On Sat, 2016-01-16 at 12:54 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 13:34:12 +
> "Richard W.M. Jones" wrote:
>
> > Here are a small collection of subject lines of emails sent
> > automatically to me by various Fedora systems in the past few days:
> >
> > Subject: upgradepath PASSED f
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 2:46 AM, Marcin Juszkiewicz
wrote:
> Please do check on secondary archs as well. {arm,ppc,s390}-koji works
> without any extra configuration needed.
I haven't yet had time to do this, but I will try to do it next week,
unless the individual package owners beat me to it.
--
Jonathan,
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Jonathan Wakely
wrote:
> How soon will you be doing the rebuilds?
>
> gazebo also needs to be rebuilt for Boost 1.60, which I'm currently
> doing in the f24-boost side tag. If you're going to be rebuilding it
> soon anyway shall I wait and not do gazebo?
Based on the Workstation wiki related to appdata addons[1], I created
each metainfo.xml for the missing addons including for some applications
like Blender.[2]
Nearly all on them are associated with the related applications and it
is a matter of filling the missing informations. Each metainfo.xml
Am 16.01.2016 um 22:19 schrieb Neal Gompa:
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 4:18 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 16.01.2016 um 22:07 schrieb Neal Gompa:
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Chris Murphy
wrote:
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 12:39 PM, Luya Tshimbalanga
wrote:
Does Oracle include ZFS in thei
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 4:18 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 16.01.2016 um 22:07 schrieb Neal Gompa:
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Chris Murphy
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 12:39 PM, Luya Tshimbalanga
>>> wrote:
Does Oracle include ZFS in their ISO by default?
>
Am 16.01.2016 um 22:07 schrieb Neal Gompa:
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 12:39 PM, Luya Tshimbalanga
wrote:
Does Oracle include ZFS in their ISO by default?
No, and as far as I know they don't contribute to ZFS on Linux. There
is a distinctio
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 12:39 PM, Luya Tshimbalanga
> wrote:
>> Does Oracle include ZFS in their ISO by default?
>
> No, and as far as I know they don't contribute to ZFS on Linux. There
> is a distinction between ZFS and OpenZFS that's kinda
2016-01-16 21:51 GMT+01:00 Kevin Fenzi :
> On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 21:21:40 +0100
> Peter Lemenkov wrote:
>
>> The only difference was --arch-override=i686 for a successful build.
>
> So that was also a scratch build vs a real one?
No. If I start scratchbuild w/o arch-override it also fails. if I add
On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 21:21:40 +0100
Peter Lemenkov wrote:
> The only difference was --arch-override=i686 for a successful build.
So that was also a scratch build vs a real one?
> This was an out-of-memory issue. I've changed Java environmental
> variables from -Xmx1024m to -Xmx512m and it builds
2016-01-16 18:49 GMT+01:00 Kevin Fenzi :
> On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 16:23:54 +0100
> Dan Horák wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 16:14:03 +0100
>> Peter Lemenkov wrote:
>>
>> > Hello All!
>> > I'm afraid I'm stuck with one of my packages. It fails to build on
>> > i686 in Rawhide but builds fine if koji
Am 16.01.2016 um 20:51 schrieb Gerald B. Cox:
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 11:35 AM, Kevin Fenzi mailto:ke...@scrye.com>> wrote:
I can't image anyone misinterpreting my statement that way, but yes, I
was not trying to suggest anything anyone else does is legal or not,
simply that any in
On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 13:34:12 +
"Richard W.M. Jones" wrote:
> Here are a small collection of subject lines of emails sent
> automatically to me by various Fedora systems in the past few days:
>
> Subject: upgradepath PASSED for FEDORA-2015-850e89be8b
> Subject: [Fedora Update] [comment] auto-
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 12:39 PM, Luya Tshimbalanga
wrote:
> Does Oracle include ZFS in their ISO by default?
No, and as far as I know they don't contribute to ZFS on Linux. There
is a distinction between ZFS and OpenZFS that's kinda important. ZFS
on Linux is based on OpenZFS, not ZFS. There're
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 11:35 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> I can't image anyone misinterpreting my statement that way, but yes, I
> was not trying to suggest anything anyone else does is legal or not,
> simply that any inclusion in Fedora would need approval of Fedora legal
> and continuing to post a
On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 10:43:12 -0800
"Gerald B. Cox" wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> > The benchmark if it's legal to include something in Fedora is
> > what Fedora Legal says.
> >
>
> I basically would agree with everything you stated, except I would
> change
On 14/01/16 02:28 PM, Dave Love wrote:
> Reindl Harald writes:
>
who is "Lawrence Livermore"?
>>> Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is an organization founded by
>>> the University of California to do research and development for
>>> academic and government purposes. The US Department of
Am 16.01.2016 um 19:43 schrieb Gerald B. Cox:
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Kevin Fenzi mailto:ke...@scrye.com>> wrote:
The benchmark if it's legal to include something in Fedora is
what Fedora Legal says.
I basically would agree with everything you stated, except I would
change
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> The benchmark if it's legal to include something in Fedora is
> what Fedora Legal says.
>
I basically would agree with everything you stated, except I would change
the sentence to read: "The benchmark if it's permissible..."
Fedora has it's
Am 16.01.2016 um 19:13 schrieb Mattia Verga:
I was trying to do a scratch build for a review ticket submission and I
got this:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12578072
All builds on different architectures are ok, but in the build result it
says something strange about static
I was trying to do a scratch build for a review ticket submission and I
got this:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12578072
All builds on different architectures are ok, but in the build result it
says something strange about static libraries.
This is the first time I compile
Il 16/01/2016 17:43, Haïkel ha scritto:
Since this package only hit rawhide, I guess we can accept that releng
fixes the repo and
avoid the rename process.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=21440
If it were a stable or branched release, I would insist to follow the
rename
On Sat, 16 Jan 2016 10:38:42 -0500
Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 10:13 AM, Kevin Kofler
> wrote:
> > Gerald B. Cox wrote:
> >> Fedora has it's own rules and can ship or not ship what they
> >> want. I'm perfectly fine with that. As I previously stated, IMO
> >> BTRFS is a much
On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 16:23:54 +0100
Dan Horák wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 16:14:03 +0100
> Peter Lemenkov wrote:
>
> > Hello All!
> > I'm afraid I'm stuck with one of my packages. It fails to build on
> > i686 in Rawhide but builds fine if koji was started with
> > --arch-override=i686 (no othe
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 05:43:19PM +0100, Haïkel wrote:
> 2016-01-16 16:10 GMT+01:00 Kevin Kofler :
> > Hi,
> >
> > in the following review:
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285042
> > a package was reviewed and approved under the name "kpmcore", which matches
> > how upstream calls
2016-01-16 16:10 GMT+01:00 Kevin Kofler :
> Hi,
>
> in the following review:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285042
> a package was reviewed and approved under the name "kpmcore", which matches
> how upstream calls its tarballs. However, the subject line incorrectly
> spelled the nam
On 01/15/2016 10:56 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
On 01/15/2016 07:31 PM, Rich Mattes wrote:
Hi,
I plan on building bullet-2.83 in rawhide this weekend. Bullet uses a
soversion that's equal to the package version, so each bullet version
bump requires a rebuild of all dependent packages.
Just ou
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 7:38 AM, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 10:13 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Gerald B. Cox wrote:
>>> Fedora has it's own rules and can ship or not ship what they want. I'm
>>> perfectly fine with that. As I previously stated, IMO BTRFS is a much
>>> better choi
Missing expected images:
Kde disk raw armhfp
Workstation live i386
Workstation live x86_64
Images in this compose but not Rawhide 20160115:
Cloud_atomic disk raw x86_64
Games live x86_64
Games live i386
Scientific_kde live x86_64
Cloud_atomic disk qcow x86_64
Scientific_kde live i386
No images
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 10:13 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Gerald B. Cox wrote:
>> Fedora has it's own rules and can ship or not ship what they want. I'm
>> perfectly fine with that. As I previously stated, IMO BTRFS is a much
>> better choice. My point was simply that I don't believe saying it wo
Gerald B. Cox wrote:
> Fedora has it's own rules and can ship or not ship what they want. I'm
> perfectly fine with that. As I previously stated, IMO BTRFS is a much
> better choice. My point was simply that I don't believe saying it would
> be a GPL violation to include ZFS in a Linux distribut
Hi,
in the following review:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1285042
a package was reviewed and approved under the name "kpmcore", which matches
how upstream calls its tarballs. However, the subject line incorrectly
spelled the name as "KPMcore" in camel-case, which was not caught du
Am 16.01.2016 um 14:34 schrieb Richard W.M. Jones:
Here are a small collection of subject lines of emails sent
automatically to me by various Fedora systems in the past few days:
Subject: upgradepath PASSED for FEDORA-2015-850e89be8b
Subject: [Fedora Update] [comment] auto-buildrequires-1.2-1.
Here are a small collection of subject lines of emails sent
automatically to me by various Fedora systems in the past few days:
Subject: upgradepath PASSED for FEDORA-2015-850e89be8b
Subject: [Fedora Update] [comment] auto-buildrequires-1.2-1.fc23
Subject: rjones's libguestfs-1.33.1-2.fc24 comple
---
* Tue Jan 12 2016 Vít Ondruch - 0.7.2-18
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Ruby_2.3
Size change: 157 bytes
libdwarf-20160115-1.fc24
* Sat Jan 16 2016 Tom Hughes - 20160115-1
- Update to 20160116 upstream release
Size change: 74949 bytes
libisd
W dniu 15.01.2016 o 23:14, Jerry James pisze:
I am going to build the latest version of tbb in Rawhide soon.
I have already done successful rebuilds of these packages in mock for
x86_64, so I don't expect any trouble. Nevertheless, if a build fails,
I will look into it.
Please do check on s
36 matches
Mail list logo
