Thanks Alexander,
I am (recently) a member of the packagers group - just finding my feet!
I have done the review request here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823599
I also made a request on releng to resurrect the git repo for f-31, 32 & epel8
Cheers
Bob
On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at
Hello Bob,
On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 3:12 AM Bob Hepple wrote:
> I'd like to unretire the package gjots2 package
> Full disclosure - I'm upstream. The package has been updated to python3
Since gjots2 had been orphaned quite some time ago, it will need to be
reviewed again:
https://fedoraproject.or
On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 8:05 PM Scott Talbert wrote:
>
> Have you tried the py3 branch of chirp?
> https://chirp.danplanet.com/projects/chirp/repository/show?rev=py3
Not in some time. From a packager POV I have no way to tell if it's ready
for "prime time" and I don't want to be responsible for
I'd like to unretire the package gjots2 package
Full disclosure - I'm upstream. The package has been updated to python3
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Cod
On Mon, 13 Apr 2020, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
So how do I get a functional python2 interpreter and access to pip?
As a short-term solution, you can switch the runtime-version in your manifest
to 18.08, but this runtime will only be supported for four more months, until
August (when the 20.08
On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 5:52 pm, Richard Shaw
wrote:
So how do I get a functional python2 interpreter and access to pip?
As a short-term solution, you can switch the runtime-version in your
manifest to 18.08, but this runtime will only be supported for four
more months, until August (when th
Hi Richard,
I'm, a CHIRP user (even spotted Dan some cash) and I would love to see it
it Fedora since it's "gateway app" for some many new HAMs.
I didn't know this was a problem and I would welcome an opportunity to help.
Feel free to contact me (blaise at gmail)
Neal,
Thanks for the info on Fedor
On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 6:53 PM Richard Shaw wrote:
>
> So with Python 2 being fully removed (more or less) with Fedora 32, Fedora 31
> is the last version that will contain Chirp, which is an important and the
> ONLY tool for Amateur Radio operators to program radios in linux.
>
> Don't get me
On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 at 00:15, Ondrej Nosek wrote:
>
> TLDR: Is $SUBJ function reasonable to implement in fedpkg?
>
> Hi,
>
> some time ago, fedpkg issue tracker got a request [1] for method, that allows
> direct builds. That means without sending srpms via "--srpm" argument.
> Currently, user's
So with Python 2 being fully removed (more or less) with Fedora 32,
Fedora 31 is the last version that will contain Chirp, which is an
important and the ONLY tool for Amateur Radio operators to program radios
in linux.
Don't get me started on upstreams lack of interest on correcting the
issue...
TLDR: Is $SUBJ function reasonable to implement in fedpkg?
Hi,
some time ago, fedpkg issue tracker got a request [1] for method, that
allows direct builds. That means without sending srpms via "--srpm"
argument. Currently, user's changes can be built:
fedpkg scratch-build --srpm
This way, f
On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 at 19:23, clime wrote:
>
> On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 at 14:48, Neal Gompa wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 5:15 AM Fabio Valentini
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 10:55 AM Dan Čermák
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi list,
> > > >
> > > > my question is pretty
On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 11:36:03AM -0600, Jerry James wrote:
> I would like to update the ocaml-bisect-ppx package to its latest
> version, 2.3.1. It is currently on a post-1.4.1 git snapshot. The
> new version requires ocaml-ppx-tools-versioned >= 5.3.0. That
> requirement sets off a cascade of
Missing expected images:
Iot dvd aarch64
Iot dvd x86_64
Failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64)
Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-IoT-33-20200412.0):
ID: 575428 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso base_services_start
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/575428
Soft failed openQA tests
My name is Devin Acosta, and I have been doing Information Technology for
well over 20+ Years. I am a Red Hat Certified Architect and I am trying to
help get my first package into EPEL7/EPEL8. The program that I am trying to
get into EPEL is Sensu Go (Open Source version). I have filed by Review
Re
Hi all,
before going off an filing a bug, I wanted to gather some input. I
added a battery for the RTC to one of my ARM boards, in testing that
it was working as expected I booted the system I noticed the following
[root@localhost ~]# date
Wed 01 Apr 2020 05:24:35 PM UTC
[root@localhost ~]# hwc
I would like to update the ocaml-bisect-ppx package to its latest
version, 2.3.1. It is currently on a post-1.4.1 git snapshot. The
new version requires ocaml-ppx-tools-versioned >= 5.3.0. That
requirement sets off a cascade of updates and rebuilds. I am BCCing
all of the affected package maint
On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 01:30:57PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> That is another major concern, that decisions made by Fedora for Fedora
> users depend more and more on input from people (and companies) who are NOT
> Fedora users. What makes sense for RHEL and/or CentOS does not necessarily
> mak
On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 at 14:48, Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 5:15 AM Fabio Valentini wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 10:55 AM Dan Čermák
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi list,
> > >
> > > my question is pretty much $subject: Why doesn't Koschei kick of
> > > real builds off packag
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20200412.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20200413.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:2
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 49
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0 B
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size
On 13.04.2020 18:58, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> I guess that solves the problem, doesn't it? There is zero reason for
> Fedora to be doing a component build anymore if it's no longer of
> benefit to rpmfusion. Yes?
I think so.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
__
On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 6:33 pm, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
Due to major synchronization problems between Fedora and RPM Fusion
repositories.
Fedora updates chromium -> RPM fusion need need 1-3 days to push this
update to rpmfusion-free-updates and users complains about broken
updates. Eve
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64)
Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-IoT-32-20200412.0):
ID: 575105 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso base_services_start
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/575105
Passed openQA tests: 7/8 (x86_64)
--
Mail generated
The linker said: error adding symbols: Malformed archive. Searching leads
me to translate that error to "too many open files". See:
https://github.com/OSSystems/meta-browser/issues/194
Apparently, gold does not have this issue, but I have not tested.
Tom
On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 12:05 PM Lennart
On 13.04.2020 18:01, Tom Callaway wrote:
> What I don't understand is _why_ RPM Fusion made that change. Not saying
> it is without merit, just that I don't understand why a total rebuild is
> preferred.
Due to major synchronization problems between Fedora and RPM Fusion
repositories.
Fedora upda
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
=
#fedora-meeting-1: FESCO (2020-04-13)
=
Meeting started by sgallagh at 15:01:54 UTC. The full logs are available
at
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2020-04
Le 13/04/2020 à 16:27, Peter Robinson a écrit :
People that want the Fedora version of the build, even without the
extra bits, would get rpmfusion if they happen to have rpmfusion
enabled for another reason.
Maybe a special repository only for chromium? I mean, chromium
is important enough for
On Mo, 13.04.20 09:56, Tom Callaway (tcall...@redhat.com) wrote:
> C) Chromium's build process gets...angrier. Still doable, but you have to
> do things like set ulimit -n 4096. (Fun fact: the man page section for
> ulimit says that for -n, "most systems do not allow this value to be set".
> Guess
What I don't understand is _why_ RPM Fusion made that change. Not saying it
is without merit, just that I don't understand why a total rebuild is
preferred.
I would also be interested in seeing the patches where you set a specific
component to be shared while the others were static.
Thanks,
Tom
Tom Callaway wrote:
> So, you might be asking, why does Fedora build in shared mode? There are
> two main reasons:
> 1) To enable users to be able to swap out the media components from Fedora
> with a "freeworld" version.
That reason is obsolete. RPM Fusion replaced chromium-libs-media-freeworld
On 4/13/20 6:56 AM, Tom Callaway wrote:
I did a test build of a static version of Fedora's chromium and the
benchmark performance went up to expected levels.
This sounds similar to a discussion on this list in November, regarding
python performance. I think developers settled on the use of
OLD: Fedora-32-20200412.n.0
NEW: Fedora-32-20200413.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 0
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0 B
Size of dropped packages:0 B
Size of upgraded
> Honestly, degraded performance is an expected result of doing component
> build, so I would say that's just not a bug at all, it's just how
> Chromium works. Our hand is forced here by upstream's strange and
> unusual packaging decisions. Other distros do it this way too.
>
> But you say the diff
On Fri, 2020-04-10 at 12:42 -0400, Alexei Podtelezhnikov wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 11:14 AM Olivier Fourdan wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 4:38 PM Adam Jackson wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2020-04-10 at 15:35 +0200, Olivier Fourdan wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > > Adam, want me to launch an offici
https://browserbench.org/Speedometer2.0/ is the benchmark in the bug.
Tom
On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 10:34 AM Benson Muite
wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2020, at 5:21 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> > Honestly, degraded performance is an expected result of doing component
> > build, so I would say t
On Mon, Apr 13, 2020, at 5:21 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> Honestly, degraded performance is an expected result of doing component
> build, so I would say that's just not a bug at all, it's just how
> Chromium works. Our hand is forced here by upstream's strange and
> unusual packaging decis
Honestly, degraded performance is an expected result of doing component
build, so I would say that's just not a bug at all, it's just how
Chromium works. Our hand is forced here by upstream's strange and
unusual packaging decisions. Other distros do it this way too.
But you say the difference
Hi Fedorans,
Here's the situation:
Recently, someone filed a bug against chromium, noting that it was
benchmarking notably slower than Google Chrome or chromium-freeworld (from
rpmfusion). I tested locally and confirmed it. They suspected that Fedora's
optflags were to blame, but since chromium d
On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 5:15 AM Fabio Valentini wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 10:55 AM Dan Čermák
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi list,
> >
> > my question is pretty much $subject: Why doesn't Koschei kick of
> > real builds off packages on dependency changes? From my naive POV that
> > looks like the m
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 devel-le...@lists.fedorap
Jeremy Newton wrote:
> Looks like cubeb is apart of the Firefox source tree (./meda/libcubeb/).
Firefox also bundles the library, but the real upstream is:
https://github.com/kinetiknz/cubeb
If you want to unbundle the library, you should package it from there, and
then maybe get Firefox to use
> > Fedora Infrastructure are in the middle of 2 data center moves currently
> > with a COVID-19 lockdown affecting our ability to give any timelines of
> > when things will be available. I do not think the servers will be available
> > until May at the earliest and they will be a lower priority th
On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 10:55 AM Dan Čermák
wrote:
>
> Hi list,
>
> my question is pretty much $subject: Why doesn't Koschei kick of
> real builds off packages on dependency changes? From my naive POV that
> looks like the missing piece to give us the "OBS-experience". Having
> that at least in Ra
Hi list,
my question is pretty much $subject: Why doesn't Koschei kick of
real builds off packages on dependency changes? From my naive POV that
looks like the missing piece to give us the "OBS-experience". Having
that at least in Rawhide sounds like a good thing to me.
Cheers,
Dan
signature.
Hey All,
The Fedora Kernel 5.6 Test Week[0] is underway. The communishift -
where the test day app resided is now going through downtown and
Fedora QA folks have moved the app to a different location to survive
this downtime. if, for some reason you get an error, please let me
know and bear with
45 matches
Mail list logo
