- Original Message -
> From: "Simo Sorce"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Monday, August 24, 2020 2:06:19 PM
> Subject: Re: RFC7919 Diffie-Hellman parameters in Fedora
>
> On Mon, 2020-08-24 at 19:29 +0200, Christopher Engelhard wrote:
> > On 24.08.20 18:43,
- Original Message -
> From: "Stephen John Smoogen"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 10:55:51 AM
> Subject: Re: Respinning rawhide images every filesystem update?
>
> On Thu
- Original Message -
> From: "Stephen John Smoogen"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
> , asch...@redhat.com
> Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2020 9:55:17 AM
> Subject: Re: Respinning rawhide images every filesystem update?
>
> On Thu
I'm bumping this thread. This is still broken.
- Original Message -
> From: "Alex Scheel"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Monday, August 3, 2020 2:36:40 PM
> Subject: Respinning rawhide images every filesystem update?
&
Hey list,
How do Fedora rawhide images get respun? Every time filesystem updates,
it causes `dnf update` to fail in a podman container because filesystem
can't be updated in a container. We either need to make sure filesystem
updates cause rawhide containers to be rebuilt, or figure out how to
- Original Message -
> From: "Dan Čermák"
> To: "Alex Scheel" , "Development discussions related to
> Fedora"
> Sent: Monday, July 27, 2020 8:25:27 AM
> Subject: Re: [pam_radius] aarch64 GCC failures during ./configure's working
> c
Not to pile on to what seems like a common topic... :-)
Koschei notified me that one of my co-owned packages, pam_radius failed
to build on aarch64 with the recent gcc update (10.1.1 -> 10.2.1). ppc and
x86 built just fine.
Looking at the build log, I'm almost inclined to kick off a new build
on
1.9000-13.fc33.x86_64 to
> glibc-common-2.31.9000-16.fc33.x86_64 resolved the issue. Nevertheless
> issues like this are unexpected. There should be something, what would
> force glibc update if FF requires more recent one.
>
>
> Vít
>
>
> Dne 01. 07. 20 v 6:57 Florian We
- Original Message -
> From: "Fabio Valentini"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2020 9:21:31 AM
> Subject: Re: [fedora-java] Re: java stack is dead, long live the javastack
> (was "500 packages FTBFS in rawhide with
> java-11-openjdk as
Is Fedora Rawhide unstable at the moment, pending a mass rebuild?
I've seen a lot of random problems related to pthreads at the
moment, such as:
16/78 Test #12: JSS_DER_Encoding_of_Enumeration_regression_test ...Child
aborted***Exception: 0.99 sec
FINE: CryptoManager: loading JSS library
- Original Message -
> From: "James Cassell"
> To: "Fedora Development List"
> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2020 6:08:30 PM
> Subject: Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Make btrfs the default
> file system for desktop variants
>
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2020, at 10:18 AM, Steven
- Original Message -
> From: "Daniel P. Berrangé"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Friday, June 19, 2020 5:58:28 AM
> Subject: Re: RHEL 9 and modularity
>
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 11:28:58AM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> >
> > Dne 18. 06. 20 v 21:40 Stephen
After much trimming, pruning, and hair-pulling by our fearless leader,
glassfish-hk2 was determined to be a spurious dependency which Fabio
replaced with one line of `sed` magic.
Please see: https://pagure.io/stewardship-sig/issue/91
If anyone is interested in taking this package back for
- Original Message -
> From: "Fabio Valentini"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 9:44:33 AM
> Subject: Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG
>
> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 3:34 PM Alex Scheel wrote:
> >
Obviously count us in, Fabio :-)
- Original Message -
> From: "Fabio Valentini"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 6:39:04 AM
> Subject: Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG
>
> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 12:34 PM Ty Young wrote:
> > Right, I
- Original Message -
> From: "Stephen Gallagher"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 11:52:24 AM
> Subject: Proposal: Revise FESCo voting policy
>
> During today's FESCo meeting, we encountered an unusual voting
> situation for the first
day, April 30, 2020 11:54:21 AM
> Subject: Re: Backports of fixes from F32 -> F31?
>
>
>
> Hey,
>
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 09:30, Alex Scheel wrote:
> >
> > And yeah, agreed. Backports are time consuming. But this is F31, not
> > F30.
> > There's a
Ah cool, so my guess was correct. :-) We're working on fixing this upstream
and then we'll get it pulled into Fedora. Mind if we ping you for a rebuild
when we're ready?
- Alex
- Original Message -
> From: judov...@email.cz
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Friday, May 1, 2020
\o Hey Jiri,
I don't see two of our packages in the copr:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pki-core/
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/dogtag-pki/
Is there a way to know why they were excluded?
Thanks!
- Alex
- Original Message -
> From: "Jiri Vanek"
> To: "Development
- Original Message -
> From: "Josh Boyer"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Cc: "Florian Muellner"
> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 9:04:12 PM
> Subject: Re: Backports of fixes from F32 -> F31?
> > > Just a curious observation/question. Backports can often be
Let's try this with the right Florian...
Sorry!
- Original Message -
> From: "Alex Scheel"
> To: "Florian Weimer"
> Cc: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 4:02:48 PM
> Subject: Bac
Hi Florian,
I've hit numerous bugs in GNOME in F31. Some of these are fixed in F32,
such as this one against mutter:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1770296
Could we get some of these fixes backported? I've not heard from you on
this bug at all, despite a needinfo request since
rity Survey
>
> On Wed, 2020-04-08 at 08:41 -0400, Alex Scheel wrote:
> >
> > There's a marketing piece from 2017 that alleges that none of gsuite
> > (including their gmail for gsuite!) gets scanned for ads:
> >
> > https://www.blog.google/products/gmail/g-s
8, 2020 4:25:55 AM
> Subject: Re: Modularity Survey
>
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 7:22 PM Adam Williamson
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2020-04-07 at 13:12 -0400, Alex Scheel wrote:
> > > I'm sure we can trust that Red Hat did its
> > >
> > > due diligence and Goo
- Original Message -
> From: "Xavier Bachelot"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
> , "Kevin Kofler"
>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 12:15:37 PM
> Subject: Re: Modularity Survey
>
> Le 07/04/2020 à 12:29, Kevin Kofler a écrit :
> > Adam Williamson wrote:
> >> Well. Uh.
- Original Message -
> From: "Till Maas"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Monday, April 6, 2020 1:39:49 PM
> Subject: Re: CPE Weekly: 2020-04-04
>
> On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 08:35:28AM -0400, Alex Scheel wrote:
&g
- Original Message -
> From: "Daniel P. Berrangé"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Cc: "Nicolas Mailhot"
> Sent: Monday, April 6, 2020 11:02:52 AM
> Subject: Re: CPE Weekly: 2020-04-04
>
> Watching the discussion in the other big thread, I feel it has become
>
- Original Message -
> From: "Nicolas Mailhot via devel"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Cc: "Nicolas Mailhot"
> Sent: Monday, April 6, 2020 10:57:40 AM
> Subject: Re: CPE Weekly: 2020-04-04
>
> Le
- Original Message -
> From: "Ben Rosser"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Monday, April 6, 2020 9:49:13 AM
> Subject: Re: CPE Weekly: 2020-04-04
>
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. :-)
> Not saying you're wrong that it would be nice to have the ability to
- Original Message -
> From: "Nicolas Mailhot via devel"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Cc: "Nicolas Mailhot"
> Sent: Monday, April 6, 2020 9:10:56 AM
> Subject: Re: CPE Weekly: 2020-04-04
>
> Le
- Original Message -
> From: "Miro Hrončok"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Monday, April 6, 2020 8:28:15 AM
> Subject: Re: CPE Weekly: 2020-04-04
>
> On 06. 04. 20 14:19, Alex Scheel wrote:
> > That part isn't actually clear to me.
- Original Message -
> From: "Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Monday, April 6, 2020 7:09:38 AM
> Subject: Re: CPE Weekly: 2020-04-04
>
> On Monday, 06 April 2020 at 12:41, Leigh Griffin wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 4, 2020 at 9:36 PM Randy Barlow
>
- Original Message -
> From: "Panu Matilainen"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2020 6:22:39 AM
> Subject: Re: CPE Git Forge Decision
>
> > I also appreciate that as a community developing our own solutions is
> > something important and something that
- Original Message -
> From: "Neal Gompa"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Cc: "Alex Scheel" , "Leigh Griffin"
> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 3:30:20 PM
> Subject: Re: The Git forge decision (was CPE Weekly:
- Original Message -
> From: "Martin Kolman"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Cc: "Leigh Griffin"
> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 3:05:54 PM
> Subject: Re: The Git forge decision (was CPE Weekly: 2020-03-28)
> > And to be clear: there's a difference between a
- Original Message -
> From: "Bruno Wolff III"
> To: "Leigh Griffin"
> Cc: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 2:08:21 PM
> Subject: Re: The Git forge decision (was CPE Weekly: 2020-03-28)
>
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 17:20:04 +0100,
> Leigh
- Original Message -
> From: "Andrew Haley"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
> , "Alex Scheel"
> Cc: "Omair Majid"
> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 12:36:23 PM
> Subject: Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal:
- Original Message -
> From: "Jiri Vanek"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
> , "Miro Hrončok"
> , "Deepak Bhole" , "Severin Gehwolf"
> , "Omair Majid"
>
> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 11:38:34 AM
> Subject: Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: java-11-openjdk as
Per $SUBJ, I was looking for guidance from the Java community about
embedding .so files within JARs.
I found these docs:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Java/#_applicability
Which seem to have conflicting commentary on this:
- A Java package uses JNI if it contains a
Thanks! Non-responsive maintainer check canceled from my perspective.
- Original Message -
> From: "Jared Smith"
> To: "Alex Scheel"
> Cc: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2020 1:14:11 AM
&
I'm initiating the non-responsive maintainer policy for jsmith.
Per:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers/
Week -1:
Mail to jsmith (cc: devel@). Sent 7 February 2020. Subject:
nodejs-babel-runtime - orphan?
\o Hey Jared,
I recently tried looking for the Babel compiler in Fedora, and
stumbled upon the packaged version, nodejs-babel-runtime. However,
it isn't installable:
Error:
Problem: conflicting requests
- nothing provides (npm(regenerator-runtime) >= 0.10.0 with
npm(regenerator-runtime) <
Haley wrote:
> >
> > On 1/27/20 3:13 PM, Alex Scheel wrote:
> > > N.B.: I'd like to thank the Red Hat JVM team for being solid in
> > > their Fedora execution. But they maintain only the JVM, and not
> > > the rest of the Java ecosystem. :-)
> >
&
- Original Message -
> From: "Tom Seewald"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2020 12:35:32 PM
> Subject: Re: Java Dev Group and Fedora Quality
>
> > On Sat, Jan 25, 2020 at 11:07 PM Bill Chatfield via devel
> *snip*
> > True. Nobody cares about Java packages
- Original Message -
> From: "Michael Catanzaro"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 4:31:47 PM
> Subject: Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog
>
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 4:04 pm, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > And any
I had replied to Fabio on IRC but... :-)
- Original Message -
> From: "Guido Aulisi"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2020 3:48:31 PM
> Subject: Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog
>
>
>
> > Il giorno 21 gen 2020,
> 1. I didn't ask for/want a module.
> 2. They aren't actually needed. After disabling them and reinstalling the
> programs I care about (or could have used distro-sync) they weren't
> actually needed.
This is where I'll drop a plug for the Stewardship SIG. Thanks in large
part to Fabio's great
- Original Message -
> From: "Gerald Henriksen"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Monday, November 18, 2019 6:40:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [fedora-java] What's the State of the Java SIG?
>
> On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 13:37:39 +0100, you wrote:
>
> >Fabio Valentini
- Original Message -
> From: "Mikolaj Izdebski"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Cc: "java-devel"
> Sent: Monday, November 18, 2019 5:42:20 AM
> Subject: Re: What's the State of the Java SIG?
~snip~
> Maintenance of obsolete packages is non-goal for Java SIG.
A
- Original Message -
> From: "Fabio Valentini"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Friday, November 15, 2019 10:58:04 AM
> Subject: Re: What are the benefits of default modular streams over
> non-modular packages?
>
~snipping long thread~
> Another issue is
- Original Message -
> From: "Matthew Miller"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Monday, November 11, 2019 1:16:22 PM
> Subject: Re: Modularity and all the things
>
> On Tue, Nov 05, 2019 at 10:28:02PM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > That's all well and good,
- Original Message -
> From: "Vitaly Zaitsev via devel"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Cc: "Vitaly Zaitsev"
> Sent: Friday, November 8, 2019 10:04:57 AM
> Subject: Re: Will orphan packages with NEW F31FTBFS bugs tomorrow
>
> On 08.11.2019 13:16, Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
~snip~
- Original Message -
> From: "Ralf Corsepius"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Wednesday, November 6, 2019 3:32:03 AM
> Subject: Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread
>
> On 11/5/19 9:41 PM, Alex Scheel wrote:
>
> > IMO, without a
- Original Message -
> From: "Kevin Kofler"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Tuesday, November 5, 2019 7:48:47 PM
> Subject: Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread
>
> Alex Scheel wrote:
> > Special care needs to be taken to make sur
- Original Message -
> From: "Stephen Gallagher"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 5, 2019 3:17:28 PM
> Subject: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread
~snip~
> 1. Once enabled, a module stream is never changed on behalf of the
> user.
The deed has been done.
- A
- Original Message -
> From: "Alex Scheel"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 9:21:35 AM
> Subject: Java Package Orphanings
>
> All,
>
> In the proce
All,
In the process of unorphaning resteasy, I picked up several other
packages necessary to keep it alive. After trimming resteasy
down, I was left with the following packages.
- classmate (cc: lef)
- cli-parser (cc: lef)
- glassfish-gmbal
- glassfish-management-api
- glassifsh-pfl
-
- Original Message -
> From: "Mikolaj Izdebski"
> To: "java-devel"
> Cc: maven-ow...@fedoraproject.org, "ant-owner" ,
> mbo...@fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Friday, October 25, 2019 1:30:32 PM
> Subject: Switching Maven and Ant to OpenJDK 11
>
> Hello,
>
> Currently default Java runtime
58 matches
Mail list logo
