Missing expected images:
Kde live i386
Kde live x86_64
Cloud_base raw-xz i386
Atomic raw-xz x86_64
Kde raw-xz armhfp
Failed openQA tests: 5/85 (x86_64), 3/16 (i386), 1/2 (arm)
New failures (same test did not fail in Rawhide-20160908.n.0):
ID: 33357 Test: x86_64 universal install_package_s
On Wed, 2016-09-07 at 10:44 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Greetings.
>
> Fedora Infrastructure currently maintains two sites for general open
> source code hosting: fedorahosted.org and pagure.io.
>
> Fedorahosted.org was established in late 2007 using Trac for issues and
> wiki pages, Fedora Acc
# Fedora Quality Assurance Meeting
# Date: 2016-09-12
# Time: 15:00 UTC
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto)
# Location: #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net
Greetings testers!
It's meeting time again on Monday! We haven't had a meeting for a while
and everyone should be around
# F25 Blocker Review meeting
# Date: 2016-09-12
# Time: 16:00 UTC
# Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net
Hi folks! We currently have 9 proposed Beta blockers and 9 proposed
Final blockers to review (whew - this might be a long one).
If you have time this weekend, you can take a lo
On 09/09/2016 10:50 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 10:22:19AM -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
>> On 09/09/2016 08:24 AM, Jerry James wrote:
>>> There is no soname bump in this release, but one section of the API
>>> changed in a backwards-incompatible way.
>>
>> If they broke AB
On Fri, 2016-09-09 at 17:45 -0400, Roger Wells wrote:
>
> Let me know if you think I should submit this upstream somewhere.
Probably to gnome-shell on bugzilla.gnome.org , I guess.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . n
On 09/09/2016 04:44 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-09-09 at 15:53 -0400, Roger Wells wrote:
>> Just a couple of smallish things after upgrading (via dnf) from F23 to
>> F24 a couple of months ago:
>>
>> 1. deja-dup gui:
>>
>> one has to deselect then reselect the Overview option
On Fri, 9 Sep 2016, Adam Williamson wrote:
2. fingerprint identification:
The laptop has a fingerprint reader and it works fine. However
I prefer not to use it. The user set up specifies that fingerprint login
is disabled.
However whenever I am asked for a password the fingerp
On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 11:00:21PM +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> If it requires actions from releng, then it's system-wide change. But
> it's not about changing existing process of building distro, it's just
> bugfixing releng tools.
>
> So I'm not sure.
>
> On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 10:38 PM, Mathi
If it requires actions from releng, then it's system-wide change. But
it's not about changing existing process of building distro, it's just
bugfixing releng tools.
So I'm not sure.
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 10:38 PM, Mathieu Bridon wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 2016-09-09 at 16:49 +0200, Jan Kurik wrot
Hi,
On Fri, 2016-09-09 at 16:49 +0200, Jan Kurik wrote:
> = Proposed System Wide Change: DNF 2.0 =
This email says it is a system-wide change.
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DNF-2.0
But this page keeps saying « not a System Wide Change ».
Which is? :)
--
Mathieu
--
devel mailing l
On Fri, 2016-09-09 at 15:53 -0400, Roger Wells wrote:
> Just a couple of smallish things after upgrading (via dnf) from F23 to
> F24 a couple of months ago:
>
> 1. deja-dup gui:
>
> one has to deselect then reselect the Overview option in order
> to be offered the "Backup Now" option.
>
Just a couple of smallish things after upgrading (via dnf) from F23 to
F24 a couple of months ago:
1. deja-dup gui:
one has to deselect then reselect the Overview option in order
to be offered the "Backup Now" option.
The details option in the progress dialog will only display tw
On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 08:37:19 +0200
Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> Kevin, help me please with cleanup:
>
> [ignatenkobrain@people02 ~][PROD]$ rm -rf
> /home/fedora/ignatenkobrain/public_git/*
> rm: cannot remove
> ‘/home/fedora/ignatenkobrain/public_git/shiny.git/objects/20/3a73563e678017862cc45354588d40a
ok. With excellent help from walters we got the atomic updates composes
working again and everything has now pushed out. (Although
fedora-24-updates-testing just pushed out so it will take it a few to
mirror).
So, all the updates/updates-testing repos should now have weak deps.
Can folks retest
On 09/09/2016 07:37 PM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
On Friday, 09 September 2016 at 18:22, Orion Poplawski wrote:
On 09/09/2016 08:24 AM, Jerry James wrote:
There is no soname bump in this release, but one section of the API
changed in a backwards-incompatible way.
If they broke ABI
On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 10:22:19AM -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> On 09/09/2016 08:24 AM, Jerry James wrote:
> > There is no soname bump in this release, but one section of the API
> > changed in a backwards-incompatible way.
>
> If they broke ABI, why wasn't the soname bumped?
>
> > If the su
On Friday, 09 September 2016 at 18:22, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> On 09/09/2016 08:24 AM, Jerry James wrote:
> > There is no soname bump in this release, but one section of the API
> > changed in a backwards-incompatible way.
>
> If they broke ABI, why wasn't the soname bumped?
>
> > If the suite
===
#fedora-meeting: FESCO (2016-09-09)
===
Meeting started by kalev at 16:00:26 UTC. The full logs are available at
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2016-09-09/fesco.2016-09-09-16.00.log.html
.
Meeting summary
---
On 09/09/2016 08:24 AM, Jerry James wrote:
> There is no soname bump in this release, but one section of the API
> changed in a backwards-incompatible way.
If they broke ABI, why wasn't the soname bumped?
> If the suitesparse maintainer does not object, I would also like to
> fix something I no
2016-09-09 3:25 GMT-06:00, Florian Weimer :
> I would like to build (S)RPMs directly from a Git repository (which
> contains the .spec file in the top-level directory). This is for a
> CI-style project, with a quick release cycle.
>
Tito can help you:
https://github.com/dgoodwin/tito
--
devel ma
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 5:25 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> I would like to build (S)RPMs directly from a Git repository (which
> contains the .spec file in the top-level directory). This is for a
> CI-style project, with a quick release cycle.
>
> I have a Lua script fragment which generates a prop
On Fri, 2016-09-09 at 16:54 +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
Problem with tito as it doesn't really do proper archive for
build/release and doesn't work properly in many cases:
1. Version is specified in spec -> all builds will be unordered.
Example: Version: 2.0.0 -> 2.0.0-1.git.tree-ish
I don't have
Missing expected images:
Cloud_base raw-xz i386
Failed openQA tests: 12/92 (x86_64), 2/17 (i386), 1/2 (arm)
New failures (same test did not fail in 25-20160908.n.0):
ID: 33211 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_default_upload
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/33211
ID: 33232
Problem with tito as it doesn't really do proper archive for
build/release and doesn't work properly in many cases:
1. Version is specified in spec -> all builds will be unordered.
Example: Version: 2.0.0 -> 2.0.0-1.git.tree-ish
2. Replaces archive. Source: https://.../%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz is
= Proposed System Wide Change: DNF 2.0 =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DNF-2.0
Change owner(s):
* Jan Silhan
* Michal Luscon
* Igor Gnatenko
DNF rebase to version 2.0.
== Detailed Description ==
DNF-2.0 is the next upcoming major version of DNF package manager.
Unfortunately, it b
On Fri, 2016-09-09 at 11:25 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
I would like to build (S)RPMs directly from a Git repository (which
contains the .spec file in the top-level directory). This is for a
CI-style project, with a quick release cycle.
I have a Lua script fragment which generates a proper SRPM
[This message BCC'd to affected maintainers.]
A new version of tbb has been released. With this release, the
license changes from "GPLv2 with exceptions" to "ASL 2.0".
There is no soname bump in this release, but one section of the API
changed in a backwards-incompatible way. Therefore, I inten
Announcing the creation of a new nightly release validation test event
for Fedora 25 Branched 20160909.n.0. Please help run some tests for this
nightly compose if you have time. For more information on nightly
release validation testing, see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki
Christopher Meng wrote:
> 100 is not enough at all, even .
100 is enough for all practical purposes. Even kdelibs3, which has had no
upstream release for 8 years, is only at -75. And in the unlikely event you
really reach 99, you can go to 99.1, 99.2, …
> Since efl has higher version, just
On 09/09/16 14:39, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 8:13 AM, Alec Leamas wrote:
Dear list,
There is an ongoing thread in debian-devel on their Standards-Version usage.
Reading this, it strikes me that Fedora lacks this info.
It wouldn't be that difficult to pull it out of the wi
W dniu 09.09.2016 o 14:25, gil pisze:
>> Could we learn anything from this? Fedora is not a rolling
>> distribution, but the guidelines are. Would it be a good idea to
>> actually provide versions of the guidelines? To track the last version
>> checked in the packages?
>>
>> If not for anything els
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 8:13 AM, Alec Leamas wrote:
> Dear list,
>
>
> There is an ongoing thread in debian-devel on their Standards-Version usage.
> Reading this, it strikes me that Fedora lacks this info.
>
> The basic package lifecycle is that it is reviewed to current standards, and
> after tha
Il 09/09/2016 14:13, Alec Leamas ha scritto:
Dear list,
There is an ongoing thread in debian-devel on their Standards-Version
usage. Reading this, it strikes me that Fedora lacks this info.
The basic package lifecycle is that it is reviewed to current
standards, and after that start laggi
Dear list,
There is an ongoing thread in debian-devel on their Standards-Version
usage. Reading this, it strikes me that Fedora lacks this info.
The basic package lifecycle is that it is reviewed to current standards,
and after that start lagging from the actual standards. To which extent
d
In DNF CI we use rpm-gitoverlay[0], but due to RPM we have to prepare
archive from git, replace path for %(auto)setup, and some other magic,
so you can't use it as is in Fedora. But you can easily use it with
COPR as you don't have to follow all guidelines.
When I deal with one project I just do:
Il 09/09/2016 11:46, Sandro Mani ha scritto:
Hi
I need the following packages reviewed to update licensecheck and
perl-String-Copyright:
perl-Path-Iterator-Rule -
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1373244
perl-Number-Range - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1374642
Hi
I need the following packages reviewed to update licensecheck and
perl-String-Copyright:
perl-Path-Iterator-Rule -
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1373244
perl-Number-Range - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1374642
Happy to review in exchange.
Sandro
--
devel mai
I would like to build (S)RPMs directly from a Git repository (which
contains the .spec file in the top-level directory). This is for a
CI-style project, with a quick release cycle.
I have a Lua script fragment which generates a proper SRPM with the
mock-scm target in COPR, and which is also c
39 matches
Mail list logo
