazip.so
-> libquazip1-qt4.so and
It works!
Thank you very much.
> 17 авг. 2021 г., в 21:14, Björn 'besser82' Esser
> написал(а):
>
> Am Dienstag, dem 17.08.2021 um 09:15 -0700 schrieb Tom Stellard:
>> On 8/17/21 8:42 AM, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
>>> Le mar. 17 août 2021 à 17:21, Евгений Пивнев a
>>> écrit :
>>>
>>
>> I think
On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 11:54:53 +0200, Iago Rubio wrote:
> On Wed, 2021-08-18 at 09:48 +0100, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> > This is from 2006/2007. That's more than a decade ago :)
> >
> > A lot of things have changed since then. If you're interested in
> > package
> > maintainership, please give it
Dne 17. 08. 21 v 22:38 Iago Rubio napsal(a):
On Tue, 2021-08-17 at 18:26 +0100, Ankur Sinha wrote:
He got an sponsor right away and became the maintainer of the
package,
without changing a line of what I had in csv.
That's very odd. The guidelines remain the same for all of us. So a
spec
that
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-34-20210817.0):
ID: 950723 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL:
Hi Ondrej.
On 8/18/21 10:45 AM, Ondrej Mosnacek wrote:
Hello,
I would like to update quazip to version 1.1 in rawhide (i.e. future
F36) [1][2], but since this update will change sonames (libquazip.so
-> libquazip1-qt4.so and libquazip5.so -> libquazip1-qt5.so), I will
need the dependent
On Wed, 2021-08-18 at 09:48 +0100, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> This is from 2006/2007. That's more than a decade ago :)
>
> A lot of things have changed since then. If you're interested in
> package
> maintainership, please give it another go and let us know how it
> goes.
I will go for it Ankur. You
Hi all,
Following my messages on the "The Death of Java Packages" thread on
this list(1), Ankur Shina suggested to me to give a go at being a
package maintainer and let the mailing list know how it goes.
I hope this to be a constructive and helful way to help get more people
onboard.
My first
On 8/18/21 6:32 PM, Iago Rubio wrote:
I pointed my browser to the orphaned packages that need new
maintainers(3) page, as it seems the most appropriate for the task, and
it gave me some guidelines and a link to the "Lists of Orphan and
Retired Packages"(4) where I found a 500 response.
I have
It looks like the project changed version schemes at some point. The 4.02.3
release was in 2015, before 0.9.0; a long list of 4.x and 3.x releases preceded
it.
I don’t see where it got 0.10.0 as the currently-packaged version; the actual
bug
On Wed, 2021-08-18 at 20:15 +0700, Didik Supriadi wrote:
> On 8/18/21 6:32 PM, Iago Rubio wrote:
>
> > I pointed my browser to the orphaned packages that need new
> > maintainers(3) page, as it seems the most appropriate for the task,
> > and
> > it gave me some guidelines and a link to the
On Wed, 2021-08-18 at 20:15 +0700, Didik Supriadi wrote:
> I think ppl now can go to
> https://packager-dashboard.fedoraproject.org/user/orphan to see
> orphaned packages.
Thanks for the pointer. Fixed it on the Wiki.
___
devel mailing list --
On Tue, 17 Aug 2021 at 14:15, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 2:08 PM Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
>>
>>
>> > [...] Eclipse tries to keep up to date with libraries shipped. Quite
>> > often the effort of moving to new versions of a library (e.g. lucene)
>> > requires
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 3/15 (aarch64)
Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-IoT-34-20210815.0):
ID: 950756 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_clevis@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/950756
ID: 950767 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso
On Tue, Aug 17, 2021 at 11:42 PM Luya Tshimbalanga
wrote:
> On 2021-08-17 1:14 p.m., Richard Shaw wrote:
>
> It looks like OSL relies on exception capabilities that were provided in
> the Iex library that has been removed with OpenEXR/Imath 3.
>
> Upstream made recent changes in their main
This seems to have failed in some way. Firstly it says that we're
currently packaging 0.10.0, which is not true. The latest version of
ocamlbuild (0.14.0) is packaged. But more seriously it seems to have
found some imaginary version (4.02.3) and I can't even see where it
got that number from.
On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 at 09:58, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
>
> On 18/08/2021 01:32, Mat Booth wrote:
> > Not within the constraints of Fedora's packaging rules.
>
> Bundling is allowed by Fedora's packaging guidelines.
>
Binaries not built from source are not allowed:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 4:54 PM lijiang wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 2:28 PM lijiang wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 11:02 AM Dave Young wrote:
>>
>>> Add Kazu in cc list
>>> On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 at 10:45, lijiang wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> > In Fedora crash.spec,
Hi folks,
Since a few days ago, the keyboard shortcut Alt+F2 for opening "run
command" box is not working.
journalctl shows complaints as follows:
plasmashell[231184]: Could not open library 'libkdeinit5_'.
plasmashell[231184]: Cannot load library libkdeinit5_: (libkdeinit5_:
cannot open
On 18. 08. 21 11:09, Elliott Sales de Andrade wrote:
I've been experimenting with the new macros for Python packages, and
ran into some issues building Sphinx docs for compiled extensions.
When building docs, one usually has to be able to import the project.
When the project uses compiled
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882938
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-82446e1f6b has been pushed to the Fedora 33 Modular stable
repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882957
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-82446e1f6b has been pushed to the Fedora 33 Modular stable
repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882958
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-82446e1f6b has been pushed to the Fedora 33 Modular stable
repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1883498
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-82446e1f6b has been pushed to the Fedora 33 Modular stable
repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884870
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-82446e1f6b has been pushed to the Fedora 33 Modular stable
repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1884931
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-82446e1f6b has been pushed to the Fedora 33 Modular stable
repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879289
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-82446e1f6b has been pushed to the Fedora 33 Modular stable
repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879217
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-82446e1f6b has been pushed to the Fedora 33 Modular stable
repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879600
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-82446e1f6b has been pushed to the Fedora 33 Modular stable
repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880857
--- Comment #30 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-82446e1f6b has been pushed to the Fedora 33 Modular stable
repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1881518
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-82446e1f6b has been pushed to the Fedora 33 Modular stable
repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1885368
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-82446e1f6b has been pushed to the Fedora 33 Modular stable
repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887366
--- Comment #32 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-82446e1f6b has been pushed to the Fedora 33 Modular stable
repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1889925
--- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-82446e1f6b has been pushed to the Fedora 33 Modular stable
repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1881646
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-82446e1f6b has been pushed to the Fedora 33 Modular stable
repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1889018
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-82446e1f6b has been pushed to the Fedora 33 Modular stable
repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=184
--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-82446e1f6b has been pushed to the Fedora 33 Modular stable
repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1891478
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-82446e1f6b has been pushed to the Fedora 33 Modular stable
repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1909492
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-82446e1f6b has been pushed to the Fedora 33 Modular stable
repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1909508
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-82446e1f6b has been pushed to the Fedora 33 Modular stable
repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1910310
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-82446e1f6b has been pushed to the Fedora 33 Modular stable
repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1887487
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System ---
FEDORA-MODULAR-2021-82446e1f6b has been pushed to the Fedora 33 Modular stable
repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail
1 - 100 of 161 matches
Mail list logo
