https://fedorapeople.org/groups/389ds/ci/nightly/2020/03/21/report-389-ds-base-1.4.3.4-20200321gitd1b746b.fc31.x86_64.html
___
389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
# F32 Blocker Review meeting
# Date: 2020-03-23
# Time: 16:00 UTC
# Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net
Hi folks! We have 7 proposed Final blockers and 1 proposed Final
freeze exception to review, so let's have a Fedora 32 blocker review
meeting on Monday!
If you have time this
Hi folks! I'm proposing we cancel the QA meeting for tomorrow. We met
last week and I don't think we have any urgent business this week.
There will be a blocker review meeting.
If you're aware of anything important we have to discuss this week,
please do reply to this mail and we can go ahead and
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815682
Bug ID: 1815682
Summary: perl-Module-CoreList-5.20200320 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-Module-CoreList
Keywords:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 1:50 AM Petr Pisar wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 12:59:01PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 11:53 AM Marius Schwarz
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Am 19.03.20 um 17:11 schrieb Michael Cronenworth:
> > > > On 3/19/20 11:04 AM, Marius Schwarz wrote:
> >
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815667
Bug ID: 1815667
Summary: perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20200320 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases
Keywords:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 6:06 AM Panu Matilainen wrote:
>
> On 3/16/20 6:25 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
> >
> > I'm glad to *finally* see this happen, so congratulations to the RPM
> > team for finally making this a reality! I look forward to trying this
> > out in Rawhide as soon as possible.
>
> FWIW,
OLD: Fedora-32-20200319.n.0
NEW: Fedora-32-20200320.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 10
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0 B
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size
We've noticed that there is a kernel inside the install.img of the
boot.iso -- it isn't used for booting, and as far as I can tell it's
just taking up extra space.
But I have no idea if it's safe to remove it :)
I have this PR, which works fine for me in my testing:
On Fri, 2020-03-20 at 11:42 -0400, Paul Dufresne via devel wrote:
> > Closing a bug doesn't clear the needinfo. Change the ? to blank under
> > flags (or I'm happy to clear it for you if you'd like).
> Ok, I have done it.
>
> But I believe the outstanding bugs reminder should not include
On Fri, 2020-03-20 at 11:02 -0400, Paul Dufresne via devel wrote:
> About outstanding bugs...
>
> In my opinion, the frequency at which it is sent: every day, is way too often.
> For me, once a month would make more sense.
> Maybe... maybe once a week.
>
> For me, the message contains this is a
On 20/03/2020 13:30, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 20. 03. 20 13:22, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>> More than a year
>
> I my humble opinion, if you ignore outstanding Bugzillas for over a
> year, you cannot be surprised you have hundreds of remainders in your
> inbox.
Please remember I've given this
On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 02:46:05PM +, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-03-10 at 08:39 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> > Once upon a time, Petr Pisar said:
> > > The change is intentional. It is documented in the perl RPM
> > > changelog, it was
> > > announced on perl-devel list and it is in
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 4/171 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-32-20200319.n.0):
ID: 551864 Test: x86_64 Everything-boot-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/551864
ID: 551913 Test: x86_64
Hi Fedora developers,
I have the below OpenOSC package review request for Fedora:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1812961
I wonder if somebody can help me with the package review to get it into Fedora.
Also if somebody can sponsor me, it would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks,
Missing expected images:
Iot dvd x86_64
Iot dvd aarch64
Passed openQA tests: 8/8 (x86_64)
New passes (same test not passed in Fedora-IoT-33-20200319.0):
ID: 551997 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso release_identification
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/551997
Installed system
On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 3:20 PM Rob Crittenden wrote:
> Closing a bug doesn't clear the needinfo.
I consider that a mis-feature, but I have
learned to live with it.
> As a package owner I like the daily reminder. If it only happened
> monthly then bad timing could make it so I miss a reminder
> Closing a bug doesn't clear the needinfo. Change the ? to blank under
> flags (or I'm happy to clear it for you if you'd like).
Ok, I have done it.
But I believe the outstanding bugs reminder should not include closed bugs!
___
devel mailing list
Hi William,
I only have a vague knowledge of syntaxes/MR.
Each syntax is a plugin. Its init function registers for a given set of
OIDs the matching rules (compare, order, substring) than handle that
syntax (calls slapi_matchingrule_register).
There is a special collation plugin that does the
No missing expected images.
Compose PASSES proposed Rawhide gating check!
All required tests passed
Failed openQA tests: 11/171 (x86_64), 1/2 (arm)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20200319.n.0):
ID: 551659 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso mediakit_fileconflicts
URL:
Paul Dufresne via devel wrote:
> About outstanding bugs...
>
> In my opinion, the frequency at which it is sent: every day, is way too often.
> For me, once a month would make more sense.
> Maybe... maybe once a week.
>
> For me, the message contains this is a one bug:
>
On 20. 03. 20 16:02, Paul Dufresne via devel wrote:
About outstanding bugs...
In my opinion, the frequency at which it is sent: every day, is way too often.
For me, once a month would make more sense.
Maybe... maybe once a week.
Once a day is indeed too much. It used to be once a week.
For
https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/pull-request/50968
--
389 Directory Server Development Team
___
389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 389-devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
About outstanding bugs...
In my opinion, the frequency at which it is sent: every day, is way too often.
For me, once a month would make more sense.
Maybe... maybe once a week.
For me, the message contains this is a one bug:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1700171
For most of the
On Tue, 2020-03-10 at 08:39 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Petr Pisar said:
> > The change is intentional. It is documented in the perl RPM
> > changelog, it was
> > announced on perl-devel list and it is in line with Perl packaging
> > guidelines and
> > Fedora minimization
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20200319.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20200320.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 12
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 153
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 33.20 MiB
Size of dropped packages:0
This thread is off-topic and not in the spirit of our Friends
foundation. Please refrain from further replies.
--
Ben Cotton
He / Him / His
Senior Program Manager, Fedora & CentOS Stream
Red Hat
TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis
___
devel mailing list --
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 2/8 (x86_64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-IoT-32-20200319.0):
ID: 551584 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso install_default@uefi
URL:
On 20. 03. 20 13:22, Daniel Pocock wrote:
More than a year
I my humble opinion, if you ignore outstanding Bugzillas for over a year, you
cannot be surprised you have hundreds of remainders in your inbox.
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
On 20/03/2020 13:19, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
>
> Hi, Daniel.
>
> * Daniel Pocock [20/03/2020 12:38] :
>>
>> - there were over 100 "outstanding requests" emails in my inbox
>
> Over how many bugs and what time period were the requests generated?
More than a year
>> - there are numerous bugs
Hi, Daniel.
* Daniel Pocock [20/03/2020 12:38] :
>
> - there were over 100 "outstanding requests" emails in my inbox
Over how many bugs and what time period were the requests generated?
> - there are numerous bugs about builds failing, FTBFS
These bugs are signal and not noise.
Not only are
On 20/03/2020 12:50, Martin Langhoff wrote:
> Apologies to Ty. I should have written instead:
>
> Daniel Pocock seems to have created a complicated situation with Debian,
> which includes sock puppets and attempts at impersonation.
>
> Here is a good LWN article that tries to cover the topic
>
Apologies to Ty. I should have written instead:
Daniel Pocock seems to have created a complicated situation with Debian,
which includes sock puppets and attempts at impersonation.
Here is a good LWN article that tries to cover the topic -
https://lwn.net/Articles/814508/ . It is not the only one
Hello. I would like to update cfitsio in epel6. The current version here
has longstanding bugs.
My first question is the correct repoquery command. I'm doing, in a centos
6 machine,
repoquery --whatrequires cfitsio --disablerepo=* --enablerepo=epel -s|sort
| uniq
that returns
I've been looking at email from Bugzilla to try and find out what I need
to know preparing the upstream release of reSIProcate
I feel the signal/noise ratio is disturbing and it also means I am less
likely to open Bugzilla emails
In particular,
- there were over 100 "outstanding requests"
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 02:26:18PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 17. 03. 20 14:14, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 01:23:59PM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > > On 17. 03. 20 11:58, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> > > > Together with Karsten Hopp we worked on integrating this
No missing expected images.
Passed openQA tests: 1/1 (x86_64)
--
Mail generated by check-compose:
https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
On 20/03/2020 09:16, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 05:34:58PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 07, 2020 at 11:33:04PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>>> It is very, very wrong and I don't feel I should have to make a public
>>> request like this.
Fedora version :
[root@ACERORESCRITORIO ~]# uname -a
Linux ACERORESCRITORIO 5.5.9-200.fc31.x86_64 #1 SMP Thu Mar 12 13:55:19 UTC
2020 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
[root@ACERORESCRITORIO ~]#
Rstudio Version:Version 1.2.5033
© 2009-2020 RStudio, Inc.
"Orange Blossom" (330255dd, 2020-02-28)
No missing expected images.
Passed openQA tests: 1/1 (x86_64)
--
Mail generated by check-compose:
https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 05:34:58PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 07, 2020 at 11:33:04PM +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> > It is very, very wrong and I don't feel I should have to make a public
> > request like this. Nonetheless, there is a certain type of person who
>
> Daniel, to
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 06:52:52PM +0100, Marius Schwarz wrote:
> Am 19.03.20 um 17:11 schrieb Michael Cronenworth:
> > On 3/19/20 11:04 AM, Marius Schwarz wrote:
> >> correct and thats the main issue, as long you have grub where you can
> >> edit the kernel line to start in runlevel 1.
> >> This
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 12:59:01PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 11:53 AM Marius Schwarz
> wrote:
> >
> > Am 19.03.20 um 17:11 schrieb Michael Cronenworth:
> > > On 3/19/20 11:04 AM, Marius Schwarz wrote:
> > >> correct and thats the main issue, as long you have grub where
On 20/03/2020 04:33, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
>
> Hi Martin,
>
> Please see the Fedora Code of Conduct[1]. Referring to other members of the
> community as "sock puppets" falls a bit shy of "be excellent to each other",
> in my opinion.
>
> 1:
44 matches
Mail list logo
