On Tue, 2016-03-22 at 21:23 -0700, Dave Johansen wrote:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1313796
> This request to include a Python 3 subpackage for breathe made me realize
> that I probably should have named the package python-breathe instead of
> breathe. Is that correct? If so, what
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1313796
This request to include a Python 3 subpackage for breathe made me realize
that I probably should have named the package python-breathe instead of
breathe. Is that correct? If so, what's the right way to fix this?
Thanks,
Dave
--
devel mailing list
Missing expected images:
Kde live i386
Workstation live i386
Cloud_base raw-xz i386
Atomic raw-xz x86_64
Images in this compose but not 24 Alpha 1.6:
Jam_kde live x86_64
Astronomy_kde live x86_64
Robotics live x86_64
Images in 24 Alpha 1.6 but not this:
Security live x86_64
Cloud_base vagrant-
Jan,
I've been testing all recent alpha versions.I believe the following is a
blocker
Bugzill«a
1318473 Fedora kernel kernel-ma...@redhat.com NEW
Can't add parttitions to fstab Mon 16:52
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedorapr
According to the schedule [1], Fedora 24 Candidate Alpha-1.7 is now
available for testing. Please help us complete all the validation
testing! For more information on release validation testing, see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Release_validation_test_plan
Test coverage information for the c
Hi,
I'd like to package osgaudio, which is an OpenSceneGraph-like frontend
to OpenAL.
It is currently maintained by OpenSceneGraph's main author at:
https://github.com/robertosfield/osgaudio/
It requires and contains openalpp, a C++ frontend for OpenAL.
We haven't shipped openalpp since Fedora 7.
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 2:45 PM, Björn Persson wrote:
>
> Till Maas wrote:
> > I guess it might even make the new hotness do scratch builds with
> > verified tarballs, since iirc it updates both the tarball and the
> > signature and then %prep makes sure that they are verified.
>
> I suppose so, a
Till Maas wrote:
> I guess it might even make the new hotness do scratch builds with
> verified tarballs, since iirc it updates both the tarball and the
> signature and then %prep makes sure that they are verified.
I suppose so, at least if the key is specified as only a filename. What
will it do
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 06:01:14PM +0100, Phil Sutter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am in the process of splitting the 'tc' utility off from iproute
> package. The motivation for this comes from two things:
>
> 1) Due to it's xt/ipt action, tc depends on iptables.
> 2) iproute is part of the 'Core' group.
>
On Tue, 2016-03-22 at 18:01 +0100, Björn Persson wrote:
> Because technically, verifying a tarball that the packager uploaded,
> with a signature that the packager uploaded, against a key that the
> packager uploaded, that doesn't really add anything compared to the
> packager verifying the signatu
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Till Maas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 09:12:15AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>
>> As an aside, I think Till has code written to make the lookaside use
>> sha256. I'm not sure what the next steps are to get that rolled out
>> though.
>
> Just for the record: Math
On Tue, 2016-03-22 at 08:27 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> I'd also point out that the supported mechanism for upgrading from
> F23 to F24 is:
>
> # dnf system-upgrade download --releasever=24
> # dnf system-upgrade reboot
Just a small note to add: for Workstation, the expected way to upgrade
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 06:01:28PM +0100, Björn Persson wrote:
> David Woodhouse wrote:
> > Our packaging guidelines really ought to mandate that *if* upstream
> > publishes GPG or PKCS#7/CMS signatures of source tarballs, then the
> > package *must* verify those signatures as part of %prep.
>
> I
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 09:12:15AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> As an aside, I think Till has code written to make the lookaside use
> sha256. I'm not sure what the next steps are to get that rolled out
> though.
Just for the record: Mathieu wrote the code/did the work for this.
--
devel mailing l
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 01:02:40PM +, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-03-21 at 18:02 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> >
> > It is a simple one-liner if you use gpgv2:
> > http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/youtube-dl.git/tree/youtube-dl.spec#n35
>
> That's better than my version; thanks.
Hi.
took ...
can you take this https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1286467
for me?
regards
.g
Il 22/03/2016 17:09, Jon Ciesla ha scritto:
If someone would be so kind as to take this:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317956
so that FileZilla may be brought current, I'll ta
David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-03-21 at 18:02 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> >
> > It is a simple one-liner if you use gpgv2:
> > http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/youtube-dl.git/tree/youtube-dl.spec#n35
> >
>
> That's better than my version; thanks. It also means there's probably
> n
David Woodhouse wrote:
> Our packaging guidelines really ought to mandate that *if* upstream
> publishes GPG or PKCS#7/CMS signatures of source tarballs, then the
> package *must* verify those signatures as part of %prep.
I suppose the point of this would be that others can see that the
verificati
Hi,
I am in the process of splitting the 'tc' utility off from iproute
package. The motivation for this comes from two things:
1) Due to it's xt/ipt action, tc depends on iptables.
2) iproute is part of the 'Core' group.
These two in combination lead to iptables being pulled into Core as a
depen
Dear all,
You are kindly invited to the meeting:
The second Fedora 24 Alpha Go/No-Go Meeting on 2016-03-23 from 17:00:00 to
18:00:00 UTC
At fedora-meet...@irc.freenode.net
The meeting will be about:
Join us on irc.freenode.net in #fedora-meeting for this important meeting,
wherein we shal
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016, 9:32 AM Colin Walters wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016, at 08:27 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
> > I'd also point out that the supported mechanism for upgrading from F23
> to F24 is:
>
> That's one of them - there are two. I have extended:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upg
If someone would be so kind as to take this:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1317956
so that FileZilla may be brought current, I'll take one of theirs.
Thanks!
-j
--
http://cecinestpasunefromage.wordpress.com/
in your fear, seek onl
Missing expected images:
Kde live i386
Kde live x86_64
Cloud_base raw-xz x86_64
Cloud_base raw-xz i386
Atomic raw-xz x86_64
Images in this compose but not 24-20160321.n.0:
Security live x86_64
Security live i386
Images in 24-20160321.n.0 but not this:
Kde live i386
Kde live x86_64
Jam_kde live
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016, at 08:27 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> I'd also point out that the supported mechanism for upgrading from F23 to F24
> is:
That's one of them - there are two. I have extended:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upgrading
to also cover rpm-ostree managed systems such as the Fe
On Tue, 2016-03-22 at 13:16 +0100, Jan Synacek wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 12:46 PM, José Matos wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 12:13:47 PM WET Jan Synacek wrote:
> > >
> > > Currently, it's not possible to update from F23 to F24 because of
> > > broken dependencies.
> > >
> > >
OLD: Fedora-24-20160321.n.0
NEW: Fedora-24-20160322.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 0
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0.00 B
Size of dropped packages:0.00 B
Size of upgraded packages: 0.00 B
Size of downgraded
On Tue, 2016-03-22 at 09:12 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 9:02 AM, David Woodhouse > wrote:
> >
> > The original draft does raise an interesting question — do we need
> > to put the upstream PGP key directly into the package git tree
> > instead of the lookaside cache?
> >
>
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 9:02 AM, David Woodhouse wrote:
> The original draft does raise an interesting question — do we need to
> put the upstream PGP key directly into the package git tree instead of
> the lookaside cache?
>
> I suppose while the lookaside cache is still only using MD5(!) to
> va
On Mon, 2016-03-21 at 18:02 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
>
> It is a simple one-liner if you use gpgv2:
> http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/youtube-dl.git/tree/youtube-dl.spec#n35
That's better than my version; thanks. It also means there's probably
not a lot of point in trying to simplify it wi
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 12:46:58PM +0100, Kalev Lember wrote:
> On 03/21/2016 07:28 PM, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> >This time it was easy. They didn't break anything. Should I build it in
> >f24-gnome? Because libgit2-glib requires it and itself it required by
> >some other gnome packages.
>
> I think
On 03/22/2016 08:16 AM, Jan Synacek wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 12:46 PM, José Matos wrote:
>> On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 12:13:47 PM WET Jan Synacek wrote:
>>> Currently, it's not possible to update from F23 to F24 because of
>>> broken dependencies.
>>>
>>> # dnf update --releasever=24 --be
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 12:46 PM, José Matos wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 12:13:47 PM WET Jan Synacek wrote:
>> Currently, it's not possible to update from F23 to F24 because of
>> broken dependencies.
>>
>> # dnf update --releasever=24 --best --allowerasing
>
> Does it helps if instead of
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:46:18AM +, José Matos wrote:
> This is an example of where dfn swap would be nice to have. :-)
I've reopened https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1110780
--
Matthew Miller
Fedora Project Leader
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://list
On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 12:13:47 PM WET Jan Synacek wrote:
> Currently, it's not possible to update from F23 to F24 because of
> broken dependencies.
>
> # dnf update --releasever=24 --best --allowerasing
Does it helps if instead of update/upgrade you use distro-sync?
I have updated last week
On 03/21/2016 07:28 PM, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
This time it was easy. They didn't break anything. Should I build it in
f24-gnome? Because libgit2-glib requires it and itself it required by
some other gnome packages.
I think it's easier if we can do the gnome and libgit2 updates separately.
Can y
Currently, it's not possible to update from F23 to F24 because of
broken dependencies.
# dnf update --releasever=24 --best --allowerasing
Error: package firebird-libfbembed-2.5.5.26952.0-2.fc23.x86_64
requires libicuuc.so.54()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed.
package firefox-45
On 9 March 2016 at 15:42, James Hogarth wrote:
>
>
> On 24 February 2016 at 17:30, James Hogarth
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> We're at the last stages of preparing the first major owncloud update in
>> a while.
>>
>> The current version of owncloud in Fedora is the fairly old stable 8.0
>> releas
37 matches
Mail list logo
