Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC
meeting Thursday at 2018-11-29 17:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on
irc.freenode.net.
Local time information (via. uitime):
= Day: Thursday ==
2018-11-29 09:00 PST US/Pacific
2018-11-29
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1651151
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|perl-FFI-CheckLib-0.23-1.fc |perl-FFI-CheckLib-0.23-1.fc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1612860
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|perl-Net-Pcap-0.18-10.fc30 |perl-Net-Pcap-0.18-10.fc30
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1475784
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #4 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1653175
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #4 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1612860
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|perl-Net-Pcap-0.18-10.fc30 |perl-Net-Pcap-0.18-10.fc30
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1651151
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Fixed In
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018, 9:45 AM Florian Weimer /etc/nsswitch.conf is owned by glibc. It is not a symbolic link as we
> ship it.
>
> If find out which packages replaces our configuration with a symbolic
> link, please file a bug against that package. If they want to take over
>
On 28/11/18 11:48 -0400, Robert Marcano wrote:
> There is another thing I found wrong. The backed up nsswitch.conf has these
> lines appended (ckey and incomplete aliases line) after the real end of the
> original file (aliases: files):
>
> aliases:files
> ckey: files
>
> aliases:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 10:16:32PM +0100, Dillen Meijboom wrote:
> My name is Dillen and I'm a developer from the Netherlands. I recently
> switched from ArchLinux to Fedora and currently figuring out how packaging
> for Fedora works. I mostly worked on commercial projects the past couple
> of
On 26/11/18 20:58 +0100, Jan Pokorný wrote:
> On 26/11/18 15:12 +0100, Tom Gundersen wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 11:36 AM Tomasz Kłoczko
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 25 Nov 2018 at 11:19, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <
>>> zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote:
>>>
On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 02:36:31AM
Hi there!
My name is Dillen and I'm a developer from the Netherlands. I recently
switched from ArchLinux to Fedora and currently figuring out how
packaging for Fedora works. I mostly worked on commercial projects the past
couple of years but I'd like to contribute more to open-source projects
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Ruby_2.6
== Summary ==
Ruby 2.6 is the latest stable version of Ruby. Many new features and
improvements are included for the increasingly diverse and expanding
demands for Ruby. With this major update from Ruby 2.5 in Fedora 29 to
Ruby 2.6 in Fedora 30,
On Wed, 2018-11-28 at 20:33 +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> the removal of glibc-all-langpacks from the buildroot[0] is done.
> Standard buildroot has decreased from 445 to 237 megabytes in
> installed size ;
Nice!
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Ruby_2.6
== Summary ==
Ruby 2.6 is the latest stable version of Ruby. Many new features and
improvements are included for the increasingly diverse and expanding
demands for Ruby. With this major update from Ruby 2.5 in Fedora 29 to
Ruby 2.6 in Fedora 30,
Hello,
the removal of glibc-all-langpacks from the buildroot[0] is done.
Standard buildroot has decreased from 445 to 237 megabytes in
installed size ;)
Before:
DEBUG util.py:439: Install 146 Packages
DEBUG util.py:439: Total download size: 86 M
DEBUG util.py:439: Installed size: 445 M
On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 13:05, Josh Boyer wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 12:57 PM Stephen John Smoogen
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 12:47, Owen Taylor wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 12:40 PM Stephen John Smoogen
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 11:37,
On Wed, 2018-11-28 at 18:19 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> And why do we need to stop the presses to do that? This is entirely
> orthogonal to distribution development and can be done in parallel.
The problem is that the people who do the work to get the release done
are the same people who would
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 12:57 PM Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 12:47, Owen Taylor wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 12:40 PM Stephen John Smoogen
> > wrote:
> > > On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 11:37, Owen Taylor wrote:
> >
> > > > Fedora needs to be an operating system
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 12:47 PM Owen Taylor wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 12:40 PM Stephen John Smoogen
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 11:37, Owen Taylor wrote:
>
> > > Fedora needs to be an operating system provider, not just an operating
> > > system toolbox provider.
> >
> > I
On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 12:47, Owen Taylor wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 12:40 PM Stephen John Smoogen
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 11:37, Owen Taylor wrote:
>
> > > Fedora needs to be an operating system provider, not just an operating
> > > system toolbox provider.
> >
> > I feel
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 12:40 PM Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 11:37, Owen Taylor wrote:
> > Fedora needs to be an operating system provider, not just an operating
> > system toolbox provider.
>
> I feel like we have been saying this for 15+ years even before Fedora
>
spot canceled a pull-request against the project: `perl-Email-MessageID` that
you are following.
Cancelled pull-request:
``
Remove unneeded requirement
``
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Email-MessageID/pull-request/1
___
perl-devel mailing
spot commented on the pull-request: `Remove unneeded requirement` that you are
following:
``
Looks like this happened in rawhide before I could merge this. Closing out.
``
To reply, visit the link below
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Email-MessageID/pull-request/1
On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 11:37, Owen Taylor wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 3:07 AM Brian (bex) Exelbierd
> wrote:
>
> > I'd push Brendans' concept further and suggest that we try to
> > eliminate as many of the compilers, libraries and core system tools as
> > possible from this bootable-base
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 05:02:17PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 28.11.18 um 15:45 schrieb Florian Weimer:
> > * Richard W. M. Jones:
> >
> >> Trying to track down a bug in IPP printing
> >> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1653276).
> >>
> >> We're down a rabbit hole where
Matthew Miller wrote:
> I know it was a big time-off holiday week in the US, but I expected a
> little more interest in this post. Perhaps it seemed like too much text to
> digest along with turkey and stuffing. :) I'm highlighting it with a
> subject reflecting the big, direct impact, and here's
Peter Robinson wrote:
> So going back to memory of what we did in the F-21 cycle, we EOLed
> F-19 at the 13 months line and then F-20 continued until a month after
> F-22 was out.
No, we did not! F19 was supported until a month after F21 was released:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 08:45:55AM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > If F31 is delayed by 6 months and F30 is supported for 6 months longer,
> > does it mean F29 *also* automatically gets a longer cycle since it by
> > policy becomes EOL when F31 is out + 1 month?
> > Can we EOL F29 6 months before
I totally agree with Paul and Kevin.
I want to see a faster release cycle (probably rolling release) and shorter
processes to get a release out.
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 3:02 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> I agree with the folks in this subthread, but I think we are going to
> have to look at
Unclutter seems to be an orphaned package that keeps being
rebuilt, there even is an fc30 rpm. The URL given in the
fc29 package points to a dead link on MIT. I filed a
bugzilla report on this and no one replied.
Rdesktop seems to haven been obsoleted. It has its problems,
mostly excessive
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 3:07 AM Brian (bex) Exelbierd
wrote:
> I think that Fedora's role as an innovater in the OS space means we
> should be aggressively exploring this. Rolling Releases, Tech-Driven
> Releases and Time-Based Releases all have well known positives and
> negatives. All of the
Hi,
I am facing a weird problem with creating a new user account:
Create a new user:
# adduser -m tester
Trying to change his passwd:
# passwd tester
Changing password for user tester.
At this point, passwd hangs and doesn't do anything.
I am not getting the "usual" passwd-prompt.
What's
On 11/28/18 4:37 PM, Robert Marcano wrote:
On 11/28/18 11:20 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
# ls -l /etc/nsswitch.conf
lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 29 Nov 18 04:58 /etc/nsswitch.conf ->
/etc/authselect/nsswitch.conf
My clean F29 installation had no such symbolic link, has to "authselect
select
On 11/28/18 11:37 AM, Robert Marcano wrote:
On 11/28/18 11:20 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 11/28/18 3:45 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Richard W. M. Jones:
Trying to track down a bug in IPP printing
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1653276).
We're down a rabbit hole where it seems
On 11/28/18 11:20 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 11/28/18 3:45 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Richard W. M. Jones:
Trying to track down a bug in IPP printing
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1653276).
We're down a rabbit hole where it seems that in Fedora 29
/etc/nssswitch.conf ought
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20181127.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20181128.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 8
Dropped packages:4
Upgraded packages: 111
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 32.88 MiB
Size of dropped packages
On 11/28/18 3:45 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Richard W. M. Jones:
Trying to track down a bug in IPP printing
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1653276).
We're down a rabbit hole where it seems that in Fedora 29
/etc/nssswitch.conf ought to be a symlink. This machine has been
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 2:53 PM Nicolas Mailhot
wrote:
>
> Le 2018-11-26 12:31, Brian (bex) Exelbierd a écrit :
>
> >
> > I agree that we need a beta vs stable pathway, but I am not sure
> > having a release helps us.
>
> If we want hardware manufacturers to ship Fedora-compatible hardware we
>
My configuration is different, just take as FYI.
> ... it seems that in Fedora 29 /etc/nssswitch.conf ought
> to be a symlink. This machine has been upgraded from F28
> and this is not the case. AFAIK I have never edited the
> file.
It is still a file and not a link on my f29, which has been
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 99/142 (x86_64), 24/24 (i386), 1/2 (arm)
New failures (same test did not fail in Rawhide-20181127.n.0):
ID: 313100 Test: x86_64 Everything-boot-iso install_default
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/313100
ID: 313101 Test:
On 28/11/2018 14:45, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Richard W. M. Jones:
Trying to track down a bug in IPP printing
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1653276).
We're down a rabbit hole where it seems that in Fedora 29
/etc/nssswitch.conf ought to be a symlink. This machine has been
* Richard W. M. Jones:
> Trying to track down a bug in IPP printing
> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1653276).
>
> We're down a rabbit hole where it seems that in Fedora 29
> /etc/nssswitch.conf ought to be a symlink. This machine has been
> upgraded from F28 and this is not the
On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 13:44, Igor Gnatenko
wrote:
>
> I don't have time to revert back and try updating again, but the fix looks
> good!
Whoever will be doing dbus upgrade just please do this using commands like below
# dnf upgrade -y --downloadonly dbus\*
than:
# rpm -Uvvvh
Le 2018-11-26 16:08, Bruno Wolff III a écrit :
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 15:57:25 +0100,
Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
4) not able to start gdm (because dbus was not running) blocks any
local login. Simple after such crash it is not possible to open or
switch to any local consoles!!!
I was able to
On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 07:01:04 -0600
Richard Shaw wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 5:29 AM Paul Howarth
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 10:53:58 +0530
> >
> > I seem to remember that for EL-7 we generally just branched the f19
> > packages for epel7, rebuilt and that was pretty much it.
> >
Hi,
Since I hit it too…
I agree it's a problem when subsystem maintainers assume reboot is cheap
and controlled and they do not need to make in-place update work (those
people need a few months baby-sitting headless systems where any mistake
means unracking and rewiring in uncomfortable
On 28/11/2018 13:40, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
We're down a rabbit hole where it seems that in Fedora 29
/etc/nssswitch.conf ought to be a symlink. This machine has been
upgraded from F28 and this is not the case. AFAIK I have never edited
the file.
Well I though authselect was supposed to
Upstream has just released 2.0 RC1 and I'm working on test builds. I don't
expect much to change at this point as they run master in production so
it's pretty stable.
It is a SONAME bump so once the 2.0 GA release happens I plan to update
Rawhide only at this time and rebuild dependencies unless
Le 2018-11-26 12:31, Brian (bex) Exelbierd a écrit :
I agree that we need a beta vs stable pathway, but I am not sure
having a release helps us.
If we want hardware manufacturers to ship Fedora-compatible hardware we
need to ship them official Fedora starting points. "Just pick any",
spend
Trying to track down a bug in IPP printing
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1653276).
We're down a rabbit hole where it seems that in Fedora 29
/etc/nssswitch.conf ought to be a symlink. This machine has been
upgraded from F28 and this is not the case. AFAIK I have never edited
the
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 1:49 PM Brian (bex) Exelbierd
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 1:31 PM Igor Gnatenko
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 1:14 PM Brian (bex) Exelbierd
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 12:12 PM Peter Robinson
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Nov
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 5:29 AM Paul Howarth wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 10:53:58 +0530
>
> I seem to remember that for EL-7 we generally just branched the f19
> packages for epel7, rebuilt and that was pretty much it.
>
I thought it was more of an "opt-in" situation, that packages that had a
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 1:07 PM Brian (bex) Exelbierd
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 12:12 PM Peter Robinson wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 8:07 AM Brian (bex) Exelbierd
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 4:15 AM Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> > > > Paul's proposal was
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 1:31 PM Igor Gnatenko
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 1:14 PM Brian (bex) Exelbierd
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 12:12 PM Peter Robinson
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 8:07 AM Brian (bex) Exelbierd
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Nov
I don't have time to revert back and try updating again, but the fix looks good!
Thanks!
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 1:19 PM Tom Gundersen wrote:
>
> Hi Igor,
>
> The upgrade path should hopefully be fixed with dbus-broker-16-8.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tom
>
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 10:33 AM Igor Gnatenko
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 1:14 PM Brian (bex) Exelbierd
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 12:12 PM Peter Robinson wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 8:07 AM Brian (bex) Exelbierd
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 4:15 AM Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> > > > Paul's proposal was
Hi Igor,
The upgrade path should hopefully be fixed with dbus-broker-16-8.
Cheers,
Tom
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 10:33 AM Igor Gnatenko <
ignatenkobr...@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> So I've tried to do following update:
> Install dbus-broker-16-7.fc30.x86_64@rawhide
> Upgrade
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 12:12 PM Peter Robinson wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 8:07 AM Brian (bex) Exelbierd
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 4:15 AM Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> > > Paul's proposal was definitely a one-time pause for the reasons you
> > > state. He requested we
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 8:07 AM Brian (bex) Exelbierd
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 4:15 AM Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> > Paul's proposal was definitely a one-time pause for the reasons you
> > state. He requested we follow-up with additional questions and
> > suggestions so I'm questioning
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1654195
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1475784
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System ---
perl-Email-MessageID-1.406-10.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora
29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-f2773a48c9
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1475784
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |MODIFIED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1475784
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|tcall...@redhat.com |ppi...@redhat.com
--
You are receiving
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1450364
--- Comment #5 from Ralf Corsepius ---
(In reply to Petr Pisar from comment #4)
> File-Slurp-.25 fixed this warning. But a similar issue in other places
> of the code still exist.
Yes, this bug is still unfixed:
From a mock-build.log
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1487209
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Resolution|---
So I've tried to do following update:
Install dbus-broker-16-7.fc30.x86_64@rawhide
Upgrade dbus-1:1.12.10-9.fc30.x86_64@rawhide
Upgraded dbus-1:1.12.10-8.fc30.x86_64@@System
Upgrade dbus-common-1:1.12.10-9.fc30.noarch @rawhide
Upgraded
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1653175
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |MODIFIED
--- Comment #3 from
Sorry about the two lines of the letter that do not fit much into the
concept:
So, I like the idea of one major and one minor release, if we want to stay
conservative and do not want to go the rolling updates way. And, in case we
want to stay super conservative and we do not want change anything,
Hello,
I do not think that we should be taking the path towards Gnome being in one
module. This is not, what "modular" means. In my understanding, modules
should be smaller, rather independent units, that will help solve some user
cases, but definitely not upgrading half of the system.
Also, if we
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1377997
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
External Bug ID||CPAN 118032
Version|27
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 4:39 PM Owen Taylor wrote:
> And if we did do updates like that, would we consider respinning media
> and making a "F30.1"?
>
What's the difference between re-spinning install media and doing a proper
F31 release? At least from QA point of view, I see very little
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1450364
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|27 |28
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1654195
Bug ID: 1654195
Summary: Upgrade perl-Software-License to 0.103014
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: perl-Software-License
Assignee: emman...@seyman.fr
Reporter:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1654194
Bug ID: 1654194
Summary: Upgrade perl-Catalyst-Runtime to 5.90123
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: perl-Catalyst-Runtime
Assignee: emman...@seyman.fr
Reporter:
On 28/11/2018 08:45, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 7:14 AM Kalev Lember wrote:
If F31 is delayed by 6 months and F30 is supported for 6 months longer,
does it mean F29 *also* automatically gets a longer cycle since it by
policy becomes EOL when F31 is out + 1 month?
Can we
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1379554
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
External Bug ID||CPAN 118097
Version|27
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 7:14 AM Kalev Lember wrote:
>
> If F31 is delayed by 6 months and F30 is supported for 6 months longer,
> does it mean F29 *also* automatically gets a longer cycle since it by
> policy becomes EOL when F31 is out + 1 month?
>
> Can we EOL F29 6 months before F31 is out to
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 10:38:52AM -0500, Owen Taylor wrote:
> One of the key parts of making a decision to delay/skip F31 is
> figuring out, ahead of the decision, what the expected experience is
> for users and packagers. Does F30 have normal stability, or do we try
> to keep users happy by
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 10:56 PM drago01 wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, November 27, 2018, Owen Taylor wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 10:51 AM Stephen Gallagher
>> wrote:
>> > As came up in another part of the earlier thread, I think this is an
>> > opportunity for Modularity. For those
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 4:15 AM Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> Paul's proposal was definitely a one-time pause for the reasons you
> state. He requested we follow-up with additional questions and
> suggestions so I'm questioning and suggesting taking it a step
> further. We talk about rolling
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1231244
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
External Bug ID||Github
|
82 matches
Mail list logo
